Print
Spectacular Collapses, Remarkable Adaptations
If we want to learn about worship from Israel’s experience in Exile and Restoration, tidy one-to-one parallels between their day and ours are in short supply, especially if we want slippery-slope compromises leading to Laodicean lukewarmness. What we do find are multiple examples of spectacular collapses mixed with God’s daring efforts to adapt to the needs of his fallen people. What happened during Exile and Restoration is a kind of capstone to both processes. But first a quick survey of the history that points the way.
Collapse and Adaptation: A Quick Old Testament Survey
From the Fall to Abraham. The events following Eden are a grim reminder of the impact of sin: Cain murders his brother; the flood destroys the earth; Babel scatters the rebels. The collapse was so complete that Joshua 24:2 makes the astonishing statement that Abraham’s own family served other gods.
From Abraham to Moses. Polygamy, attempted child sacrifice, deceit and self-serving lies. That’s the story of the early patriarchs. Yet God did not abandon them. Patiently nudging them toward his kingdom, he put up with all kinds of mayhem along the way. At Sinai, even his thundering voice from a smoking mountain did not keep the people from trotting out their golden calf.
From Joshua to King Saul.Israel’s invasion of Canaan was mostly a whimper and a squeak. When they turned to other deities, God sent judges to bring them back, but what a motley bunch: Jephthah, Gideon, and Samson. And the book of Judges concludes with two shocking narratives. The story of the dismembered concubine in Judges 19-21 has to be the most gruesome one anywhere in the Bible and the story just before it says Moses’ grandson was the officiating priest at a shrine with a graven image (Judges 18:30). No wonder Judges concludes with the line: “In those days there was no king in the land; all the people did what was right in their own eyes” (Judges 19:25).
From Monarchy to Exile.So were the kings better? Hardly. The first three – Saul, David, and Solomon – were seriously flawed. And when Jeroboam snatched ten tribes away from Solomon’s son, Rehoboam – with prophetic blessing, mind you – this prophetically-anointed king immediately set up two golden calves to keep the people worshiping at home instead of at Jerusalem. Echoes of the Sinai rebellion! That set the tone for the northern kingdom (Israel). Scripture describes every one of their kings as wicked, even when prophets like Elijah and Elisha were in the land.
But the starkest clue to the dismal state of God’s people is found in the reign of two of Judah’s best kings, Hezekiah and Josiah. When Hezekiah took the throne, some one hundred years before Jerusalem fell, he found the temple full of filth and it doors shuttered (2 Chron. 29:3-5). He cleaned things up and led out in a wonderful Passover. But the reform didn’t last. Some eighty years later King Josiah had to muck out the temple again. Yet according to 2 Chronicles 34, even he didn’t begin to seek the Lord until eight years into his reign and didn’t revive the temple services until ten years after that. Indeed, when the workers cleaning out the temple came across a copy of the law of Moses, probably Deuteronomy, they hastened to show the king and shocked him by its contents. So much for stable religion during the monarchy!
And that brings us to the strong medicine of the Exile. God would destroy the city and its temple. He would ask the Babylonians to cart off the sacred vessels and drag the people into Exile in Babylon, back to Abraham’s old stomping grounds. And so we come to the question of worship in Exile and Restoration.
Singing the Songs of Zion in a Foreign Land?
Psalm 137 asks the question for us: How does one sing the songs of Zion in a foreign land? With tears, that’s how. Israel had to learn to worship all over again. No trips to Jerusalem. No temple. No sacrifices.
Typically, in ancient times, a nation’s defeat also meant the defeat of its gods. Not so with Israel. Their own God planned their defeat and their exile to Babylon. Furthermore, Israel’s God went with them to Babylon to teach Nebuchadnezzar a thing or two about the living God. Now that is radical religion!
Before looking at two snapshots of religion and worship, one from early Exile and one from late Restoration, we must note a crucial point about the religion of Israel, a point that finds continuity in the teaching of Jesus, namely, that the test of faithful worship is whether or not it results in treating people right. Good rituals are important, Jesus told the religious leaders of his day, but don’t neglect “the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith” (Matt. 23:23). In Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46), judgment focuses on the needs of people. The “one point” on which the judgment turns, as Ellen White put it, is what people “have done or have neglected to do for Him in the person of the poor and suffering.” And she notes that the parable is universal, applying to the “nations” when they come before God in judgment (Desire of Ages, 637).
Jeremiah’s famous temple discourse, spoken with the Exile looming on the horizon, highlights the contrast between mere ritual and true religion: “Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, ‘We are safe!’ – only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight?” (Jer. 7:9-11).
Ezekiel made a similar point from exile in Babylon. In prophetic vision, he saw an impressive array of “abominations” being practiced in the temple ruins, all of them linked with the worship of other gods. But God himself delivers the punch line at the end of the long catalog of ritual deviations: “Must they fill the land with violence and provoke my anger still further?” (Ezek. 8:17).
Clearly God wants the focus to be on people. The crucial issue is not the temple, or ritual, or instrumentation, or even decibel level. One can worship God with “trumpet,” “dance,” and “loud clashing cymbals” (Ps. 150:3, 4, 6). Or one can stand before the Lord in pure silence: “The Lord is in his holy temple,” exclaimed Habakkuk. “Let all the earth keep silence before him!” (Hab. 2:20). Sometimes the expectation of one is shattered by the other. Elijah, for example, headed for Horeb because he wanted some reassuring fireworks at the mountain of the Lord. He got the fireworks alright, but discovered that the Lord was not in the wind, the earthquake, or the fire, but in the “still, small voice” – “a sound of sheer silence,” as the NRSV puts it (1 Kings 19:12).
Given the wide range of biblical illustrations, is it not remarkable, even tragic, that in our day we hear frightened voices condemning both the noise and the silence? It’s as though we are leery of both hot cream and ice cream. Room temperature skim milk is safer, Laodicean milk, that is. But now for two quick snapshots, one from early Exile and one from late Restoration.
From Kings to Chronicles, From Rebuke to Hope
Children simply enjoy Bible stories. Only with maturity do we begin to sense the importance of an author’s intention. Matthew tailors his message for Jews, Luke for Gentiles. Ellen White appeals to the biblical model when making the case for diversity of Bible teachers today. The young need more than one teacher, she argues, even if the variety means that some of the teachers may not have “so full an understanding of the Scriptures.” Just as different Bible writers are needed “because the minds of people differ,” so today “it is possible for the most learned teacher to fall far short of teaching all that should be taught” (Counsels to Parents and Teachers, 432-33).
For a narrative of the Exile, the typical list of biblical sources would include the last chapters of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles along with Ezekiel and Jeremiah. For Restoration, the list includes Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. But a more subtle and more powerful insight into Exile and Restoration comes from a comparison of the parallel narratives of Samuel-Kings with the books of Chronicles. Interestingly enough, in both the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate translations of the Old Testament, the name for Chronicles is simply, “The Things Left Out.” The ancient scribes who adopted that name did not realize that Chronicles, like Samuel-Kings, is preaching a sermon. The Jewish tradition recognizes that truth for Samuel-Kings, referring to our “historical” books – Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings – as “Former Prophets,” the counterpart to the “Latter Prophets” – Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the “Twelve” (our minor prophets).
So what does the “preaching” of Samuel-Kings and the “preaching” of Chronicles tell us about Exile and Restoration? A great deal. A quick summary would note that Samuel-Kings was apparently written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem to make it perfectly clear to Israel why God had sent them into Exile: they had broken his covenant and spurned his laws; even their greatest kings, David and Solomon, were great sinners, and their sins are laid out with painful clarity.
That point of Samuel-Kings, however, only comes clear when it is compared with the parallel narratives in Chronicles, a late Restoration book reflecting the needs of God’s people several generations after the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, instead of needing to hear about their sins, the people were discouraged, and needed a message of hope. So all the sins of David and Solomon simply disappear from Chronicles. Even David’s affair with Bathsheba is passed over in total silence.
Instead of focusing on the sins of the kings, Chronicles now celebrates what these great kings had done to build the temple and establish its services. The Chronicler lived after the Jerusalem temple had been rebuilt. But what a puny shadow of its former glory. When its foundation was laid, those who knew the past glory broke into loud wailing as they compared it with the new poverty. By contrast, those who had never seen any temple at all broke into jubilant celebration. The sound of the tumultuous joy blended with the loud wailing to make one enormous, undifferentiated racket that was heard “far away” (Ezra 3:13).
But the most powerful message of the Chronicler is found in his story of Hezekiah’s great Passover and revival, an event that isn’t even mentioned in Samuel-Kings. You know something is afoot when the author of Samuel-Kings takes multiple chapters to document David’s moral failures, but doesn’t even mention Hezekiah’s Passover, while the Chronicler skips all David’s failures, but takes three chapters to celebrate Hezekiah’s great religious revival and the restoration of the temple service (2 Chron. 29-31).
If one is alert, even the Restoration narratives yield painful glimpses of Israel’s erratic past. Both Kings and Chronicles describe Josiah’s great Passover renewal, and both include revealing comparisons. The author of Kings declares that no such Passover had been kept since the days of the judges (2 Kings 23:22); the Chronicler says that nothing like it had happened since the days of Samuel (2 Chron. 35:18). A further glimpse of Israel’s dismal past lurks in Nehemiah 8:17 where the renewal of the feast of booths in Nehemiah’s day is reported to have filled in a great gap, “for from the days of Jeshua son of Nun to that day the people of Israel had not done so.”
But it is the Chronicler’s story of Hezekiah’s Passover that gives such a marvelous glimpse of a God with monumental hopes and ideals for his people, but who graciously accepts their faltering steps when they seek to return to him. Chronicles tells how Hezekiah and his people got started too late in the year to hold the Passover at the required time. Even when they moved it a month later, many of the people still hadn’t properly prepared for the event, especially those who had come from the tribes in the former kingdom of Israel. Hezekiah had sent invitations to them, too. So the people came, but alas, they were not “clean” and “ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed.”
Then these moving lines: “But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, ‘The good LORD pardon all who set their hearts to seek God, the Lord the God of their ancestors, even though not in accordance with the sanctuary’s rules of cleanness.”
The Chronicler simply reports God’s response. “The LORD heard Hezekiah, and healed the people.” (2 Chron. 30:20).
Now a personal note. Years ago, when I was asked to write a monthly column for The Signs of the Times, the story of Hezekiah’s Passover formed the basis for my first column and I gave it the title, “The God Who Bends the Rules.” It still stirs deep emotions in my soul. This is the same God who told Israel at Sinai: “You shall not turn to the right or to the left. You must follow exactly the path that the LORD your God has commanded you” (Deut. 5:32-33). But it is also a God who recognizes that all flesh is as grass and that we often fall short of his ideal.
I will conclude here with the last lines of that 1985 article:
Nor was the Lord’s healing of the people the end of it. As the worshipers celebrated the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread which followed, the renewal of their faith awakened such joy and gratitude that they decided to bend the rules again – and extend the feast for another seven days.
Incredible. Unprecedented. “Since the time of Solomon son of King David of Israel there had been nothing like this in Jerusalem.” If that’s what happens when God bends the rules, may he bend them to his heart’s content!
But should we? Hezekiah did. Cautiously. Prayerfully. The result was a great blessing to God’s people. In actual fact, bending the rules was a first step towards taking God and his rules more seriously.
Is there a glimmer of hope in your heart, a longing to find God and walk with him? But the rules seem insurmountable?
Don’t wait to put your house in order. The king’s invitation is in your hand. Head for Jerusalem. Now. The great God of heaven will do everything he can to plant your feet on the road to his kingdom – even if it means bending the rules.
Biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
User login
Recent
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- WC Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
What a lovely OT reminder of the immeasurable grace of God. Thank-you.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
And when one reads Thompson book on Inspiration it reveals how flawed Alden's theology is as well. It was carefully debunked by SDA theologians.
Doesn't this indicate that the SDA church, too, will endure in spite of those who defy the church's longstanding and careful Scriptural exegesis?
Your Friend,
Which goes to prove those "SDA theologians" are not very good theologians after all.
Richard Ludders
Richard
Theologians are like statistians, if placed end to end they would never reach a conclusion. Tom Z
I believe God is bending the rules even as we speak. As Jesus the Lamb pleads His blood in the Heavenly Sanctuary, the voices of those here on earth who are suffering the most despicable and indescribable evil, rise up to God the Father, who longs to bring an end to all this suffering, all the while Christ our Passover pleads....just a little longer , Stephen (and you and you and you) still are not ready, Please Father my blood was shed for them.....soon though the cry....It is enough....let him who is filthy be filthy still, let him who is righteous, be righteous still. Oh dear ones, now is not the time to trifle with salvation, now is the time to alleviate the suffering we are able to , and to herald the soon,(sooner than we think) coming of our dear Saviour. May JHWH bless our efforts and pour out upon us His Spirit that we might be overcomers ! SSS
Ludders-
Did you read the well written and well supported articles by those who found so many of Alden's theories in error?
Your Friend,
Some, but not all.
Richard Ludders
Let's keep our thoughts on Aldren's splendid overview--a remarkable shapshort of Israel that was continually being in and out of focus for too long. Look how God patiently endured His chosen people for at least 1800 years. I think Alden gave us plenty of insights as to how we today can and should relate to our Amazing God who always keeps working out His Plan to win the argument with Satan.
In fact, I think one should read Alden's essay at least twice to really grasp his eloquent message. I must add that I twitched a bit when he rhapsodized on "bending the rules." Knowing Alden, I could see the glint in his eye. He does not use those words as he would describe some politicians who "bend the rules" to feather their bank account, or ministers who "bend the rules" to allow for indiscretions for themselves but not their parishioners.
No, Alden was describing how Jesus would "bend the rules" so carefully laid down for centuries by devoted Pharisees, by deliberately healing on the Sabbath, etc. Many people quietly "bend the rules" and gladly pay back a second tithe and more. God bless everyone who sees where he/she can "bend the rules" this week. Like Israel, even do a second week of campmeeting! Cheers, Herb
What is true of the OT is also true of the NT and that is that " For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Eph.2:8,9.
It has always been of Grace rather than merit.
God may have appeared to "bend the rules" thus Paul reveals to us in Rom.3:25 that He did indeed "pass over" the sins of the people as to final destruction.
But in fact we are told in Gal. 4:4. "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."
You see in this way our perfectly obedient savior could be by His atoning death be just and the justifier of those who trust in Him..."for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where then is aboasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. Rom.3:23-27.
In the end neither the Father or Son or Spirit "bent the rules" but passed over in Grace the sins of the people because Christ the Messiah would come and fulfill the law and all righteousness in their behalf...so that He could be just and the justifier of the ungodly who trust in Christ for salvation.
As David said, How happy are those to whom God will not reckon iniquity. Ps.32:2.
Amazing grace indeed!!
regards,
pat
.
Pat...
Thanks for your thoughts. Good to see you back!
Thanks...
Frank
Thanks Frank,
Everything is fine, I am just spending less time blogging...unless I "just have to comment" on something dear to me!
Take care,
pat
I am glad Pat inputted on Galatians. We have an opportunity next quarter to look into another "hard" writing of Paul and maybe escape the distortion and corruption of the book which is usually used to promote rebellion/crime/antinomianism...under a pretense of anti-legalism....especially in these truth trampling, lawless times.
Alden Thompson said: Is there a glimmer of hope in your heart, a longing to find God and walk with him? But the rules seem insurmountable? ...
The great God of heaven will do everything he can to plant your feet on the road to his kingdom – even if it means bending the rules.
Exodus 32: And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
"Lord, give me Scotland, or I die!"
--John Knox
"O Lord, give me souls, or take my soul!"
--George Whitefield
"I am a broken-hearted man; not for myself, but on the account of others. God has given me such a sight of the value of precious souls that I cannot live if souls are not saved. Give me souls or else I die."
--John Smith
"God, give me these souls or I die."
--John Hyde
“I am speaking the truth; I belong to Christ and I do not lie. My conscience, ruled by the Holy Spirit, also assures me that I am not lying when I say how great is my sorrow, how endless the pain in my heart for my people, my own flesh and blood! For their sake I could wish that I myself were under God’s curse and separated from Christ”
--Paul
"'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!' And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' And having said this, he fell asleep."
--Stephen
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
--Jesus
Ultimately, however, the church might find itself called "not only to help the victims who have fallen under the wheel, but to fall into the spokes of the wheel itself" in order to halt the machinery of injustice.
--spoken of Bonhoeffer's movement
"Upon the crystal sea before the throne, that sea of glass as it were mingled with fire,--so resplendent is it with the glory of God,--are gathered the company that have 'gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name.'
With the Lamb upon Mount Zion, 'having the harps of God,' they stand, the hundred and forty and four thousand that were redeemed from among men; and there is heard, as the sound of many waters, and as the sound of a great thunder, 'the voice of harpers harping with their harps.'
And they sing 'a new song' before the throne, a song which no man can learn save the hundred and forty and four thousand. It is the song of Moses and the Lamb--a song of deliverance.
None but the hundred and forty-four thousand can learn that song; for it is the song of their experience--an experience such as no other company have ever had. 'These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth.'"
--Ellen White
"...in our day we hear frightened voices condemning both the noise and the silence? It’s as though we are leery of both hot cream and ice cream. Room temperature skim milk is safer, Laodicean milk, that is."
A superb summary of the endless debate over worship styles.
Royo
Is it really written?
“It is perilously possible to make our conceptions of God like molten lead poured into a specially designed mould, and when it is cold and hard we fling it at the heads of the religious people who don’t agree with us."
--Oswald Chambers
I have always enjoyed Thompsons more scholarly articles, especially the science ones.....
but this one makes for a terrifying kindergarden campfire story. Alden should take his talent for euphemism displayed here and become Ghadafi's spokesperson....he can turn a massacre into a simple story.
begin quotes
(followed by the REAL story behind the story)
From the Fall to Abraham.
The events following Eden are a grim reminder of the impact of sin:
Cain murders his brother;
(after God CHOOSES THE SWEET SMELL OF BURNED SHEEP and rejects Cain, the farmer!!!
God actually seems to have provoked the feud...then instead of protecting the victim, God protects the killer)
the flood destroys the earth; .......
(.no....GOD DESTROYS THE EARTH, all by His giant, menacing angry violent self.....including innocent animals, babies, and probably numbers of far flung people around the world that Noah tried to reach (according to EGW expanding on that curious omission in Genesis) for 120 years but probably couldn't reach clear around the world )
Babel scatters the rebels. .....
(some truth here that civilization and writing may have started there)
The collapse was so complete that Joshua 24:2 makes the astonishing statement that Abraham’s own family served other gods............
(thereby breaking the alleged chain of Sabbath worship since creation that so many claim)
From Abraham to Moses.
Polygamy, ...............
(because of the way God had created men and women..men able to pitch several times per day, women able to catch based on lunar cycles). Herb Hoover was reputed to be the quiet, laconic type. On one political tour to a farm, seeing how the hen house worked, the farmer explained that there was only one rooster per hen house. Whereupon mrs Hoover is reputed to have slyly winked at Herbert. and said:
."You mean one rooster can service that many hens"......after which Hoover asked....
."Same hen all the time???")
attempted child sacrifice, ...
(not just attempted....this was actually ORDERED BY OUR LOVING GOD)....if we continue to believe the story literally
deceit and self-serving lies. ......
(the tale of Jacob cheating Esau out of the birthright, then later Laban cheating Jacob out of the younger wife by substituting the sisty ugler. but Jake got back at Laban by overcoming Gods laws of genetics by using the magic striped stick method of breeding animals...WITH GODS BLESSING.
..."and that , kids, is how our great, great, great grandpappy got rich and started our tribe...
so when you all grow up, remember God is on our side, but you have to work hard, and sometimes use sly, modern, experimental techniques to get ahead"
That’s the story of the early patriarchs. ..........
(thats THE STORY THEY USED TO TELL AROUND THE CAMPFIRE TO THEIR KIDS.... to instill morals like
...."what goes around comes around", or
..."don't make fun of your elders, especially nervous, bald prophets, or the BEARS MIGHT GET YOU"
...or if you need more time to finish killing those pesky neighbors and take their gold, goats, ground and virgin girls, then just ask God and He will stop the sun from rotating around the earth for a while, either that, or He will employ giant mirrors in the sky to increase the daylight so that SDA scientists can mesh revealed truth with actual truth.
Yet God did not abandon them. ...
(.yes He did..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..when there was a drought in the "Promised Land" that God had inspired Olde Abe to migrate to, taking Abe away from a year round source of irrigation in Harren, 'Turkey, God either could not or chose not to help them, forcing them to migrate to Egypt where God didn't stop them from becoming slaves for 400 years until He finally decided they had suffered enuf and then GOD KILLED EGYPTS INNOCENT KIDS to help his fave tribe escape back to their former homeland where this same loving God in Numbers 31 commanded them to KILL EVERYBODY, EVEN WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD SEX, BUT SAVE THE VIRGINS.
**********************************************************
are we sure we still want to tell those stories to our kids? even if we sugar coat them the way Alden did here, doncha think eventually kids are gonna grow up and ask some real questions about the accuracy and literalness of all this?
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
But it tastes so much better when sugar-coated!
Elaine
Contemporary worship service sermon -
Is it much more than a pastor
1. Kissing and putting band-aids on worldly or guilt boo boos of pew warmers?
2. Communicating or implying that the audience is still messing around with the world?
3. Implying that the audience might live better if they just got a truer glimpse of God?
4. Using bible verses to hint that some//most in the pews are like Pharisees?
5. Reminding for the umpteenth time that the blood of Jesus works better than snake oil for all ills?
John: "but this one makes for a terrifying kindergarden campfire story. Alden should take his talent for euphemism displayed here and become Ghadafi's spokesperson....he can turn a massacre into a simple story."
Brilliant John! Time to stop sugar coating the bible and face the facts
"It takes a little bit of sugar to make the medicine go down" seems to be Alden's theme: embellishing the Bible stories in an attempt to make them not only palatable but sanctifying.
In a video lecture, a professor of the Hebrew religion said that she did not permit her two children, 8 and 11 to read the Hebrew Bible--it was not meant for children.
After reading several chapters in Genesis Billy asks: "Why did God not like Cain's offering of fruit when he wants us to be vegetarians?"
"Why after God created and said it was good, did he then destory his entire creation, including innocent children, even all the animals?"
"Why did God tell Abraham to kill his son when murder is wrong"
Now, you parents, how do you answer a child's questions, honestly while reminding Billy that God is love?
Elaine
God gave instructions to kill those He directed Israel explicitly to. He knows why and I believe His choices are just for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
"What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” f
16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
Rom.9:14-16.
God's salvation/Grace is to the elect, those He chooses and not on man's desire or effort as the initiation of salvation...seems clear to me. (note...one needs to understand the doctrine of election which is not "particular" by necessity with out regards to the "response" to Grace offerred.)
I will also trust Him to make the correct "eternal choices" of salvation based on His knowledge, the one who knows the thoughts and intents of our hearts..
Scripture doesn't "play over" the issue...but often theologians do. :>)
regards,
pat
Calvinism, Pat? God is just because the Bible says He is just?
Period?
End of story?
He "knows our thoughts" because He created us either to be saved or damned.
Then we just wasted a whole lot of innocent life, and piled up misery to the heavens, on this Great Controversy business?
Just so we could learn to keep our mouths shut, at last?
I think I must be misunderstanding you, I'm sorry.
Alden Thompson said: What we do find are multiple examples of spectacular collapses mixed with God’s daring efforts to adapt to the needs of his fallen people.
Dr. Thompson, I've often said that if the names were left off, the exploits of the God of Israel, the gods of the heathen, and the devil would be hard to differentiate.
So that leaves me with the thought that there's something really important that we're not understanding about God.
And the history of "God's people" through history is no comfort on that score.
Right now, the world is a powder keg, and the Adventist church with it.
With Adventism's present view of God, I do not believe Christian history would have played out one wit better than the bloodbath we know it to be, had Adventism held monopoly religio-political power.
I recently had a conversation with a traditional Adventist and asked whether, if their birth had been in ancient times, would they take up sword and kill children and pregnant women.
With a very sick look, the person replied yes. Backed in a corner. By God. And me.
We need to rethink authoritarianism altogether, I believe!
I'll be honest, my impulse is to yell, "Rats! Time to leave the sinking ship!"
So it is with trepidation and great reluctance that I purchase a plot of "ancestral land" in this "doomed nation."
Maggie,
Did you know Methodist and other "non-Calvinist" believe in "Election?"
The Bible says justice and righteousness are the foundation of His throne...and yes, I believe it.
Did you know that many non-Calvinist believe God has foreknowledge and knows who will be saved yet...do not accept all of TULIP?
regards,
pat
A tulip of any other name smells as sweet, as the case may be. Foreknowledge and election are not the same.
The theodicy problems sweep over me like a tidal wave....
Mercy and truth have met. Righteousness and peace have kissed.
Maggie,
I just think your 'research" and assertions should be a bit more accurate as what I described is not "specifically Calvinist."
Election/chosen and 1 Pet.1:1,2 to the Arminian is based on foreknowledge.
regards,
pat.
Foreknowledge is knowing in advance who is going to win the Super Bowl.
Election is manipulation so you will know who will win the Super Bowl.
Richard Ludders
Richard,
That is cute but just not what Arminians OR Calvinist "properly represent" but it is a good "strawman." :>)
Strawman arguments always make the 3rd ways easier to present and accept!
regards,
pat
I liked this idea on worship from Thompson's essay:
"...the test of faithful worship is whether or not it results in treating people right."
Pat, as I said, "Calvinist? I think I must be misunderstanding you."
"God's salvation/Grace is to the elect, those He chooses and not on man's desire or effort as the initiation of salvation...seems clear to me. (note...one needs to understand the doctrine of election which is not "particular" by necessity with out regards to the "response" to Grace offerred.)"
I'm sure I must be misunderstanding you because the first part and last part of that doesn't seem to match to me.
But, if Max Weber is correct, one can power a whole Industrial Revolution on Protestant guilt and anxiety. :)
Oh, well...off topic....
Thank you, Alden, for a very insightful, spiritually rich, and typically well-written essay, reminding us that God wants to restore us. We fall short and we too frequently misunderstand what God wants; but He is determined to restore us. Our worship of Him, who truly is worthy to be praised, is surely a key step towards that restoration.
Maggie, God is just a made up name and concepts by humans. We get tangled in knots and theological goes when we act as if it is real.
Josh, I can't disagree. I see religion as an evolutionary process, and so far we mostly haven't moved beyond the tribal mentality, though we surely can move towards an empathic civilization.
In Adventism, and just about every other religious group, the inner factions of tribalism are just...what can I say....
We take a microtome and slice the doctrines up, and then damn people who don't ascribe to our particular 100 µm slice.
Yikes.
And we never seem to stand back and look at the picture of God we're painting, or the social effects of that God picture, especially how it is affecting the children and their development.
John is right about that: this picture we're painting is harmful to children! We should never scare children about God - it hampers their development.
Maggie, I've noticed that when people claim divinity for something then it so easily becomes a way of control and stopping questions.
It leads to attitudes reflected in these:
Who are we to question God? How dare we not do what God has told us (often through someone else, or someone else's interpretation) to do? We are to believe certain things and do certain things that ultimately don't make sense because obviously they are from God, and how dare we question or hesitate when God is concerned? To question, to doubt, to have uncertainty means lack of faith, which is a terrible sin - so we force ourselves to contort to fit into them.
To see religion through "evolutionary" perspectives is a much more interesting, satisfying and healthy. It means we don't have to get caught up in angst when new perspectives that make good sense emerge, but don't align with old cherished ideas. It is also more humble. Opens things up for more interesting exploration and discovery and deeper levels of thinking.
I'm right there with you Maggie!
"God" is a human creation!
Josh,
I have no problem with people questioning. I just like proper evaluations of what others believe and what Protestantism means by sola scriptura.
If you don't agree with the Bible as that authority and prefer your own authority that is one's right.
If everything is up front and evaluations of others views are accurate...go for it. God is your ultimate judge, not me. But, One can judge and say that isn't scriptural or "Protestant." which shouldn't really be a problem to you...since one is seeking truth, should it?
regards,
pat
as a kid I never worried that God killed Egypt's kids, because I was told they probably deserved it.
I never worried about Abraham killing Issac, because God intervened and told him not to do it.
I did wonder how killing innocent sheep would forgive sins....but never asked and nobody ever explained other than saying it pointed forward a thousand years or more to Christs death.
And then, nobody ever explained how Christs death could forgive my sins.....or why the penalty for breaking Gods laws was death in the first place...I mean, if He wrote the laws, why couldn't He just temporarily vary them, like He did the sun so that Joshua could kill more people.
I never worried about God forgiving David for his sins, and then killing David's son...because I didn't recognize what was happening when I skimmed the bible to get my "honor" badge....
and nobody ever told me about the 42 kids killed by bears sent by god..... it seems that stories like this were just not mentioned.
it took the internet years later to show me the unscientific and seemingly criminal actions of God telling the Israelites to kill even women who had had sex, but to save the virgins....
it took years for me to find out what that implied:
that God was not aware about how women provide half of the genes of reproduction, and therefore, taking foreign captives as sex slaves to reproduce with would dilute the "special character and uniqueness" of the hebrew tribe......which God had said He wanted to preserve.
either God was scientifically ignorant him/herself, or the story was made up by its writers based on the ignorance of the day.......which is buttressed by the likely contrived story of Lots incest in the cave, which produced the SOB Moabites which the Israelites needed to kill. What better excuse to attack your neighbors than the command of God to take their gold, their ground, goats, girls, and because they were SOB's of incest, they had no inheritance rights to the land!!!
but all these problems are piling up now at the speed of light racing along the internet , and both sides of the story are now instantly available, instead of just the "HOLY" side we all were formerly limited to.
Christianity itself seems at risk of drowning by hanging on to the violence and myths of the Old Test as the internet washes all the problems over us.
and the problem is not limited to the lack of proof of Noah's flood....because if incontrovertible flood evidence could be found, that still doesn't answer the philosophical question of why an all knowing God would just get angry and try to massacre everybody, including children and animals.
if we were ever to find proof of the Exodus story, with the evidence that God did in fact kill innocent Egyptian firstborn children and animals, the philosophical problem is actually increased!!!
An all knowing God should have had better ways to influence the Pharaoh than killing innocent children who in no way could have changed the Pharaohs mind.
its too bad that so many SDAventists claim that that they cannot exist if the earth is older than
Ussher.....in fact, the 7th day could still be honored , Deut claims it was for the exodus from Egypt,
and the "advent" of heaven could be the transformation of heaven TO earth...by our health message and good, clean living, whether or not there really is a Hole in Orion.
eventually I began to reinterpret these stories as myths, edutainment told around the campfire.
did God really send bears to kill precisely 42 children? or was that a campfire story, with a moral of treating ones elders with respect, "or the bears will gitcha!!"
the natural explanation for the pillar of fire and pillar of cloud following usual Egyptian military procedure sounds infinitely more reasonable that God stirring up the desert with a firey tornado as depicted by harry Baerg and Uncle Arthur.
the flood has a scientifically integrated natural counter explanation due to rising sea levels, and it also has older roots in pre hebrew civilizations.
Moses reed basket was waterproofed with pine pitch, because the bitumen that was available in Iraq a thousand years earlier for Sargons reed basket was not found along the Nile. A case of the Hebrews borrowing another famous older story and re writing it for their own hero, and adapting it to the local conditions.
possible conclusion?:
reading the Bible the old fashioned, literal way I was taught seems to make God out to be a violent, mass murdering ogre due to all the anger and killing depicted in the Old Testyment, and claimed by His biographers to be His doing.
re-reading the stories the new way, allows those who want to maintain a reverence and love for the hebrew God to do so, but blame the Hebrew writers for most all the negativity.
I've given up Mosesianity.....which is where most of us were. Cliff got it doubled!!!
for me, if you could prove that it is ALL wrong, including the scary option that the God of the hebrews was just another man made divinity conjured up by ignorant, superstitious uneducated goat herders who couldn't count past 40 between two of them.... I still want to see a way to at least embrace the morals and goals of Christs message.... whether it was delivered on the mount, or in the plain, we're still not sure which.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount#Comparison_with_the_Ser...
and it would be nice if Jesus could convince His Father while they're up there together hanging around in a holy tent and reading everybody's tea leaves to start thinking like a loving, forgiving Christian, and stop thinking about killing everybody a 2nd time.....
and if in fact God really is hammering out McMansions the other side of the EGW Hole in Orion, some 1500 light years away, I want to go on record that something modest is ok for me, but it would be really really nice if it came with a great internet connection and one of those Star Trek transporters.
otoh, if I am labelled persona non gratta up there, (or down there, for OZtrailians) it would be nice before I am pushed over the Cliff into the lake o' fire to be burned to death, to at least explain to me why God's Book of Nature disagrees so much with God's Book of Words. Is that too much to ask?
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
Posted by Josh - Wed, 08/31/2011 - 15:34
It means we don't have to get caught up in angst when new perspectives that make good sense emerge, but don't align with old cherished ideas. It is also more humble. Opens things up for more interesting exploration and discovery and deeper levels of thinking.
I agree, Josh (keyword, emerge), and here's the thing - one doesn't have to jump the tracks and strike out on plowed ground, I believe.
Here's a quote by physicist Werner Heisenberg:
"...I have no objections to using the language of any of the old religions. We know that religions speak in images and parables and that these can never fully correspond to the meanings they are trying to express.
But I believe that, in the final analysis, all the old religions try to express the same contents, the same relations, and all of these hinge around questions about values.
The positivists may be right in thinking that it is difficult nowadays to assign a meaning to such parables. Nevertheless, we ought to make every effort to grasp their meaning, since it quite obviously refers to a crucial aspect of reality; or perhaps we ought to try putting it into modern language, if it can no longer be contained in the old."
Well, John, one of my moments of awakening came when my kids said things like, "Mommy, when are the bad men going to come to kill us and we'll have to run away to the mountains?"
And, "Mommy, Grandma isn't going to heaven because she eats hamburgers."
I honestly don't remember teaching them those things, but they osmosed it somehow from their environment. Something in my gut started recoiling.
Oh, and John, about the Book of Nature (God's other Book, to SDAs), we've always been taught to compare Scripture with Scripture for correct interpretation, right?
Well...there you have it!!!
The greatest cause of disillusionment is illusionment.
--Swami
(Sorry, Dr. Thomson - off topic - will discontinue....)
Just in case Dr. Thompson is interested in the comments his article introduced, these are a good example. It would be gratifying if, after furnishing Spectrum this essay, that he would return to answer the many comments. Is that possible, Spectrum editors?
Elaine
Better still: The concept of God, and the ideas of theology, are human creations!
Verses from the article...
“Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, .......Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight?” (Jer. 7:9-11).
“Must they fill the land with violence and provoke my anger still further?” (Ezek. 8:17).
Not much progress is made when the remedy is just sprinkling some blood around.
As long as only the religious term SINNER is used for these violations many will just continue in the present lifestyle.
This is one reason I use the more appropriate word....CRIMINAL.
Blood does not mean much to a criminal but a gospel of grace REHAB program from God might.
Maybe the label .Laodicean is too mild too.
Humans are wicked, deceived, LAW trashing, GOD hating, TRUTH trampling, criminally insane rebels headed for hell. Only a divine rehab program can help.
Most in the church get offended with something other than warm fuzzy religious nurturing.
"Humans are wicked, deceived, Law trashing, God hating, truth trampling, criminally insane rebels headed for hell."
With such a view of humans (coming from a human) is a pathetic view of humanity. Becoming a hermit would be more pleasant than to associate with such. Does religion attract such desperate pessimists to view everyone in such a despicable manner? How can one bear to live in the same world with such low-life?
Elaine
How?
How would the Jesus, prophets and apostles answer that since the bible cites that (..Jer 17:9, Rom 8:7, 2 Thess 2.. and above texts..etc)
The criminal texts don't get much exposure because the clergy are paid.
Matthew 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
Would you give eye drops to a person who had a brain tumor?
I just avoid the low life...
Thank you, Alden, for bringing attention to the fact the there was no time in the history of Israel when worship or religious practices were "pure" and not mixed up with the practices of the surrounding cultures. We need to be divested of the notion that even among God's chosen people worship was free of pagan ideas and practices.
What I would like to add to the discussion of "worship after the exile" is the "prayer of Solomon" as recorded in l Kings 8 and repeated in 2 Chronicles 6. I believe this "prayer" is what sets the stage for worship practices in the Jewish synagogues around the diaspora. Once the temple was destroyed - the was no need for animal sacrifice and the rituals connected with it.
When one reads "Solomon's Prayer" it appears to assure people that "when they pray (not when they sacrifice) God will hear in heaven and answer" where ever they are located. And amazingly, this prayer asserts that God will even answer the prayers of non Jews.
But didn't the animal sacrifices continue until the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.? Even Jesus' parents brought the required doves for his birth.
The first diaspora occurred when the Jews were taken captive to Babylon, but by the time of Christ, the far larger number of Jews were dispersed throughout the middle east. Judea, almost entirely Jewish, had a much smaller number of Jews than did the others, Alexandria being one of the largest--from where the Septuagint originated.
Among Christians, Adventisn has a much larger interest in Judaism than all others, probably because so many of its doctrines and beliefs are straight out of Judaism.
Elaine
Elaine, what I am suggesting is that perhaps it need not have - not that it did.
Donna, did Solomon have the authority to dismiss the sacrificial system ordered by God? Or was he given the "kingly" right to change the religious system?
Elaine
The sacrificial cultus was always a part of covenant faithfulness in the OT. No king or "prophet" could change the obligation.
What is referred to when one said the lord desires not sacrifice it is in the meaning "apart from purposed obedience." The illustration of Jer.7:1-12 shows the status the cultus had become...both temple and sacrifice.
Of course when in captivity or away from Jerusalem they were to pray towards Jerusalem where the covenant cultus was under normal circumstances practiced.
David emphasis in Ps.51 is on "a contrite heart and broken spirit" renewed by a stedfast Spirit "THEN" God would delight in the sacrifices (vs.19.)
Only at the cross did Christ's atoning sacrifice make void the old system and the "new covenant" reach it's fulfillment promise. (Heb.8-10.)
regards,
pat
..."The great God of heaven will do everything he can to plant your feet on the road to his kingdom – even if it means bending the rules"....optimistically written as the last line of the sugar sweetened article
so heres the obvious question:
are we to believe that its bad for man to "bend the rules", but good when God does????
as when Cain murdered Abel, God bent the rule about punishing lawbreakers, and instead, He protected the killer.
and when Jacob turned out to be a self centered miscreant, and sneakily stole his brothers birthright, God bent the rule about not lying and stealing and blessed him
and when Jake needed to up his take home to support his multiple wives and growing family, God bent His own rules of genetics, and blessed Jake with the striped stick method of breeding animals even tho that meant that God was bending the rule about not promoting falsehoods by helping cheat Uncle laban...but its ok for God to bend rules, right?
However, when Jakes grand kids settled in a drought prone area, at God's "call", God did not (or chose not, or could not) bend the rules about weather and bring in life giving rains, thereby forcing His fave tribe to migrate to Egypt and become slaves.
but when God finally decided to liberate them, after making them wait for either 400 yrs, gen:15:13 And he said unto Abram,... and they shall afflict them four hundred years, or for 430 years, we're not sure which (Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. )
but what is interesting is that God bent the rules of the Geneva convention, and killed innocent children to impress the military leaders, and then told His people to forever celebrate this.
and while those liberated people were lost for an uncountable long time (40 yrs) in the desert, God bent the rules of geology to make water come out of a stone, but only if Moses asked the rock nicely, and not if he struck it, which was apparently grounds for burial without reaching the promised land.
and when Gods fave people had not killed enuf of their neighbors, God either used mirrors to bend light, or He bent the physical laws of the universe in order to stop the sun from going around the earth for a while to give Josh more daylight to finish the allegedly divine massacre.
what amazes me is that since God has appeared so willing at times to bend the rules for people He liked, why couldn't He bend that rule about the wages of sin requiring death for the rest of us just because Eve ate the fig? Deceived by a talking snake that nobody had warned her about.
Why couldn't God review some of Jesus sermons about love and forgiveness and 2nd chances, and how we should treat others as we would want to be treated, and then inspire the the church leaders to pray to God to bend the SDA fundy where it says He is going to kill some people a 2nd time?
but, then again, God didn't even enforce the rules of the Geneva convention (much less bend them) for the benefit of His fave people during WW-2, and during that cosmic gamble with the devil, like Star Treks prime directive, God just stepped back , refused to bend the rule about non- interference, and simply watched ye Olde Debil to kill Job's innocent kids, servants, and animals.
maybe I just don't understand this bendy rule thing where sometimes its good, but other times its not. like, picking up sticks for a fire on the wrong turn of the sun is a rule that cannot be bent, and death is the required punishment. Tho the rule that nobody should be punished for anothers sin is often bent by God such as when He said He would punish up to 10 generations of seemingly innocent kids for their own fathers illegitimacy problems. ((RSV) Deuteronomy 23:2 "No bastard shall enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord. ). Thats cruel, no? other versions replace "bas..d" with (kids whose parents are not legitimately married)..... "does this mean that the average kid in unHolywood cannot go to church? nor can their kids, their kids kids, up to 10 generations?
what is the Biblical rule about this? should anybody be punished for somebody elses sin?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html
and why is it all so confusing? and the failure to understand correctly is being BBQed?
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
John,
If you would just stop reading the Bible and stick to the SS quarterly you would not have these problems.
Excellent advice!
If we would simply not discuss the Bible stories as if they really happened and consider that they are stories just like Shakespeare's Macbeth or Romeo and Juliet. Did Romeo love Juliet?
Or did Odysseus really murder his father? Was Helen the most beautiful woman in the world?
Was Esther more beautiful? Or was Sarah the most beautiful and caused Pharoah to take her for his wife?
Such writers had such vivid imaginations that we still love to read them today.
Elaine
John
As Paul Harvey would say. "The rest of the story is on page 3!" In this case the beginning of the story is in Chapter 1 of Exodus. Pharaoh, as King of Egypt, decreed that all male children be killed to prevent an uprising against his rule. Now 80 years later his son or grandson stood to defy Moses and God. Thus the Passover. The way of mercy was open even to Pharaoh and all Egyptions--it was their history of cruelity and their rejection of Redemption that resulted in the final plague.
He that liveth by the sword shall die by the sword. Tom Z
Elaine
The debates between Jesus and the Jewish leaders and later Jesus' walk on the Road to Emmaus
give a clear Christian focus on the Old Testament.
The Jews as well as many Adventists attempt to make the Old Testament walk on all fours.
Jesus told the Jewish leaders you search the Scriptures in vain---The ultimate Truth was a testimony to the Messiah.
Jesus following his resurrection outlined the meaning and purpose of the Old Testament was to point to Christ, to fortell His mission, and to assure man of ultimate redemption.
The Gospel Writers and the Epistles are repleat with making that connection.
Thus Paul was able to write: "I know in whom I have believed!"
The Old Testament clearly outlines the folly of man and the Grace of God, who was time and again rejected. We need to recall that God said the He would drive out the canaanites with hornets--but the Chrildren of Israel in their blood thirst wanted to do it themselves. Thus God said, then all the women and children and cattle also--giving the Israelites pause, but no--they like us would rather find salvation our own way. We would possess heaven on our own merits. Even if we have to ruin the careers and livelihood of others to achieve our selfish goal and then gloat about it as doing the Lord's work.
The History of Adventism is simply a microcosm of the history of Israel. That is what I read in Dr. Thompson's story. Tom Z.
There are certain motifs that are recurrent in the BIble:
The ordering by Pharoah to kill the first born of Israel; the later order by God to kill the first born of Egypt, with Moses being saved and resuced (just like Sargon); and this motif is brought in again in the order given by Herod to kill all the first born, where Jesus is taken to Egypt, at least according to one Gospel.
Motifs are not reality. There is no extant record of any of these three being ordered, and only the Bible contains such stories. Just as one can find no factual basis for much of Bible contemporary writing, they are evidence of creative minds that have always existed in humanity. Why believe the Bible stories and not Homer? Or Shakespeare's Hamlet or a Mercant of Venice?
These stories we read for the message they convey and not for their literal truthfulness. Truth does not mean fact, but truth conveys timeless principles and motifs that are instantly (or should be) understood.
Elaine
mercy was open even to Pharaoh and all Egyptions--it was their history of cruelity and their rejection of Redemption that resulted in the final plague. .....
mercy? to kill innocent children just because the king allegedly had done that earlier?
how did killing innocent animals advance the gospel?
seems to me to be more of the bad side of this chart:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html
but just the existence of the countervailing quotes makes one wonder about the veracity of the
writings and their alleged divine inspiration.
which is it? only the sinner should be punished? or God killed Davids innocent newborn? and let it be know that David was a "man after God's own heart"?
doesn't the fact that all this (chart above) is so confusing make belief...faith.... in the whole story a bit difficult?
God "calls" Abe to leave a well watered valley next to the Euphrates River in Turkey, and go to a dry, dusty hillside rock quarry where goats today barely survive...and then when the drought comes, God ignores their needs and allows them to migrate to Egypt.....to become slaves....
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
John and Elaine
It seem that we differ. Tom Z
But of course we differ. That is why being allowed to comment on this site allows us to engage in conversation with opposites: something few can do in the local church. Most are afraid to try it for fear of being dismembered, or simply avoid the church altogether.
The Bible was written by believers to believers. All doubters simply refuse to accept all the stories as being entirely, factually true. Is that so strange?
Otherwise, believe the truthfulness of the Babylonian creation story which is much older than the one in Genesis; or the story of Sargon which the writers developed for Moses. Solomon was right: "there is nothing new under the sun."
Elaine
@Elaine,
"...for fear of being dismembered..."
Elaine, you made me smile. I'm guessing you mean being kicked out of the church, rather than having arms & legs ripped off of someone :)
"As a man thinketh in his heart so is he" and Jesus' "If you are angry in your heart/mind it is as if you have committed murder" - in the spirit of that I and many others have been dismembered many times!
It may sound a little more gruesom than disfellowshiped, but how would you say a member is one no longer if not dis-membered?
Elaine
Elaine...
I too shudder at the treatment and the fear with which we often view voices outside the box in the church. I see Romans 14:1-15:7, speak of how to handle disputable matters without dividing. Sadly, we have often destroyed one another over issues that can be viewed in a variety of ways. "Let every person be convinced in their own minds," is not something that conservative churches like ours live with easily, and the results have sometimes been very sad.
OTOH, the church is not a debate club, saying that all opinions and views are of equal weight or merit, especially on central issues such as the inspiration of the Scriptures, and the truth of the gospel.
In fact, Paul, in Ephesians, calls the church, "The pillar and ground of the truth." And, for him the central truth was, "The truth of the gospel." The church was to proclaim and live the gospel in the midst of a pagan world, and within its own fellowship, to not simply entertain any message, philosophy, or human wisdom, i.e. "every wind of teaching," that would simply blow it off course from the gospel.
His letters, as well as the rest of the NT, reveal that the Hebrew Scriptures' defining role is to testify to the substance of the gospel, the Messiah Jesus, and his redemptive work. To think that there should simply be full airing and acceptance within the church of views that call the life of Christ and the resurrection the stuff of myth and legend, as you have often done, is to ignore the views of the apostles and NT writers themselves. It is either born out of naivete or hubris.
The apostles saw the gospel as the proclamation of light in the midst of the darkness of false and competing world views, not as one equal alternative among many complementary ones. That does not play well today in our post modern society...but it didn't play well in the 1st c. either.
Thanks...
Frank
Alden Thompson said:: So the people came, but alas, they were not “clean” and “ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed.”
Then these moving lines: “But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, ‘The good LORD pardon all who set their hearts to seek God, the Lord the God of their ancestors, even though not in accordance with the sanctuary’s rules of cleanness.”
The Chronicler simply reports God’s response. “The LORD heard Hezekiah, and healed the people.” (2 Chron. 30:20).
Well, Dr. Thompson...that's what I see as The Song of Moses and the Lamb, the New Song that the 144,000 sing on the Sea of Glass, as I alluded to in my first two posts on this thread. (All the theologians are groaning inwardly.)
This isn't about the 144,000 being functionally, judicially perfect, the bugbear of traditional Adventism. It's about reflecting the character of Christ by understanding the heart of God.
The more I’ve tried to “keep” the Sabbath or “be loving” the more I’ve realized that I’m a big fake, and that I can’t possibly be fooling God, and likely not anyone else either.
So I started thinking about Jesus’ words about the earth bringing forth fruit of herself, first the blade, then the ear, and after that the full corn in the ear.
And then I thought that that’s really how evolution works, physical and spiritual. The process is built in: the earth will bring forth fruit in its season. God’s word will not return to Him void.
So, if one can rest in the process, and not resist it, one could, it seems, speed it up simply by not kicking and screaming and believing that God is trying to destroy one, thus prolonging the misery.
So, the 144,000, far from being the white-knuckled Proper, are the tumbled and tattered, totally disorderly ones who finally just gave up surrendered to Love and rested.
They are the first fruits, the leaven of the Kingdom that leavens the whole lump of dough.
He told them still another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."
--Matthew 13:33
Maggie
I agree!!
Fred
Glad to hear it Fred. :)
It's been on my mind for the last few days to say something, since Cliff said this to frank7:
Posted by Cliff Goldstein - Thu, 09/01/2011 - 15:17
all I've asked is for those who believe in evolution is to take their premises to their logical conclusions, that's all.
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/08/29/ricardo-graham-re-elected-co...
Since I read what Cliff said there, I've wanted to say to him, "Cliff, the Bible and Nature speak in a kind of cant, or argot, or The Language of the Birds, whatever you wish to call it. Stammering speech and another tongue. The minute you think that God's speech can be reduced to logic, you've lost the thread of meaning, I believe."
Since that Ricardo Graham thread is way off-topic, and since I'm seeing this thread as pretty broad, I'm going to answer it here, first with something EGW said in COL:
Ellen White: Through the creation we are to become acquainted with the Creator. The book of nature is a great lesson book, which in connection with the Scriptures we are to use in teaching others of His character, and guiding lost sheep back to the fold of God.
As the works of God are studied, the Holy Spirit flashes conviction into the mind. It is not the conviction that logical reasoning produces; but unless the mind has become too dark to know God, the eye too dim to see Him, the ear too dull to hear His voice, a deeper meaning is grasped, and the sublime, spiritual truths of the written word are impressed on the heart.
In these lessons direct from nature, there is a simplicity and purity that makes them of the highest value. All need the teaching to be derived from this source. In itself the beauty of nature leads the soul away from sin and worldly attractions, and toward purity, peace, and God.
Where I am right now in the usually beautiful piney woods of East Texas is a lesson book for me. Over 70 days of 100 degree weather, sometimes up to 111 degrees. No rain. Beautiful old oaks and pines dying. Scrawny little squirrels without bushy tails. Everything turning brown.
It feels like a spectacular collapse of a beloved corner of Nature to me. Very, very disheartening.
Distributing The Great Controversy in huge numbers at this critical juncture in history may portend a spectacular collapse of Adventism, I don't know. But I am uneasy about Adventism having the spiritual capital to back up such a bold venture, as well as my grave reservations about what Ellen White actually says there and elsewhere about the Beast power.
Adventism has a lot of internal processing to do before it ventures out to convict the world of sin, I fear, especially in light of what Matthew Fox has said of late. I see the world wondering after authoritarianism, and it has many names, one of them...Adventism? I hope not.
Pauli, I've had the Finnish Kalevala in mind for several days also, not that I understand it, of course. The epic battles over the Sampo...so unnecessary. Here's Rune 3:
http://www.agedhippy.plus.com/e_t_s/kalevala/rune_3.html
Comment if you feel inclined, Pauli. Thanks.
Nature teaches us to endure spectacular collapses, but so much better if we could learn things the easy, joyful way, instead of the tragic, painful way, so that we don't bring them on.
But...it's all good.
I can't believe I said that....
Pauli, further about the Sampo, when you first brought it up years ago, I was mystified, but I did see a connection to the precession of the equinoxes and Hamlet's Mill, which I still think is a connection.
But the Finnish language is so much more nuanced, poetic and symbolic than English, so I can't really hope to understand Kalevala, I'm convinced. (Sirje said Estonia has a similar story, the Kalevipoeg, which she may want to comment on also, and, as she says, "Truth does not have to be historically true.")
But in thinking more about it, the Sampo seems to be an alchemical production, which a quick google confirms others intuit, as well. (Cue eye rolls....)
So what does this esoterica have to do with 'Spectacular Collapses and Remarkable Adaptations?' Probably nothing to most people, but possibly something to me and a few others.
What is the Time of Trouble but a 'spectacular collapse?' Arise shine, for thy Light is come...a remarkable adaptation! Get thee up into the high Mountain!
As I mentioned above, Perfection has been the bugbear of traditional Adventism, and why Perfection is such a scary bugbear is because traditional Adventists believe that they will have to stand without a Mediator after Probation closes during the Time of Trouble.
Lots of reasons to put this whole scary thing off as long as possible!
But Jesus taught us that the earth brings forth fruit of herself...at last the full corn in the ear. Was He just talking about grain? I believe He was talking about the whole arc of evolution, but, according to EGW, He was indeed at least talking about Righteousness:
Christ's Object Lessons, p. 63: "There is life in the seed, there is power in the soil; but unless an infinite power is exercised day and night, the seed will yield no returns. The showers of rain must be sent to give moisture to the thirsty fields, the sun must impart heat, electricity must be conveyed to the buried seed. The life which the Creator has implanted, He alone can call forth. Every seed grows, every plant develops, by the power of God.
'As the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth, so the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth.' Isa. 61:11.
As in the natural, so in the spiritual sowing; the teacher of truth must seek to prepare the soil of the heart; he must sow the seed; but the power that alone can produce life is from God. There is a point beyond which human effort is in vain. While we are to preach the word, we can not impart the power that will quicken the soul, and cause righteousness and praise to spring forth.
In the preaching of the word there must be the working of an agency beyond any human power. Only through the divine Spirit will the word be living and powerful to renew the soul unto eternal life.
This is what Christ tried to impress upon His disciples. He taught that it was nothing they possessed in themselves which would give success to their labors, but that it is the miracle-working power of God which gives efficiency to His own word."
Every gardener knows that plants can be induced to flower before their season by manipulating their environment.
Ellen White said, "Let us strive with all the power that God has given us to be among the hundred and forty-four thousand." (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 7:970).
Is this just cultic flapdoodle? I'm thinking not. I'm thinking it is alchemy, pure and simple.
I'm thinking Revelation 3 is talking about this spiritual alchemy: the White Philosopher's Stone/Christ does not form within in a lukewarm alembic. The lukewarm believer shows little to no albedo.
"I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see."
The matured believer glows from the Christ formed within, and truly needs no mediator.
http://www.sanguinesoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/alchemy.jpg
We just haven't figured out how good the Good News is, I believe.
When we do, the Adventist bugbears will vanish like the monsters under our childhood beds did when we grew up.
"My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!"
--Galatians 4:19
And then...the Great Antitypical Day of At-One-Ment might make more sense....
"All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation."
--II Corinthians 5:18
Ellen White: "When the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come." Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.
It is the privilege of every Christian not only to look for but to hasten the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Were all who profess His name bearing fruit to His glory, how quickly the whole world would be sown with the seed of the gospel. Quickly the last great harvest would be ripened, and Christ would come to gather the precious grain.
Maggie,
.... so I get up at 4: something Sunday morning and scroll down the comments - and what do I find - you quoting me, and recalling the Estonian connection to the Finnish folk hero - all very peripheral minutia in the grand scheme of things. You do have photographic memory - admit it. Even I don't remember the things you attribute to me; but I do remember this one
I do have an elaborate copy of Kalevipoeg in my bookcase. I've seen it all my life but I have to say I have never read it. I do read Estonian, this one is in old, old Estonian with vocabulary I have never encountered growing up Estonian. I do know the importance of the characters in the story, and the underpinning of this saga to the Estonian culture. My upbringing was Estonian but my education was otherwise.
I must say, though, that the Estonian mindset, when I was growing up in an exiled Estonian culture, was still very much tied to ancient cultural patterns. There were holidays and traditions that must date way back. I left home to go to college and from there, my life became Americanized - pity, in some ways.
This week's lesson asked readers to write a prayer of intercession for the SDA church. I did and thought I'd share it here:
Prayer of Intercession for the SDA church:
I pray that our church would:
-Stop bickering with each other about whether or not this or that group/person is truly an SDA.
-I pray our church administrators, pastors, and professors would be more concerned about modeling Christ’s character and behavior than trying to prove that the other person is wrong and they are right.
-I pray that pastors would seek to promulgate harmony in their congregations rather than stir up controversy. That they would reflect Christ’s character of grace and inner peace to their congregations. That if they want to get fired up and preach something powerful and sharp and potentially divisive, that it be focused on the justice and love that God upholds in scripture; primarily aimed at helping those who are in the depths of poverty.
-I pray that professors would in good faith present the truths they have been led to believe in through Spirit led research. And in doing so that they would have the loving spirit of Jesus; showing pastoral concern for their students and what and how they are learning at the university level.
-I pray that administrators would seek to be humble servants of their church rather than dynamic, powerful, leaders to whom people flock. May their personal goals not be wrapped up in the idea that they need to convince or force people to follow their lead. And may they please not be corrupted by people with money who want to support their agendas.
-I pray our church members would learn to love as Jesus loved; to judge well without being judgmental, to forgive without being lax, to love in ways that push us to compromise for the other, and to see clearly the way to live decently in a corrupt society.
-I pray our church would stop worrying about worship styles and dress styles and sexual orientation; and whether or not the earth is old, young, or somewhere in between. I wish our church would be comfortable enough to simply proclaim God the creator cuz the Bible says so and leave the unaddressed details to someone else.
-I pray our church would stop worrying about how many baptisms and how much tithe we make and instead worry about how much of our money we can give away to the earth’s poor and destitute.
-I pray our church would begin to see the earth as a living breathing organism which we should care for like God himself would instead of seeing the earth as the bottomless resource for anything and everything we need or want.
-I pray our church would stop believing that we fail God when we stop growing. That we must be in some sort of continual motion, busyness, and production in order to be found in his good graces. I pray that we would begin to believe that God will love us even when we fail. And God forbid, even when our tithe decreases and our membership declines.
Just checking...how much exposure did the bible get in your SS class?
Usually out of a 50 minute class that I attend, the bible gets less than 5 minutes. What about yours?
Are SDA .."people of the book" embarrassed, ashamed, ignorant of the bible so they just talk anything but it in class?
Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Jim...
It seems that no matter what the discussion, you manage to turn things around by climbing onto your own theological hobby horses...SS is a non-biblical wreck, humans are deceived, law trashing criminals, etc. I appreciate your passion, but would also appreciate hearing you engage more on point without the same, repeated talking points to which you habitually circle back.
However, since you seem to be looking to take an informal survey, for what it's worth, the SS's in my own church are usually very biblically centered, as well as the sermons that are preached. I do hear your concern.
Thanks...
Frank
When Hezekiah took the throne, some one hundred years before Jerusalem fell, he found the temple full of filth and it doors shuttered (2 Chron. 29:3-5).
But the reform didn’t last. Some eighty years later King Josiah had to muck out the temple again. Yet according to 2 Chronicles 34, even he didn’t begin to seek the Lord until eight years into his reign and didn’t revive the temple services until ten years after that. Indeed, when the workers cleaning out the temple came across a copy of the law of Moses, probably Deuteronomy, they hastened to show the king and shocked him by its contents. So much for stable religion during the monarchy!
Any parallel to 2011???
Elaine, you asked about the possibility of a response from the author. Here is one. I am interested, in the comments, to be sure, but don’t spend a lot of time with on-line responses even when I am the author. Probably the best way to grasp my approach is through my book, WHO’S AFRAID OF THE OLD TESTAMENT GOD? Originally published by Paternoster in the UK then by Zondervan in the US, a new edition is on the verge of appearing. It uses no Adventist jargon and follows a very simple formula: The violence of the Old Testament reveals first of all the violence that results from sin. Since love must win, not coerce, God will use violence to reach violent people. Thus, as ironic as it may sound to gentle people, God will start with what appears to be coercion in order to lead his people away from violence and coercion to his great ideal in the story of Jesus.
Church historian at the University of Edinburgh, David Wright, a left-leaning evangelical who was instrumental in getting the book published by Paternoster, told me that InterVarsity UK would never touch the book because the note of “accommodation” was far too strong. Indeed, I have discovered that nearly half of my students are imprinted with the feeling that if God said it, it really should apply to all people at all times and in all places. Given such a mind-set, an approach characterized by “radical divine accommodation” can be very unsettling because it scatters one’s key texts all over the hillside. The sobering truth is that for such students, any attempt to do exegesis in Scripture, i.e. interpreting a passage in time and place, is already subtly undermining its truth claims.
My accommodationist approach contrasts sharply with the “theocracy” argument that justifies God’s violence because he is ruling Israel directly. The deadly implication of this “theocracy” approach is that the closer God comes to humanity, the more violent he becomes. I am much troubled by that approach – it’s the one that most of us grew up with – for the revelation of God in Jesus shows a God coming so close to human beings that his followers said they had touched him with their own hands and heard his voice with their own ears (1 John 1:1-4). Contrast that “picture” with the one described in Deuteronomy 5:22-31 where the people were terrified by the voice that rumbled out of the darkness and the fire. And God told Moses: “If only they had such a mind as this to fear me and to keep all my commandments always” (Deut. 5:29).
The Jesus described in the Gospels killed no one, didn’t even strike anyone. Reynolds Price notes that when Jesus cleansed the temple, he attacked the furniture, not the people. The story of Jesus’ angry cleansing in Matthew’s Gospel is particularly striking for all the evil people fled while the lame, the blind, and the children came running to him (Matt. 21:12-17). I would give anything if I could get angry like that.
I am convinced that the most deadly result of sin is the way it distorts the human understanding of authority. Note that Abraham challenged God over the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 18) but uttered not a squeak of protest over the command to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22). In my view, that narrative shows that child sacrifice had come to be seen as the premier gift to the gods. Thus sacrificing Isaac was not a moral problem for Abraham in the same way that it would be for us. Everyone else was sacrificing their firstborn, why shouldn’t he? When God himself supplied the sacrifice in the form of a ram caught in the thicket, it was the first step toward that ultimate sacrifice that God himself would pay on the cross. That sacrifice need not be seen as an absolute necessity, as in the typical Calvinist interpretation, but as a psychological and governmental necessity driven by a deeply-embedded sense of guilt in the human heart.
Three features about Jesus’ life and teaching really intrigue me. They are worth noting here:
First, he claimed the Old Testament as his Bible; indeed, he claimed to be the God of the Old Testament. Yet the contrast between the two is striking. As I have put it elsewhere, “At Sinai, God came to kill; at Golgotha God came to die.” This is not a contrast between law and grace, but of motivation from negative (fear) to positive (joy). The ultimate goal is for God’s law to be written on the heart so that obedience comes naturally without threats or bribes. That’s the new covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:31-34. Note that this promise is in the Old Testament for the people of Jeremiah’s day. This new covenant is actually a “renewed” covenant, an ideal that applies equally to both testaments.
Second, Jesus never killed anyone, but he told stories with violent endings. Can strong stories provide the muscle for those needing the “stick” instead of “gentle love,” to use the contrasting methods cited by Paul in 1 Cor. 4:21? I suspect so. Adventists should be the first to experiment with this idea. Can we find a way to help people deal with everything in Scripture, the gentle parts as well as the tough? We have only begun to fight on this front and I think we have a marvelous opportunity to make a difference for good. Most of my students tell me that they prefer the “gentle love.” But some of them are quite candid: “I need the stick, Thompson. Bring it on!”
Third, Jesus never attempted to explain the “problems” that we often find so troublesome in the Old Testament. That is a task for us in the light of the revelation of God in Christ Jesus. And if you gradually or suddenly discover that you are horrified by what the Old Testament really says, deal kindly with the teachers who apparently kept you in the dark. All of us can be quite blind to new perspectives until the time is right. But if we are going to be a community that caters to the brilliant as well as the average and the slow, we will deal with the “problems” very carefully. I have even been tempted to write a book with the rather racy title: THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS IN THE BIBLE: A HIGH VIEW OF INSPIRATION WITHOUT INERRANCY. If we could see events through the eyes of the people God is attempting to reach and through God’s eyes as he seeks to meet their needs, the Bible would make perfectly good sense. Our problem is that we want God to march to the beat of our drum, not theirs. Actually, Isaiah 55:8-9 is a passage that should provide wonderful liberation for both Calvinists and free-will people (see the first point below). It simply states that God’s ways are far beyond our ways. In other words, everything in Scripture falls far below God’s absolute purity and holiness. Thus, instead of being an absolute authority, the Bible is an illustrative authority showing us how God has worked with human beings in the past.
Finally, let me note three larger concerns that I hope Spectrum on-line participants will take seriously.
First, I would like to see Adventists become a bridge community between the free-will emphasis of the Arminian/Wesleyan tradition (sanctification) and the emphasis on divine sovereignty as in the Calvinist/Reformed/Evangelical tradition (justification). Instead of emphasizing one or the other, let’s explore ways of bringing them together to complement each other. Herb Douglass’ two-fold “ellipse of truth” offers some intriguing possibilities in that respect, though I have urged him to find a simpler metaphor that would be more within the reach of non experts. I would probably press the model further than he does in some areas. But by God’s grace, Adventism could become an exciting community that both affirms and explores.
Second, I would encourage on-line contributors to adopt the methods of Jesus in our conversations. I have concluded that Jesus’ second great command – treat others the way we would want to be treated if we were in their place – is the hardest command of all to keep.
Third, some are inclined to reject anything I write because they are convinced that “the church” has already passed judgment. That’s not quite right. It’s worth noting that it was the Adventist Church (through the Review and Herald) that invited me to write my book Inspiration. Sensing that the manuscript was potentially volatile, RH sent out 57 advance reading copies instead of the usual eight to ten. Twenty-eight readers responded, of which 22 said it should be published. When the RH book committee of more than 50 people discussed the book, some voices spoke out against it. But when the vote was taken, no dissenting votes were cast.
If any of you would like to dialogue further with me, feel free to contact me by email (alden@wallawalla.edu) or by phone (509-529-0321). Many of my published and unpublished papers are available on my web site: www.aldenthompson.com. I also frequently participate in the on-line discussion of the Sabbath School lesson sponsored by the WWU School of Theology: www.wallawalla.edu/goodword. The host for each week’s program prepares a study guide that can be used in conjunction with the adult Sabbath School lessons. Then two colleagues join the host for 13 minutes of lively conversation. We believe that Adventists should not just be talking among ourselves. We have a world to reach and can work together in fulfilling that task while we wait for God’s new creation.
aldenthompson
Alden Thompson writes that "the Bible is an illustrative authority showing us how God has worked with human beings in the past"; and that everything in the Scriptures falls far below God's absolute purity and holiness. Could we then surmise that God deals with people on their own level of understanding and within their cultural norms? If so, Genesis should not be a problem for 21st century reader who's understanding of scientific principles has advanced beyond the audience that first heard, "In the beginning God..."
Can we then also assume that the OT commands to "go kill," that are so abhorrent to the NT reader, were an interpretation of God by God's people in the OT?
Can we also assume, then, that God isn't the one demanding death on the cross as payment for our sins - we are.
Alden Thompson's posting is so common sense. So much of scripture and stories of God are context, culture, time period, and target audience.
Why can't we get that?
Why do we have this one-size-fits-all view of scripture and God? Why can't we read and understand with nuanced common sense? Why is it either-or or all-or-nothing or you must believe every jot and tittle like I do or you can't be one (an Adventist)?
Worse, why do we treat people as so disposable if they differ from our views? Why can't they all be precious children of God? Regardless of their "exact" belief alignment to our own?
This is the stuff upon which the LSU case seems to turn, (besides the issue of policies and procedures already in place for resolving such situations internally). And there will be more challenges to such all-or-nothing approaches.
Where are more voices like Alden Thompson's?
Thanks Alden, for taking the time to answer the comments I made, and those of many others.
You have done an admirable job in attempting to explain the OT and that is how others have seen it. It still does not "compute" that the same God of the Old is also the same God of the new; or that Jesus is also God with two distinctively different characters and method of dealing with humans. Were the humans in OT times so much worse than in the NT that they had to be destroyed? Were they so wicked that quick death was the only answer, and did it then rid the world of sin? Should we judge the results by the actions? If so, they were totally inept and inappropriate. Aren't punishments given to change behavior?
The only possible way in which I and many others can approach the OT is to recognize that the writers, just like all their neighbors in other cultures, perceived everything that occurred as the results of their god(s) sending destruction, earthquakes, floods and disasters. They also saw their gods as being the author of good. Otherwise, why after the Babylonian captivity did the Jews adopt a "Satan" and the separation of good and evil had two origins: God and Satan? DId not their belief system evolve just as all religions have? How else can one believe the whole Bible is literally the actual events as they have been described? Is there no choice?
Elaine
Graham Maxwell in chapter 3 of his book, "Servants or Friends", deals extensively with God's use of "emergency measures" in the OT even though he ran the risk of being misunderstood.
Richard Ludders
...."It still does not "compute" that the same God of the Old is also the same God of the new; or that Jesus is also God with two distinctively different characters and method of dealing with humans."
...Elaine, seconded by me.
..."I would encourage on-line contributors to adopt the methods of Jesus in our conversations.
I have concluded that Jesus’ second great command – treat others the way we would want to be treated if we were in their place – is the hardest command of all to keep." A. Thompson
while you're at it, could you encourage whomever is in charge to consider how great it would be if Jesus could convince God to act the same christian way....love, joy, peace, forgiveness, re-education, and 2nd chances, instead of planning to BBQ millions of people in the 2nd death who may not want to be BBQed?
or are we allowed to revisit the church dogma of allowing the possibly unnecessary Whiteous extension of the Angry God of the OT to interrupt the love, joy, peace, forgiveness and understanding advocated by the New Test Jesus?
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
Somehow I don't really think God is worried about being misunderstood...He is quite capable of defending Himself. That is why human history unfolded for "about" 4000 yrs. till the cross when Paul declares that Christ died showing that what appeared to be a "passing over" of justice was now made clear. That God/Christ "was just" and the justifier of the ungodly mankind of rebels who "Spirit quickened" accept the gift of Christ's atoning death and receive Him as Lord. God vindicates Himself!
Amazing Grace indeed...and the "means and results" is what is "misunderstood."
Pat
Pat,
John Alfke certainly misunderstands God's actions in the OT.
Richard Ludders
John Alfke certainly misunderstands..............
I sure do.....maybe I'm a Luddite.......can I blame it on the internet?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
or should we ask why the internet has found so many issues to be misunderstood?
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
Richard,
Since you say that "John Alfke misunderstands God's actions in the OT" why not elighten him, and the rest of us how God's actions in the OT should be understood? And is that they way they in the OT understood Him?
John, and millions more in this world have misunderstood his actions. How could it be otherwise if the OT is read? Where were the "misunderstandings ever explained to them?
Elaine
John, Elaine and Richard...
God took responsibility for killing people in the OT, Acts and in the future in the NT(i.e.Rev.19) It doesn't mean He cherishes it...just in His view the only way to deal with "unbelief" and sin ultimately under the prevailing circumstances as He sees it to protect His own, uphold justice and create lasting Peace.
John, it is not that you often are not saying correctly what God did in the OT while perhaps not seeing what He has and will do in the NT...our limitation as humans is "the why" in the big picture.
Anyone, please show me where God is wringing His hands over being misunderstood. He got in Job's face and others who would judge Him. Will the clay judge the potter?
I suggest we simply do not understand the sinfulness of sin and mankind's position...God's holiness...and Grace to the repentant.
regards,
pat
Elaine,
Re-read Alden's response to you and "Servants or Friends". Also Brad Cole (Gods Character.com) has written a good article on the subject, "Scary God or Scary People". http://godscharacter.com/article.php/20091102113717623
Pat,
You don't think God cares about Alfke's understanding or misunderstanding of His actions? I thought that's what Christ came to do, to clear up the misunderstanding about God.
http://www.comeandreason.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i...
Richard Ludders
Richard,
I did not say God does not care. He simply doesn't wring His hands over our questionings.
Our disagreement Richard centers around whether Justice was accomplished in Christ and was needful through His atoning sacrifice...the self vindication of God by God for His own purposes which also benefits those who will come to belief.
What Grace when He demonstrated both His love and Grace by His propitionary death.
Gratitude for that death in our behalf brings worship and gratitude...for we are unworthy of such love.
Amazing love and grace!
regards,
pat
Like the witness to a murder in the courtroom, it's always in one's point of view. He only did it because they were all evil; but "he's now changed and is a really good person. Sorry, that was in the past, (OT) and now he's a different person.
Some of us aren't buying it and recognize and have heard all the possible "explanations." It's the old Viet Nam reasoning: "He had to burn the village to save it."
Elaine
Elaine,
He isn't different. He will destroy/kill the wicked just as He did in the OT...when His longsuffering ends...judgment is delayed not omitted in the NT.
regards,
pat
On Alden's classes at WWU, my son was the only non-theology major in the class he took in the 80s. He found that many of the theology students were "shocked, shocked!" when for the first time heard Dr. Thompson's remarks. They were unable to accept what they had never heard before in their entire SDA education! So much for the problems that indoctrination encounters.
Elaine
If there is one person out of all of this that I could meet and just listen to it would be Elaine. I doubt that this can ever happen, but Elaine, I appreciate you beyond what you can comprehend. Thank you!
Elaine has a keen eye for lies.
Yes, Elaine is truly a mother in Israel.
Elaine, I'd love a convention when we all turned up to meet you and you shared your thoughts and asked all kinds of pointed questions for us to wrestle with. Would love for you to bring your library along for us, not to steal, but to be inspired from.
Alden Thompson said: Since love must win, not coerce, God will use violence to reach violent people. Thus, as ironic as it may sound to gentle people, God will start with what appears to be coercion in order to lead his people away from violence and coercion to his great ideal in the story of Jesus.
I don't know that I'm gentle, but "using violence to reach violent people" does not sound ironic, it sounds barbaric and nonsensical. I ask you, Dr. Thompson, does all the following merely "appear to be coercion?"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/1780/12977.html?1196314275
You can't theologize all that away in another thousand years.
If the above doesn't make a 21st century person wretch, I don't know what possibly could. I can't care a fig about Adventism being a "bridge community" between two brands of theology. May theology return to its native nothingness!
I care about our not telling one more child to worship a 'God' depicted by such unthinkable atrocities or else be burned alive by that 'God.'
I care about not one more child quaking in its bed for fear of that 'God.'
That's the only way love can win.
God is not, nor ever was like that mythical monster.
It's time to have the courage to believe in a good God, the real God.
There is no way to make a bridge between the two views of God. God is not loving *and* cruel.
We got it wrong, simple as that.
It's gonna be one spectacular collapse when authoritarian religion goes down, but there is no avoiding it.
In my opinion.
[Edited to correct link.]
A post of mine from several years ago:
Posted by Maggie on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 8:24 pm:
My answer: God is not bi-polar.
I believe that, not because I get it from the Bible, but because I get it from my heart--the same place that Thomas Paine got the knowledge that slavery was a crime decades before Ellen White's birth.
The non-forensic arguments for God simply withdrawing from sinners, causing their death, don't bear up to the massive weight of all the wrath Scriptures I listed above, IMO.
And Sorensen chimed in with the one about God laughing at our calamity, to add insult to injury. That is hardly "manifesting no irritated temper."
Are we to follow God's lead and laugh at other's calamities, Sorensen?
I am incapable of loving such a God. I think we need to connect the dots between our bloody Scriptures and our bloody history.
The people who envisioned equality and freedom from chattel slavery in this country, like Thomas Paine, did not draw these ideas from the Bible. And yet we vilify Paine and elevate the idea that God will laugh at our calamity. This is a terrible insult to the character of our Creator, I believe.
Is this not putting good for evil, and evil for good?
The people who want to reinstitute slavery and stoning are drawing their ideas from the Bible.
I believe the United States represents a gradual movement of Spirit forward toward liberty and religious and racial freedom that does not depend on the Bible.
When Thomas Paine and Ellen White said slavery was a crime, they did not draw that sentiment from the Bible.
Ellen White said that God was punishing the United States for the crime of slavery, but nowhere does the Bible say slavery is a crime. Therefore, God can punish people capriciously, according to her. And then laugh at their calamity.
Who could love such a God?
I cannot believe God is that way. I am incapable of believing that.
I believe God is good because that is what my heart tells me. A good God does not laugh at calamity, nor does He institute genocide, slavery or any other crime.
Maggie
http://www.atomorrow.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=1780&post=77005#POS...
More to follow....
Dr. Thompson, last week, in what counts in my tiny world as an Iconic Act, my very traditional SDA ex-husband gave me a copy of the first book of yours I've read, Beyond Common Ground.
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Common-Ground-Liberals-Conservatives/dp/081...
Posted by aldenthompson - Tue, 09/06/2011 - 02:14
My accommodationist approach contrasts sharply with the “theocracy” argument that justifies God’s violence because he is ruling Israel directly. The deadly implication of this “theocracy” approach is that the closer God comes to humanity, the more violent he becomes. I am much troubled by that approach (...)
The Jesus described in the Gospels killed no one, didn’t even strike anyone.
I would give anything if I could get angry like that.
I am assuming that, though you’ve traveled “From Sinai to Golgotha,” with Ellen White, you yet do not believe in universal restoration, Dr. Thompson.
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/white/alden/alden05.htm
So, therefore I assume (correct me) that you do believe that God will contrive to deprive “the wicked” of life by some means, in the end. Jesus certainly never disabused us of that notion in the sayings attributed to Him.
So, I assume you believe that God will destroy people at least “by the brightness of His coming,” or, with moral agency will destroy them by an act of will, and with wrath, however you wish to define wrath. Either way, the "deadly implications" remain, it seems to me, and they trouble me also.
So it seems your “Jesus killed no one,” statement doesn’t follow through to it’s logical conclusion, and, indeed, Ellen White said in 1895, “Enshrouded in the pillar of cloud by day and in the pillar of fire by night, Christ directed, guided, counseled the children of Israel in their journeyings from Egypt to Canaan.”
So it follows that this “Christ” who didn’t hesitate to cause the earth to swallow rebels, and all manner of other violent acts in the Old Testament, will also not hesitate to commit violent acts to ‘end’ the Great Controversy. That's the denouement we're left with, at present. You tell me if we need a fruit-basket-upset again....
So honestly, I don’t see where your line of reasoning can possibly take us, Dr. Thompson. But I think it was as much of a bridge as the market would take, actually. I do appreciate the work you’ve put into tracing Ellen White’s evolution of thinking, which however opens even bigger cans of worms, which you’ve probably addressed in books I haven’t read. :)
But, back to Beyond Common Ground - and my recent suggestion that Adventists consider expanding their vision and transcending the Protestant Reformation.
To wit, your referring to the Great Disappointment as leading to what you call the Fruit Basket Upset Principle on page 209:
“Often a fruit-basket-upset experience can clear the way for new insights.
Perhaps if we allow our own "fruit baskets" to be upset, we won't need to endure a corporate fruit-basket-upset again to get us free from being stuck on high center? (Forgive me for saying "we.")
Also, I note your reference to the role “social support” can play in making it “possible to believe a doctrine that otherwise had seemed impossible,” page 210.
And most significantly, to me, your applied historicism as a learned stance in Adventism (discussed on page 211), in which you quote Ellen White as saying, “It should be remembered that the promises and the threatenings of god are alike conditional."
And after that you discuss…Jonah!
Reading the Sign of Jonah:
A Commentary on our Biblical Reasoning
Chad Pecknold (University of Cambridge)
Reading signs backwards and forwards shows us just this, that signs constantly open themselves to new relationships of meaning, including, or perhaps especially, meanings hidden in the future.
http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/ssr/issues/volume3/number1/ssr03-01-e...
And wow, this is a rich book you wrote, Dr. Thompson! I just read page 214 for the first time: “Jesus’ response strikes right at the heart of hierarchical forms of church governance."
And…for anyone who wants to try it on for size, page 213:
“…a God who tries every possible method to draw sinners back to Him…”
“Scripture also affirms that God will try every possible method as if He did not know what would work.”
“…Jesus is coming again to usher in a new age. His return is the goal of history, the blessed hope for which we have so earnestly longed.”
Lots of things start to fall in place for me if I map all this over a relational God in an evolutionary milieu:
Romans 8: All of creation waits with eager longing for God to reveal his children.
For creation was condemned to lose its purpose, not of its own will, but because God willed it to be so. Yet there was the hope that creation itself would one day be set free from its slavery to decay and would share the glorious freedom of the children of God.
For we know that up to the present time all of creation groans with pain, like the pain of childbirth.
But it is not just creation alone which groans; we who have the Spirit as the first of God's gifts also groan within ourselves as we wait for God to make us his children and set our whole being free.
If a "little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down" is the only way to convince people that, in spite of all the contrary information in the Bible, that God is NOT REALLY LIKE THAT! Who is willing to rewrite it?
It's no less than declaring: "You just think that Hitler was cruel, or that Nero was despicable, but God, who operates entirely in the same way, is not really such an ogre, he's just trying to get out attention."
Tell me, how successful has that concept been in changing people's ideas into an "Oh, now I get it, He's not REALLY like the Bible says, at all!"
Elaine
PS: Sirje, regarding, "recalling the Estonian connection to the Finnish folk hero - all very peripheral minutia in the grand scheme of things."
Well, maybe, maybe not. I encourage you to unamericanize yourself and 'speak from your blood' and see what comes up.
BTW, now I ask you...would someone with a photographic memory need to keep her glasses, phone and keys tethered to her person in order to function in her admittedly minimal fashion? :) I would describe my memory as not residing on my 'hard drive,' i.e., in my head. Where that might be I couldn't tell you. It seems to be emergent, and not available on demand, to my frustration.
Elaine, yeah...I think we're due for a huge Fruit-Basket-Upset!!!
Now that the dust has almost settled on this column, I’ve decided to take another crack at responding to issues and questions that have arisen. I’ve gone through all the postings with a fine tooth comb and done some rough categorizing, in some cases on little evidence. But the number of postings from the top three contributors were significant:18, 15 and 12. There were also three each at 6 and 4. A total of 27 posted at least once.
So let’s imagine an Adventist Church composed of these 27 members. What might happen? The one most likely to leave immediately would be one of the early responders, “Your friend.” With 2 entries, he spoke of the “flawed” theology in my book Inspiration and noted that it had been “carefully debunked by SDA theologians.” He gave no specifics, but trusted in the judgment of “SDA theologians.” I wish he could be more specific. We just might find some common ground. Incidentally, Inspiration was published by an official Adventist press, Review and Herald, at their request. The reply by the SDA theologians who opposed the book was published privately by the Adventist Theological Society in Issues in Revelation and Inspiration. But the ATS book is a crucial one for it brought the discussion out into the open where it should have been all along.
Does “Your friend” have kindred spirits among the remaining 26? Not that I can tell. But in that connection, it is important to make the case for diversity. In the original column I referred to CPT 432-33 where Ellen White argues for matching the diversity in Scripture with diverse minds today. Her pointed statement in MH 483 is just as astonishing: “We differ so widely in disposition, habits, education,” she argues, “that our ways of looking at things vary. We judge differently. Our understanding of truth, our ideas in regard to the conduct of life, are not in all respects the same.” “Understanding of truth” is doctrine, “ideas in regard to the conduct of life” refers to lifestyle. Legitimate differences are appropriate. Amazing.
In what follows, I’ll use key words at the head of each new topic to make it easier to negotiate the points that I want to address.
DIVISIONS AT CORINTH. In a chapter in my book, Beyond Common Ground, I use the divisions in the church at Corinth as a starting point for describing the three dominant Adventist traditions (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-17). Peter represents the “Can Do!” folk who often move into perfectionism. One of our contributors, Herbert Douglass, would unashamedly confess belonging to that group. Paul represents the “Can’t do it – Jesus does it for us” people, with a strong emphasis on substitutionary atonement. Des Ford is the most famous Adventist representative of this perspective. Among our respondents, I suspect Tom Zwemer would be the most likely candidate here, perhaps also Pat Travis. Apollos represents the “Do the best you can” folk. Graham Maxwell and Jack Provonsha are the famous names here. “Sanctified reason” is solidly emphasized, the substitutionary atonement hardly at all. Indeed some Maxwell supporters polemicize against it. The Apollos crowd is my natural home, too, though I’ve made a serious effort to balance it out by memorizing key substitutionary passages such as Romans 8. As a result, my own attitudes have changed considerably. Among our correspondents, Richard Ludders would be in the Apollos group. For those of you with some knowledge of Adventist history it might be interesting to note that Robert Brinsmead was first a Peter perfectionist, then a substitutionary Paul, then briefly an anti-substitutionary Apollos. Now he doesn’t believe in God at all. I cannot begin to explain why these “loyalties” behave the way they do. But if we had a clearer understanding of diversity, I am convinced that we could live together with enthusiasm – without being “dismembered,” to use Elaine’s vivid word.
With reference to these three strands, most Adventists are a wild mix. I have one good friend in Britain, for example, who is a passionate supporter of both Maxwell and Ford, who would no doubt be appalled. But we all put the pieces together quite differently.
HUMAN FREEDOM OR DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY? Perhaps the most helpful way of dividing our church of 27/26 members – I don’t know if “Our Friend” would still be with us at this point – would be along the human freedom-divine sovereignty line, usually noted as the tension between the Wesleyan/Arminians on the human side, and the Calvinist/Reformed on the divine side. My problem with most Calvinists is that they are not at all troubled by Old Testament mayhem. In their view, God is God and can do whatever he wishes. Typically, Calvinists show no interest at all in theodicy, the attempt to justify a God who is both all-powerful and all-good in the presence of innocent suffering. Only free-will people tussle with theodicy questions. In our group, I estimate that we would have some 20 on the human side of the ledger, and only 7 on the divine side. Ours is a inquiring crowd; evangelism might not stir much enthusiasm, at least not at first.
VIOLENT OLD TESTAMENT GOD. The issue that has dominated discussion, at least in terms of volume, is the violence of God in the Old Testament. Both John Alfke and Maggie responded passionately on the subject. A comment from Maggie is to the point: “I’ve often said that if the names were left off, the exploits of the God of Israel, the gods of the heathen, and the devil would be hard to differentiate.” I quite agree – unless one can see Jesus as the ultimate goal of God’s revelation to humankind. And that is a transforming perspective.
Maggie’s comment is an echo of sentiments sent me recently from a pastor in Norway:
“When I started hearing what the Old Testament actually said, I was appalled. In many of the stories God appeared to me as a primitive Viking god, like the mythical Tor and Odin, in no way similar to the much more thought-provoking and reflective Jesus. And to make matters worse, this Jesus claimed to be the god of the Old Testament.”
Yes, I also read the beautiful stories that describe God as full of love and patience. But I would then suddenly confront him as a blood-thirsty, avenging being, a God to fear for the wrong reasons, as one fears a psychopath. One moment he is the most loving and sympathetic person, but in the next he is mercilessly cruel.
In the case of this Norwegian pastor, he found my book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? very helpful, “an answer to my prayers,” he wrote, “when I needed it the most.”
As for those of you who expressed such horror at the Old Testament stories, I want to make sure that you hear my hearty amen. I hope you never lose your horror of all the chaos in the Old Testament. “Liberals” often do a wonderful job of documenting the ideal. Both John and Elaine say that I sugar-coat the Old Testament stories. That puzzles me. I do plot a line through the Old Testament to Jesus as the gentle ideal. But my intention is to be honest and open with everything along the way. John is headed toward a solution when he says in his posting of 8/31: “I still want to see a way to at least embrace the morals and goals of Christ’s message.” But he is still struggling, for he ends each of his six postings with this lament: “Why is it all so confusing?”
Let me share a point or two from my own experience that might help sort out the confusion. First, I suspect that John is from a much younger generation than I because he said in the 8/31 posting that no one ever told him about the two bears that mauled the 42 kids. I have been startled to see how many of the current generation of college students have never heard the story. The “idealists” who believe that hard stories are difficult for children have temporarily won the day. For my part, the stories of Uzzah and the ark and the two she-bears thoroughly distorted my prayer life. My first funeral as a young pastor was for a six-year-old girl who died of an epileptic fit. And at that point in my experience I didn’t know how to talk back to God. The bears had made my prayers very polite.
But when we went to Scotland for doctoral studies, I focused on the so-called “skeptical tradition” in the Hebrew Bible, represented primarily by Job and Ecclesiastes, though my dissertation was on IV Ezra, a book in the Protestant apocrypha. In Scotland I also discovered the psalms, some of which could be seen as very irreverent. But the psalmists did know how to talk to God! Those experiences helped shape my faith and resulted in my first book, Who’s Afraid?
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE. This topic is related to the previous one on the violence of God. A key point that snapped clear to me at that time is one that several of you are not ready to accept, at least not yet, namely, that God must be violent with violent people. The Scots weren’t violent with us. Indeed they were very gracious. But they certainly resisted change. Time and again they would respond to my suggestions with, “But we don’t do it that way here.” And they said it as if it were some kind of final answer.
That’s when I began to understand why the Old Testament is the way it is. If you want to win the people, it takes time. Lots of time. And you have to reach them where they are. Jesus claimed the Old Testament God as his God. Indeed, he claimed to be the God of the Old Testament. Given the astonishing picture of Jesus in the Gospels, how does one put those pieces together? Calvinists typically don’t recognize the contrast. That’s why they don’t struggle with the violence of the Old Testament God. And here I want to speak to a point made by Elaine in her posting of 9/6. “It still does not ‘compute,’” she said, “that the God of the Old Testament is the same God as the God of the New; or that Jesus is also God with two distinctively different characters and method of dealing with humans.” I would argue with some passion that from a motivational point of view, the contrast makes very good sense. Children begin with a heavy emphasis on “fear” as the primary motivator. Just watch any two-year old in a battle of wills with a parent. From fear and threats, parents usually make the transition to bribes. But the ultimate goal is spontaneous obedience as described in Jeremiah’s new covenant promise. Because the law is written on the heart: “No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, says the Lord, from the least of them to the greatest” (Jer. 31:34, NRSV). Note that this “new covenant” is spoken to Old Testament people and applied to them in their own day. It is best translated as a “renewed” covenant. The classical evangelical divide of Old Testament as old covenant and New Testament as new covenant simply does not stand up to what we find in Scripture. God has always had just one covenant. But he has always been willing to experiment wildly with the means of motivation.
In that connection let me recommend two books that my wife and I have recently read. Neither one is written from a believer’s perspective which makes them all the more valuable. Delia and Mark Owens, in The Eye of the Elephant, describe their long battle to end the poaching of elephants in Zambia. Their incredible patience with deeply-rooted traditions is an admirable model for those who want to bring change. Chinua Achebe, in Things Fall Apart, describes how the tribal societies suffered a painful collapse when the white man encroached on their lives. The “ideals” represented by their primitive culture, however, represent a sharp contrast with those of Jesus and frequently mirror Old Testament perspectives. Human life is cheap; male dominance is pervasive, and the dominant cultural values are power and war, rather than goodness and peace. In their first contact with the God of the Christians, the people of the tribe just laughed at the thought of such a silly God who didn’t know their customs. If there are no missionaries to bridge the gulf, how might God begin to reach such people? With the “horrifying” methods that one sees in the Old Testament.
THE OLD TESTAMENT REFLECTS THE PEOPLE’S IDEAS FIRST. This might be the place to comment on the sequence of three questions/suggestions posted by Sirje Walkowiak on 9/6. As I see it, they are all headed in the right direction. First, that modern science is no threat to the Bible because the Bible is not science; second, that the Old Testament tells us first of all about the people’s ideas of God, not about God in his absolute purity; third, that Jesus’ death on the cross is demanded by crooked human thinking, not by a blood-thirsty God. The death of Christ is still “necessary,” but it’s not the kind of necessity posited by the Calvinists who see an angry God whose wrath must be appeased by blood.
UNIVERSALISM. The desire for universalism is implied in John’s longing for someone to intercede with divinity so that God will not be “thinking about killing everybody a 2nd time.” My own personal view is that I would be delighted if God ultimately saves everyone and I consider it a distinct possibility. But I can think of two good reasons why Scripture does not present that option. First, to tell ordinary sinful human beings that they will be saved regardless of their behavior is not likely to produce positive results. Second, to shout aloud that everyone is going to be saved would anger many atheists. They don’t want to be in a kingdom with the kind of God they imagine to be in charge there. Even our little experiment with a church of the 27/26 who participated in this conversation would initially be on very shaky ground if we told everyone that they must belong. Interestingly enough, Rob Bell in his recent best seller, Love Wins, is accused of arguing for universalism. But if you read him carefully you will note that in the end he pulls back because universalism seems to fly in the face of free will. In short, I hope God finds a way to save everyone. But I consider it highly unlikely that he would tell anyone of those intentions ahead of time.
EVOLUTION. Maggie mentioned more than once that an evolutionary perspective can be helpful in reading the Old Testament. In a community of conservative believers, however, “evolution” is a volatile word. For the most part, the word “development” is safer and is helpful in the realm of social attitudes. In my approach to Scripture I describe the dramatic impact of sin on human life as I did in this column. My most complete discussion is in chapter 2 of Who’s Afraid? “Behold it was very good and then it all turned sour.” After the steep decline down to Abraham (Gen. 3-11), a man who worshiped “other gods” (Josh. 24:2), one can quite legitimately speak of development, moving from the “primitive” Abraham to the “ideal” in Jesus.
As for biological evolution, I am not a scientist so am ill-equipped to talk about it. It seems to me fairly clear that evolution of some kind is part of our story. But I don’t think we should ever try to replace a biblical account with a scientific one. I have no idea how to put all the pieces together.
Raw evolution leaves many questions unanswered. The endless cycles of nature are always repeating and have no goal other than repetition. In a sense, evolution is the modern equivalent of the cyclical religion of the ancient Canaanites. Every year moved from equinox to solstice to equinox to solstice. History wasn’t going anywhere. By contrast, Israel dreamed of a future vegetarian kingdom where no one eats anyone else. The wolf will live with the lamb and no one will hurt or destroy in all God’s holy mountain (Isaiah 11). But I don’t know anyone who knows how to put all the pieces together. What does a vegetarian hawk look like? How did it get to be like the hawks we now know? And what will it look like in a new world? Those are mysteries which no one can solve. But let us not despair. We look to the future with hope, not on the basis of hard proof. As Paul says, “For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopes for what is seen? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” (Rom. 8:24-25, NRSV). Our trouble begins when we try to “prove” hope.
MYTH. The word is troublesome because it feels like an alternative to historical fact. In other words, history really happened, myth did not. With reference to biblical history, however, let me be extraordinarily candid. It was studying the differences in the Gospel accounts and the differences between Kings and Chronicles that liberated my writing more than anything else. The Bible writers were creative. But their point was always to make a difference in the lives of God’s people. Did the events happen just as they said? Do your own study of the parallel passages in Scripture and decide for yourself. As for factuality itself, this quote from Bart Kosko is worth noting: “There are just too many molecules involved in a ‘fact’ for a declarative sentence to cover them all. When you speak, you simplify. And when you simplify, you lie.” – Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic (1993), p. 86. “Lying” is not believer-friendly language, however, though the reality is something with which we have to reckon. And in that connection a comment from Kathleen Norris, quoting Huston Smith and Marcus Borg, is worth noting:
“Even those who would approach the Bible with a more open mind are sometimes handicapped by what Huston Smith has characterized as ‘fact fundamentalism.’ As theologian Marcus Borg stated in a recent essay in The Christian Century, while ‘conservatives insist that everything in the Bible must be factual in order to be true,’ their more liberal scholarly counterparts ‘seek to rescue a few facts from the fire. Both camps seem largely unaware,’ he adds, ‘that we live in the only culture in human history that has equated truth with factuality.’ Borg finds that ‘this has had a pernicious effect on our ability to appreciate the Bible, with its interweaving of history and metaphor and symbolic narrative.’” – Amazing Grace (1998), p. 190
For practical reasons, I do not use the word “myth” because the popular understanding of the word suggests something that never happened. That’s not a helpful perspective. And not just incidentally, I find that when I am really involved with the work that is clearly a novel, I end up relating to it as if it actually happened. Chaim Potok’s novel, The Promise has just that effect on me. It’s very real, even though I know it is a novel. Why can’t we grant the Bible at least that much power in our lives?
PERFECTIONISM AND NO MEDIATOR. Here I focus on a specific Adventist concern as reflected in that most troublesome of EGW quotes, one mentioned by Maggie in her entry for 9/4, namely, that we “are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator” (GC 425). When Ellen White penned those words, I’m sure she understood it as a terrifying threat. For me, the transforming answer to that problem came from John 16:25-27, and it came to me as part of a special experience in my second year in seminary, for that was when I discovered that Jesus was God in the flesh. It was John 14-17 that flooded my soul with light and banished the picture of the reluctant God that had always lurked on the edge of my Christian experience. If you look closely at John 16:25-27 you will discover a crucial “not” there. Jesus declares that the day will come when we will pray to the father in Jesus’ name, but that he will NOT speak to the Father for us – because the Father himself loves us. I am convinced that we have a mediator as long as we need one. But to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator can become a promise, not a threat. And for that I am eternally grateful.
OUR LITTLE CHURCH. Finally, we must turn to the communal possibilities in our little church of 27/26 members. I sense that a number of you are several steps removed from a fervent personal faith. As a first step, let me recommend to you the book of Ecclesiastes. It is the book for modern skeptics who seek a home with believers. There is no prayer, praise, or worship in the book. The author looks at the world and says it’s such a mess that we might just as well serve God. In short, you don’t have to be alive with hallelujah’s and amen’s to serve God faithfully. Such exuberance may not be in your genes and chromosomes. And God understands all that – hopefully the saints can too – without “dismembering” too many of their fellow believers along the way.
A grateful thank you to each of you for contributing to this conversation. I’d like to believe that Adventism has the resources to be a viable community that can actually make a difference in our world. By God’s grace it can happen. May he grant to each of you all that you need.
aldenthompson
I thoroughly enjoyed your summary and reflections Alden. I thought you'd better know that at least one person has read it!!
I'll be the 28th Fundamental Member of this little congregation of yours.
Alden, In regards to your comment on justification and sanctification: I have come to see justification as unconditional forgiveness (what Paul refers to, as translated by the KJV, as reconciliation); and sanctification as "walking by faith in Christ" or "living after the Spirit" or living as a "new creature in Christ Jesus" where "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." I cannot experience sanctification without the forgiving acceptance of my being crucified with Christ: 'the wonder of His .... love and my unworthiness." I walk in newness of life or the Spirit, only as I am crucified with Christ or mortify the flesh or die to self. So I confess myself to be a chief of sinners, as Christ noted of Mary Magdalene, but live in newness of life in Christ: whereby His seed remains in me.
Add your comment