By Alexander Carpenter
The Spectrum Blog has left the building; or at least it has moved to a new place in the world-wide web.
We have combined the main Spectrum site and this blog into a new creation. With interviews, book and film reviews, college students blogging, it should allow even more folks to join the conversation.
/commenting on this old blog has been disabled
By David R. Larson
Photo by Bronwen Larson
The Branch Davidians themselves intentionally lit the fires that burned Mount Carmel to the ground near Waco, Texas, taking with them the lives of David Koresh, their leader, plus more than seventy others, contended Kenneth G. C. Newport in Loma Linda, California on Wednesday evening, November 14. What’s more, he contended, they did this because they believed that this is what Scripture wanted them to do.
“Did the biblical text inspire this act of apocalyptic self-destruction?” he asked. “I think it did, or at least I think that there was a direct relationship between the texts, what the Branch Davidians thought those texts meant, and what happened on April 19, 1993.”
Newport described himself as an academic administrator at Hope Liverpool University College in England and a priest in the Church of England who used to be a Seventh-day Adventist teacher in the religion departments of Newbold College, not far from London, and the denomination’s college in Hong Kong. Before assuming his present position he earned a doctorate in New Testament at Oxford University and taught at several other universities in the United Kingdom.
This event at the Loma Linda University Campus Hill Church was the first in what will be an annual series of lectures on “Adventism and the World.” Initiated and organized by Julius Nam, a church historian at LLU, these lectures are sponsored by the University’s School of Religion.
Newport supported his claim that the Branch Davidians ignited the fires by reviewing some of the forensic evidence. This includes video tapes, audio recordings by “bugs” that had been implanted in the compound, much physical evidence, such as 39 fuel containers that had been purposefully punctured near the spots where it is believed that each of three fires began, the reports of those who investigated Mount Carmel after the flames had burned themselves out, and the testimony of the survivors and officers who were actually there. His conclusion, stated in the typical understatement of an English scholar: “One might find it difficult not to conclude that the fire was started by the Davidians themselves.”
He advanced his assertion that the Branch Davidians did this for theological reasons by reviewing their developing views about the religious significance of fire. Victor Houteff, the founder of the offshoot from Seventh-day Adventism that after several decades and many twists and turns eventuated in the Branch Davidians, held that in an end-time battle over Jerusalem God’s true people “would be protected by God as ‘a wall of fire.’” Lois Roden, fourth in succession after Houteff’s wife Florence and her husband Ben, taught that before the establishment of God’s kingdom “the remnant would be baptized by fire.” This baptism, she explained, “will be literal and ‘by immersion.’”
Vernon Howell, known to the world as David Koresh, was a sexual partner of Lois Roden when she was three times his age. He succeeded her following her death and an intense struggle with her son George, who would later die in an insane asylum. He also made his contribution to the developing “theology of fire.” In his “sermons,” some of which were recorded, he spoke of a short term of severe testing before the arrival of “the 200 million strong avenging army to drive the wicked from the world.” The followers should expect death but “in that second or two before death there will be a moment of absolute, pure faith and it is this that will guarantee a glorious resurrection.”
Steven Schneider, Koresh’s lieutenant, who in the flames would shoot him in the head from the side and back before stuffing a gun into his own mouth and pulling the trigger, went even further. Those who would be resurrected will be “as eschatological warriors riding upon horseback—in fact they would come back as the avenging army of God spoken of in Revelation 9: 15-18.” “You always wanted to be a charcoal briquette” Schneider comments to a colleague in one of the recordings.
In my response to Newport’s presentation, I indicated that his evidence convinces me that the Branch Davidians ignited the flames and that they did so for theological reasons. I expressed doubt as to whether their beliefs are enough to account for what went wrong, however. I reported my view that Waco’s horrors were caused by a convergence of very serious theological, psychological and ethical pathologies on both sides of the conflict, the Branch Davidians, on the one hand, and the representatives of the government, on the other. I indicated my doubt “that by itself their reading of these [Biblical] texts would have caused the Branch Davidians to lite the fires.”
If only theological considerations mattered, and if Adventist and Branch Davidian beliefs differed primarily in degree, if in effect we can picture David Koresh and Ellen White holding hands, why is it that so few SDAs (less than .00001%) were attracted to the Branch Davidians? I wondered.
I think this issue deserves emphasis. If we have 10 million brown dogs with normal temperaments and 100 brown dogs with dangerously vicious ones, I doubt that we will try to figure out why their dispositions differ by pointing out that they are all brown. In effect this is what Newport tries to accomplish. But it is notoriously difficult to explain why things are different by pointing out how much they are the same. Furthermore, in the case under consideration the two groups of dogs aren’t even the same color!
In the question and answer time, the audience asked if any Branch Davidians still exist (Yes); whether pathologies actually contributed to what went wrong (Me: Yes; Newport: It’s difficult to know.); whether the beliefs of Adventists and Branch Davidians and Adventists differed in degree or kind (Newport degree; Me: Kind, as evidenced by their diametrically opposed stances on the use of guns and other military weapons in civilian life); and whether the conclusions of Newport and me differed that much (Newport: Silence; Me: That depends upon whether Newport thinks that the beliefs of the Branch Davidians are sufficient to account for what went wrong.).
Questions also surfaced about why Newport left Adventism for the Church of England (“I could no longer teach what I didn’t believe.”); whether Ellen White functions for SDAs like Koresh did for the Branch Davidians (Newport: Yes; Me: No); and whether Adventism as a whole suffers from the pathologies that beset both the Branch Davidians and the government’s representatives (Newport: Silence; Me: In every denomination, even the Church of England, there are scary and sick people but this is not true of any community of faith as a whole.).
In addition to being the world’s foremost scholar on Waco, Newport is an accomplished specialist in the life and teachings of Charles Wesley who was born 300 years ago. Therefore, just before the end of the evening’s event, in gratitude to Kenneth Newport, memory of Charles Wesley and praise to God, the congregation stood and sang one of Wesley’s most cherished hymns:
Love divine, all loves excelling,
Joy of heaven to earth come down;
Fix in us thy humble dwelling;
All thy faithful mercies crown!
Jesus, Thou art all compassion,
Pure unbounded love Thou art;
Visit us with Thy salvation;
Enter every trembling heart!
Julius Nam prayed the Benediction and wished us all the very best.
By Alexander Carpenter
Adventist News Network's Ground 7 podcast:
Listen here. (Running Time 10:24)
The South Pacific Division's news cast:
By Alexander Carpenter
Here's a video created by Southwestern Adventist University's Students In Free Enterprise team.
By Alexander Carpenter
Folks, it's been fun on this blog, in about a year and a half -- currently at 7115 comments -- we've had some good, substantive input, but Rich Hannon just set the bar a little higher.
By Alexander Carpenter
T. S. Eliot reading his poem "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock."
By Alexander Carpenter
William Sloan Coffin, who once said:
"Many of us are eager to respond to injustice, as long as we can do so without having to confront the causes of it. There's the great pitfall of charity. Handouts to needy individuals are genuine, necessary responses to injustice, but they do not necessarily face the reason for injustice. And that is why so many business and governmental leaders today are promoting charity; it is desperately needed in an economy whose prosperity is based on growing inequality.
First these leaders proclaim themselves experts on matters economic, and prove it by taking the most out of the economy! Then they promote charity as if it were the work of the church, finally telling us troubled clergy to shut up and bless the economy as once we blessed the battleships."
By David Larson
More than twenty years following the publication of his book “The Openness of God,” which named and launched a new school of Christian thought, Richard Rice profiled its primary themes for several dozen bright and lively university students. They were the guests on Sabbath Eve, November 9, of Julius and Iris Nam, and their sons Sherwin and Ansel, in Loma Linda, California. Trisha Famisaran moderated the discussion. Perhaps because of my interest in process theology, I was also invited to participate. Iris and a few others prepared the meal that was eagerly enjoyed by all!
Richard, Julius and I teach in the Loma Linda University School of Religion, respectively in the specialties of theology, history and ethics. Trisha, a graduate of La Sierra University and the Claremont School of Theology, is now studying for her doctorate at Claremont Graduate University. Iris is a student at the Loma Linda University School of Dentistry.
Richard traced the development of “Open Theism” by beginning with the thought of John Calvin (1509-1564) who held that (1) God determines everything that happens right down to the smallest detail and that (2) God knows the past, present and future as though they are a single moment. This was a first step.
He identified a second step in the thought of James [Jacobus] Arminius (1560-1609), John Wesley (1703-1791), Ellen G. White (1827-1915) and others. Christians such as these split Calvin's twin convictions, affirming one but not the other. They held that God knows the past, present and future with equal completeness but that God does not determine everything that occurs because God gives human beings genuine freedom.
“Open Theism” goes beyond this in a third step, Richard explained. It holds that Scripture, logic and experience urge us to reconsider both of the two convictions from Calvin with which we began, contending instead that God neither predetermines every thing that happens nor foreknows all that will occur. I pointed out that, although it may seem new to some, in less detailed forms the basics of “Open Theism” have been taught at Loma Linda University for about fifty years, beginning at least as early as long-time professor Jack W. Provonsha.
Richard explained that today the “Openness of God” movement makes a path about half way between traditional theism, on the one hand, and contemporary process theology, on the other. With process theology, it holds that human beings have enough freedom partly to determine the future. With traditional theism, it holds that human freedom is not inherent; rather, like the whole of creation, it is a gift from God.
He emphasized that “Open Theism” makes God's love, rather than God's power, glory or sovereignty the primary and conceptually controlling theme. It holds that, as Jesus taught, God relates to us more like a good parent than an overpowering king or queen.
From this point of view, the Christian moral life is not primarily a matter of submitting to God's commands. It is the joy of responsively and responsibly interacting with God in bringing about in each situation as much flourishing as possible. I contrasted "the ethics of prohibition" and "the ethics of imagination," the latter being what “Open Theism” champions.
Richard made it clear that according to “Open Theism” God knows everything there is to know. But there are some things that God does not know because they have not yet come into being and, given the reality of human freedom, they may or may not eventually occur. These things are not yet “there” for God or anyone else to know.
This is a very important point. It means that those who wish to criticize “Open Theism” should not accuse it of “limiting God” because such arrows miss the target. They should aim at its understanding of human freedom instead.
If it is inherently possible for genuinely free decisions to be predicted with 100% accuracy, then God certainly knows what they will be. But “Open Theism” contends that to understand freedom this way is to rob it of its true meaning. What we mean by “freedom” is therefore the crux of the issue.
Some people flatly reject the idea that our choices actually do alter the flow of events somewhat, holding that all such impressions are illusory. Others who agree that our choices can make this kind of difference do not see why they are inherently incapable of being foretold. “Open Theism” disagrees with the first of these positions. It holds that the second fails to discern the full implications of what it believes about human freedom.
The questions and comments from the university students were pertinent and probing. One suggested that the language of paradox and the practice of serving the needy might be more helpful ways of dealing with the topics of our discussion. Others probed the implications of “Open Theism” for prophesy, intercessory prayer, miracles, divine judgment, specific Biblical narratives like the story of Joseph and the ultimate triumph of good over evil. In every case Richard emphasized God’s unending and unlimited love and the privilege we have of cooperating.
Because more than one questioner brought it up, both Richard and I commented on the relationship between “Open Theism” and Adventism’s understandings of the “investigative” and “final” judgments. We emphasized that SDAs do not believe that God judges people now for what God foresees they will do in the future. Neither do we teach that at some point in the future God will unilaterally render a negative verdict on those who might have subsequently responded positively to God’s influence in their lives.
I especially appreciated Richard's reminder that, linguistically speaking, as evidenced in the New Revised Standard Version of Scripture, one can translate Romans 8:28 in at least three ways. The most familiar alternative is "all things work together for good, for those who love God." A second legitimate option is "God makes all things work together for good." The third is "in all things God works for good.” Given its overall understanding of God and humanity, “Open Theism” opts for the third alternative.
This discussion of “Open Theism” was one of monthly conversations that the Nams host for university students in the Loma Linda area.
By Alexander Carpenter
Institute of Ideas
London, UK
Oct 28th, 2007
"The debate over creationism has sprung up as the latest flashpoint in the battle between secularism and religion. While the US has seen extended conflict over the theory of evolution - from the 1925 'Scopes Monkey Trial' to the recent Dover, PA court case new challenges to Darwinism under the guise of intelligent design (ID) have arisen in the UK. Concerns centre on school science education, from Sir Peter Vardy's Emmanuel Schools Foundation to the controversial teaching packs distributed by the anti-evolution group Truth in Science. The rise of 'Islamic creationism', modeling itself on ID, adds to concerns that Islam poses a special threat to secularism in Britain. Although the Royal Society and much of the scientific establishment have denounced the teaching of creationism, a recent MORI poll revealed that over 40% of the public believe that creationism or ID should be taught alongside evolution in school science classes.
While few seriously endorse the literal biblical story of creation, ID on the other hand claims to highlight Darwinism's shortcomings on scientific grounds. Evolution is 'just a theory' after all - surely in the spirit of encouraging critical thinking we should teach the controversy? Science is about questioning received truths rather than establishing certainties for all time. Does this not permit a more flexible approach to science education, where debate is encouraged? Further, the sheer complexity of evolutionary theory leads ID advocates to claim it is best to cultivate a critical eye in pupils, rather than have them take as truth a misunderstood Darwinian theory.
Is science, or 'scientism', just as fundamentalist as religion, arrogantly claiming to know everything, or are doubts such as these a reflection of scientists' failure to make the case properly for what science does have to offer? Is this merely another case of the 'balance fallacy' the mistaken belief that even falsehoods should be given air time?"
54 min.
From Adventist News Network:
A recently retired pastor, Alvarez was given a hero's welcome for his contribution to a Seventh-day Adventist congregation, which on Sunday, November 4, officially dedicated a new church. Once a political advisor to the leaders of the Cuban revolution, Alvarez returned to celebrate a victory of God in a town at the foothills of Sierra Maestra Mountains in Southeastern Cuba.
[snip]
Speaking at the opening session of the IAD meeting, Paulsen recognized the church's "strong focus on mission." He also emphasized the church's need to "build strong communities and meet the world from a position of strength."
He continued the theme of Adventist involvement in society when addressing a representation of the state and local government on Sunday. "We don't carry a political agenda. As a church, we are aware that while we are a spiritual community, we are committed to building society," he said.
Referring to "positive engagement in society," Paulsen added that Adventists "want to make a contribution to communities, and to make communities more secure."
By Alexander Carpenter
I see that a bunch of comments -- Lisa, Graeme, Pat, Wondering and me -- are missing on a couple of posts. We got a big surge of visitors and comments this afternoon, I'm going to republish the site. Sorry about the hassle.
Update: Well, the republish didn't trigger them. They show up in the back end as published, but something (no, not you know who) is keeping them from showing up. I've sent the comments back to their authors, except for Wondering who is not entering a valid email address. : (
If you'd like to re-enter them below so that they get read, please do.
We are about to switch over to a brand new Drupal hosted site and I'm looking forward to the new CMS!
By James Coffin, senior pastor of the Markham Woods church.
This appeared in the Orlando Sentinel today.
I would have never believed it possible had you told me in the fall of 1959 -- the beginning of my formal education -- that in the year 2007 I'd be reading a rash of newspaper headlines about a U.S. attorney general-designate's uncertainty concerning what constitutes torture.
Or, worse still, that a Democrat-controlled Senate would confirm him despite his uncertainties.
Now don't get me wrong. In 1959, I wasn't some kind of child prodigy with deep political and moral insights. Not at all. I was just a run-of-the-mill American kid experiencing school for the first time.
That year, on the day after Labor Day, I not only placed my hand over my heart and pledged allegiance to "one nation under God," but I also learned how to seek shelter under my desk should the Russians start dropping bombs. That day I was introduced to a world of good government versus bad government. And it made an impression.
Over the next few years I learned a lot as I moved through the eight grades and two rooms of that little country schoolhouse.
I learned the significance of the ubiquitous fallout-shelter symbols I'd seen in the basements of public buildings. I learned about the stored provisions that would sustain us should the Russians launch a nuclear attack.
I learned about the evils of godless, oppressive, coercive communism and the merits of democracy and capitalism and a nation willing to base its actions on the Judeo-Christian ethic.
I learned those lessons well. But increasingly I wrestle with the disquieting possibility that my government no longer shares the ideals and the vision I had instilled in me so effectively as a child.
In class, we studied the history of our government -- a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."
In class, we learned that all humans "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." We learned about due process -- even for bad guys. We learned about the presumption of innocence. We learned that it was better to have a standard so high that the occasional guilty person goes free rather than to risk punishing the innocent.
In those country-schoolhouse classes, we repeatedly contrasted the virtues of the U.S. form of government with the obvious shortfalls of many other governments. We took pride in the role the United States had played in bringing about worldwide improvements through such documents as the Geneva Conventions.
We learned that there are some actions to which Americans won't stoop simply because the actions are wrong -- categorically. They violate self-evident, unalienable human rights -- no matter how advantageous they might be in the short term.
Was it all just propaganda? Whistling in the dark? Wishful thinking?
Or do some of our nation's major players need a refresher course in a little country schoolhouse in the Midwest?
If you care about this issue and what to magnify your moral voice, check out the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.
By Alexander Carpenter
Blast from past. Run DMC on PBS' Reading Rainbow.
What narrative is on your mind these days? What idea is at the top of the stack by your bed?
Drop a comment and let the Spectrum Blog community know what you're reading these days and what you think of it.
By Alexander Carpenter
By Alexander Carpenter
From the Jamaica Gleaner:
Early on in the broadcast, Paulsen turned briefly to the camera for remarks meant largely to amend some of the church's older generations' opinions of young people.
"I'm more preaching - and I am preaching - to those who are watching. You need to make sure that you trust those who are young with responsibility. It is an indisputable fact that if you do not engage those who are young, they will walk away from the church."
Following a question on civil engagement, Paulsen said Christians should not only ask what they can contribute to the church, but also what they can contribute to the communities where they live. One way to impact society is to hold political office.
Or at least vote along the words of Jesus -- blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Ah, it's great to see people listening and caring about the future for the next generation. Despite the dwindling number of global warming deniers TV-watching and Google-ing themselves into an opinion, the climate really is changing among the next generation of citizens.
From the Politico:
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), once a skeptic of global warming, got a hint that the political winds might be shifting when a longtime supporter warned that he might vote against Inglis if he “didn’t clean up his act on the environment.”
The warning came from Inglis’ eldest son, Robert Jr., now 22.
His daughter was no less blunt about the congressman’s refusal to embrace the view that global warming was being caused by human actions and that a serious response is needed. “I have three more kids coming up — and they seem to share the same view,” Inglis said.
Family pressure worked. Inglis traveled to Antarctica and, most recently, to Greenland to witness the effects of rising CO2 levels and temperatures. He now believes the science behind global warming. And he believes the politics are equally conclusive: Republicans will “get hammered” if they do not reckon with the issue soon.
So will Christian morality. I'm proud that despite a know-nothing attitude among some, back in 1995, the Seventh-day Adventist Church ADCOM noted the human connection to climate change. And voted on it.
Unfortunately, that statement is outdated and should be debated, strengthened, and reissued publicly so that we can continue our prophetic witness on the need to care for creation. And with Jan Paulsen encouraging Adventist young people to "talk" and get involved in their community at the decision-making level, it would be great if the General Conference leadership turned talk to action and gave the next generation a say in shaping its future climate today.
By Alexander Carpenter
On the way to work today I was listening to local NPR affiliate KQED's Forum radio show.
It was on efforts to reduce the danger of contaminated fish in the San Francisco Bay. Being a vegetarian, I was a little bored, until they introduced the next expert: Seventh-day Adventist Sophat Sorn (pictured), a pastor in Stockton and founder of Cambodian Families Together.
Apparently he works as a health advocate in the larger Khmer community to educate them about the dangers of eating fish caught in the delta.
Here's a recent article on him:
Sorn, a small man with penetrating eyes, gets out of the car. He throws on a fishing cap and a pair of sunglasses. "This is a very popular spot," he says, snapping fish advisory pamphlets printed in Khmer to a clipboard. He then traces a hand along the rocky peninsula, extending down the opposite side of the channel. "On weekends, they fish from both banks."
The first group we run into is a Cambodian family, a husband and wife sitting with their two small girls on a blanket covered with fishing poles and crushed soda cans. Behind them is a rust-pocked minivan with the hood up and radiator cap removed. At the water's edge are four poles propped against buckets and small stands. The girls giggle and point into one of the buckets. A small catfish circles in the bottom. On the surface floats a dying sunfish. "I caught that one," says Santanya, poking at the sunfish and forcing a little blood from its gills.
[snip]
Sorn is a Cambodian refugee, an ex-soldier who has become a Seventh-day Adventist minister and health advocate with a vision: to inform people about the dangers of eating contaminated fish caught in the waterways around Stockton. For three years he worked with the California Department of Health's Environmental Health Investigations Branch, to conduct outreach work among Cambodian fishers who depend on those fish as a key food source. Now his ministering takes more time, but he still slows down enough to speak with local fishers along the waterways and in his congregation to "spread the gospel of eating fish safely."
That seems a lot like something Jesus would do.
Here's a brief personal history in which he says: “Yesterday is but a dream and tomorrow is only a vision. But, if we do good deeds today, every yesterday will become a dream of happiness and every tomorrow, a vision of hope. Be careful, therefore, how you use today.”
While October has had a relatively low number of deaths, at least 852 military personnel have died thus far this year -- the highest annual toll since the war began in March 2003.
And that doesn't include the hundreds in mercenary forces.
By Leo Tolstoy
Last Message to Mankind:
(Delivered at the 18th International Peace Congress, Stockholm, 1909)
Before us are millions of armed men, ever more and more efficiently armed and trained for more and more rapid slaughter. We know that these millions of people have no wish to kill their fellows and for the most part do not even know why they are forced to do that repulsive work, and that they are weary of their position of subjection and compulsion; we know that the murders committed from time to time by these men are committed by order of the governments; and we know that the existence of the governments depends on the armies.
[snip]
Perhaps Christianity may be obsolete, and when choosing between the two - Christianity and love of the State and murder - the people of our time will conclude that the existence of the State and murder is more important than Christianity, we must forgo Christianity and retain only what is important: the State and murder.
That may be so - at least people may think and feel so. But in that case they should say so! They should openly admit that people in our time have ceased to believe in what the collective wisdom of mankind has said, and what is said by the Law of God they profess: have ceased to believe in what is written indelibly on the heart of each man, and must now believe only in what is ordered by various people who by accident or birth have happened to become emperors and kings, or by various intrigues and elections have become presidents or members of senates and parliaments - even if those orders include murder. That is what they ought to say!
But it is impossible to say it; and yet one of these two things has to be said. If it is admitted that Christianity forbids murder, both armies and governments become impossible. And if it is admitted that government acknowledges the lawfulness of murder and denies Christianity, no one will wish to obey a government that exists merely by its power to kill. And besides, if murder is allowed in war it must be still more allowable when a people seek its rights in a revolution. And therefore the governments, being unable to say either one thing or the other, are anxious to hid from their subjects the necessity of solving the dilemma.
[snip]
Humanity in general, and our Christian humanity in particular, has reached a stage of such acute contradiction between its moral demands and the existing social order, that a change has become inevitable, and a change not in society's moral demand which are immutable, but in the social order which can be altered. The demand for a different social order, evoked by that inner contradiction which is so clearly illustrated by our preparations for murder, becomes more and more insistent every year and every day.
The tension which demands that alteration has reached such a degree that, just as sometimes only a slight shock is required to change a liquid into a solid body, so perhaps with a slight effort or even a single word may be needed to change the cruel and irrational life of our time - with its divisions, armaments and armies - into a reasonable life in keeping with the consciousness of contemporary humanity.
Every such effort, every such word, may be the shock which will instantly solidify the super cooled liquid. Why should not our gathering be the shock?
In Andersen's fairy tale, when the King went in triumphal procession through the streets of the town and all the people were delighted with his beautiful new clothes, a word from a child who said what everybody knew but had not said, changed everything. He said: 'He has nothing on!' and the spell was broken, and the king became ashamed and all those who had been assuring themselves that they saw him wearing beautiful new clothes perceived that he was naked!
We must say the same. We must say what everybody knows but does not venture to say.
We must say that by whatever name people may call murder - murder always remains murder and a criminal and shameful thing. And it is only necessary to say that clearly, definitely, and loudly, as we can say it here, and men will cease to see what they thought they saw, and will see what is really before their eyes.
They will cease to see the service for their country, the heroism of war, military glory, and patriotism, and will see what exists: the naked, criminal business of murder!
And if people see that, the same thing will happen as in the fairy tale: those who do the criminal thing will feel ashamed, and those who assure themselves that they do not see the criminality of murder will perceive it and cease to be murderers.
But how will nations defend themselves against their enemies, how will they maintain internal order, and how can nations live without an army?
What form of life men will take after they repudiate murder we do not and cannot know; but one thing is certain: that it is more natural for men to be guided by reason and conscience with which they are endowed, than to submit slavishly to people who arrange wholesale murders; and that therefor the form of social order assumed by the lives of those who are guided in their actions not by violence based on threats of murder, but by reason and conscience, will in any case be no worse than that under which they now live.
That is all I want to say. I shall be sorry if it offends or grieves anyone or evokes any ill feeling. But for me, a man eighty years old, expecting to die at any moment, it would be shameful and criminal not to speak out the whole truth as I understand it - the truth which, as I firmly believe, is alone capable of relieving mankind from the incalculable ills produced by war.
By Alexander Carpenter
Why are you an Adventist?
By Raymond Roccograndi, Spectrum collegiate correspondent at Southern Adventist University
"Who or what is G-d?" It's a question all of us have asked, heard, or attempted to answer. To attempt to understand the Divine is a journey of a lifetime. It's filled with great joy, moments of ecstasy and excitement, perplexing confusion, agonizing angst, emotional pain, and extreme humility. Many cultures and societies have different faith traditions that attempt to explain the Divine through myth, poetry, prose, prophets, gurus, spiritual leaders, religious ritual and practice as well as statements of belief or professions of faith.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share many conceptual ideas about G-d. All three religions stem from the same Abrahamic faith. Sometimes in our own search and attempt to understand G-d, we forget that our faith is not the only group of seekers. Many prophets have come to us, some misguided, some outright strange, others blissfully inspiring, and yet although the Divine can be seen to varying degrees in their lives, answers are not what their messages bring. Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, Ellen G. White, and the Dalai Lama all share many teachings about the Divine and each has his and her own understanding within context to their historical time and cultural norms within the society they lived.
I have noticed in university that we can too often
get hung up on specifics. Such topics as jewelry, women and the church,
vegetarianism, homosexuality, the Sabbath, and others can become
volatile and key, salvific issues in the eyes of some earnest,
albeit zealous, believers. I have found in my studies and walk with the
Lord that there is much human influence and presupposition in these
matters. One must first tackle the understanding of Holy Scripture and
Divine Inspiration before these topics can be addressed.
Holy
Scripture comprises some of the more important documents of mankind's
existence. It can justly be stated that more than any other book, the
Bible has inspired and permeated much of our common world culture and
life. Yet it must be asked, "how did this document come to be?" "what
are the ways in which G-d inspires and directs people?" The Holy
Scriptures are a book that depicts the Divine struggle of a loving G-d
that strives to be understood by His people and a rebellious, stubborn
people that struggle to understand their G-d. This is the beautiful
essence of Scripture - the dramatic story of the Dive expressed in the
human; of which Christ is the apex and glory in the whole matter, the
"Jewel in the Lotus," to borrow a Buddhist expression (Om Mani Padme
Hum). Understanding Scripture in this manner allows one comes to notice the
threefold nature of the themes of the Bible. G-d is love, The Great
Redemptive Plan of Salvation, and the Atonement for Sin are, in my
understanding, important thematic expressions found from Genesis to
Revelation.
Man's struggle to understand the three of these and to apply the divinely-inspired concepts to personal life are also explicit within the pages of this "Sacred Text." Sacred not because of this notion of infallibility, but because of the beauty of a G-d that risks misunderstanding; that takes the Divine - which is awesome, ultimate beauty, without blemish, etc. - and translates it into the Human - which is broken, rebellious, confused, fallen. This is the beautiful act throughout all of Divine Scripture - that God would place the task of communicating His message through feeble minds. In this act G-d takes the Infinite - the very nature and being of the Divine - and expresses it in the Finite - human language. In this can be seen G-d's greatest struggle and act of Divine Trust.
Understanding that
G-d doesn't inspire verbal, verbatim texts of Scripture, but rather
inspires thematically is essential to garnering the greater meaning of Holy
Scripture. Far from dismissing Scripture as relevant this approach renders that
earnest seekers of Divine Wisdom - or The Way - must commit themselves
to a deep, thorough lifetime of study. The original languages must be
understood or comprehended on a basic level, as well as the historical context of
the time period that each book was written. Also, the author's life and
limitations in understanding must be taken into account, the trifold
thematic truths of Scripture must be searched for throughout each
chapter and book, geography, and various other aspects must be applied
before one begins the task of interpretation and application to
practical life.
Each
author of the Bible and prophet understood G-d within the context of
their time; it is true that some came to radical and even innovative
understandings of the Divine, however, this was through earnest study
and humility, not a dogmatic faith that we know in Conservatism or
Evangelicalism. Literalism is not a biblical principal, but a method of
control that the church employs to consolidate power. The principle is
continual seeking for understanding and a humble approach to Holy
Scripture. Thus biblical principle - and cherished Adventist contribution
to Christendom - of "Present Truth;" is the idea that
G-d meets people where they are. This can be seen when the Divine
inspires a murderer, an adulterer, the uneducated, the prideful, and
the broken to be his Vessels of Divine Love and Compassion.
G-d is not a being who refuses to attempt to understand us - for He knows us better than we know ourselves. He wants to have an intimate, loving relationship that leads us into service in Divine Love for our fellow human. G-d's goal is to express His love for us and to be understood by His people, this is the work of a lifetime. Literalism is not biblical. The fruits of literalism can be seen throughout the suffering of mankind. Genocides, holocausts, inquisitions, wars, poverty, and oppression - all of these are the fruits of the dangerously totalizing concept of literalism.
G-d is not a literalist - He understands that there are cultural elements to our religious practices. Such topics as jewelry, women and the church, vegetarianism, homosexuality, and the Sabbath are cultural phenomenas. Jewelry is not sinful, the principle is whether this becomes an idol or takes the place of other important aspects of life and wholeness. Does one buy expensive adornment instead of paying bills, feeding their children, or giving to the church? That is the key component to the "jewelry question."
The texts used in Scripture for the exclusion of women from ministry is contextual to that time period, it is not a principle of Scripture.
Vegetarianism is not a principle, the principle is eating healthy, wholesome foods that promote good heath and wellness.
The issue of homophobia in Scripture is not a Divine principle, but a cultural misunderstanding of sexuality that persists to this day. People fail to see the Spirit of the Living G-d directing and guiding our scientific research and discoveries on sexuality and sexual orientation.
The "dos and don'ts" of Sabbath observance is not a principle, giving a day to the Lord and resting is the principle.
In these examples we can see how G-d meets people in their time and culture; that He truly risks being misunderstood.
"Who or what is G-d?" This is a question we must always ask. We should never be satisfied at our answers or our church's - this is the journey of a lifetime. Let's humble ourselves and not make interpretation an idol before the Lord. In many matters we should let G-d be G-d and concern ourselves not with lists of a who gets saved, but with interpersonal relationships. "By this you will know that they are my people, if they have love for one another." Understanding that religion is a cultural phenomenon and religious customs and practices differ is the first step in the right direction to a United Body in Christ.
By Michael Peabody, Esq., Vice President of the Seventh-day Adventist Church State
Council in Sacramento and Executive Director of the North American
Religious Liberty Association - West
Excerpted from his article in the Nov/Dec issue of Liberty.
"A while back, a friend who leans heavily to the right asked
me whether I thought God supported the United States in the War on
Terror.
Knowing the nature of the question, I sensed that I was walking into a
shabbily
constructed minefield so I decided to up the ante with a few questions
of my
own. Can a Christian feel patriotic toward his native Iraq or toward
her North Korean homeland? Does God draw lines in the sand based on
geopolitics, or on American interests? Bottom line, would God drive a
Chevy or
a Hyundai?"
...
"I have long felt that one of the main reasons that so many communist nations failed was because they early on targeted the faith of the religious. Had they embraced the outward signs of the faith and gradually, imperceptibly, morphed it to their ends, they could have gained the support of the large number of marginal believers who would have begun to see the work of the politburo as consistent with that of God. Only the intellectually vigorous would remain in opposition, and they could easily be disposed of openly and with the blessing of the majority who would view them as criminals."
"Instead through persecution, communist dictators created a religious vacuum which ultimately became a fatal flaw. Despites its storied attempts to foist atheistic patriotism on the people, the Soviet Union was unable to sustain itself and its residents clamored for the exit when the Iron Curtain fell. Had the USSR wrapped the same authoritarian aims in the gradually modified religion of Mother Russia, it might have lasted. But in the absence of a faith, the secular state was doomed."
"In contrast, those nations that have embraced the symbols of religion, carefully choosing only those elements that support their aims, opportunistic thugs become saints, and those who question them are viewed by the majority as both unpatriotic and unholy. Kamikaze pilots turn their planes into guided missiles t the bequest of a divine Emperor, and terrorists are convinced to detonate themselves in the name of Allah."
How would you answer the questions that Michael poses in his opening paragraph?
By Alexander Carpenter
I'm mad that I missed A. J. Jacobs in town last week. I first discovered his first-person reportage when I came across his book on reading through the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. Then I heard him talk about his month of outsourcing his entire life to workers in Bangalore, India and I was hooked. You might have seen reviews for his latest, year-long project, The Year of Living Biblically in which he documents obeying every rule in scripture: from not shaving to not wearing mixed fiber clothing to stoning adulterers.
I find that all too often those who defend a non-historical reading of the Bible really don't know what they are getting into. In fact, I have to say that I respect the bearded male and dress-wearing, head-covered female Reform Adventists I knew growing up a lot more than those who grab a couple of verses to defend their sexism and homophobia. What I really appreciate about Jacobs' talk is that he finds a deeper moral and spiritual meaning in God's Word, a Truth that goes beyond the contingencies of textual interpretation -- something literally life-changing.
Make sure you get to his comments on homosexuality and the Sabbath.
More on Red-letter Christians.
Recent Comments