The Spectrum Blog

G-d or Something Like It

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.

A year of living Biblically

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.

Happy Wittenberg door day

By Alexander Carpenter

I first found the Wittenburg Door in the James White Library. Always a good time, especially on October 31.

Mediation and peace with Thich Nhat Hanh

By Alexander Carpenter

Thanks to Raymond's post about the Dalai Lama, a discussion about religious leaders has broken out on the blog. Since Thich Nhat Hanh has come up in discussions, I wanted to give commenters an opportunity to see what all the fuss is about.

This video comes from an Asia Society meeting on October 10, 2007 in which he leads a meditation and then discusses the Kingdom of God, Suffering, Consumption, and the Environmental Impact of Meat and Alcohol in addition to the comparisons between Viet Nam, Iraq and Burma. I love what he says about the relation between spiritual leadership in this country and Iraq. (Click on Open Tools to select chapters.)

"World-renowned Vietnamese-born Buddhist teacher, scholar, and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh talks with Vishakha N. Desai, President, Asia Society, about his controversial and distinguished life as a Buddhist and a voice for peace from the days of the Vietnam War to the ongoing conflicts of the 21st century. Hanh is author of the national bestseller Peace Is Every Step and his new book is The Art of Power."

On homosexuality: a Bible study

By Alexander Carpenter

As is clear to anyone who's cruised through the 130-plus comments, discussion of the proper Christian homosexual position has been pinned somewhere between missionary zeal for openness and dogged opposition.

While discussion was kicked off by a film, thus far the comments have danced around the actual scriptural support without really digging into the text.

I'm ready to tackle the text and only the text. Time for some good ol' Sola Scriptura and Holy Spirit-blessed reasoning. And I've got a serious Bible study to kick it off.

Let me introduce you to Justin Cannon. He attends the Graduate Theological Union with me and he arrived with a bit of notoriety due to his man bites dog story. Justin takes the Bible very seriously and he has a boyfriend. He runs a site for theologically conservative gay Christians called Inclusive Orthodoxy where he writes of GLBTs:

The Church needs to embrace and support this group of people, not despite scripture and tradition, but in light of scripture and tradition. The doors of the church need to be opened and human prejudices set aside, so that we can truly live according to the law that Christ taught us.

If you're ready for a serious 15-page Bible study on the actual six texts and the issue of procreative sex, here you go: The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality.

There is also a rule on the comments for the post. They can only be on the textual issues, so let's have some Sola Scriptura in practice and bring your thoughtful support or critique of the Biblical evidence.

Rolling Up Our Sleeves: Liberal Religion As Hard Work

From Alexander Carpenter

A friend of mine, Rev. James Gertmenian, delivered the following convocation address yesterday at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities.  Jim raises some essential issues for the future of social justice and I reprint it below, not just because he mentions me in the address, but because his tripartite list of liberal weaknesses casts a vision for a strong progressive Christian future.

By Rev. James Germenian

President McVay, Dean Weis, Trustees, Faculty, Staff, and Students, thank you for the privilege of being your Convocation speaker today.   Though I am a graduate of another seminary – one of which I am most proud – I have felt, over the past decade, the gentle press of United’s influence on my ministry (and, more important, on my soul), so that standing here feels as natural as standing in my mother’s kitchen, and the words alma mater, take on a new, more inclusive meaning.   I also want to express my thanks to Doug and Carol Baker, dear friends, and to the Seminary, for the honor of the new scholarship that bears my name.  This is more meaningful to me than you can know.

Ernst Kasemann, of blessed memory, recounted the following incident that happened when a series of terrible storms and floods hit Holland in 1952. The scene was a small town where strict religious observance was still the norm and where adherence to God’s commandments was the highest value. It was a Sunday, and some of the worst tempests were passing through.  The wind and the waves were so strong that one of the dykes protecting the village was in danger of collapsing.  Immediate work would have to be done to avoid a disaster, and the police urged the local pastor to mobilize his congregation to help. But it was a Sunday, you see… the Sabbath… when no work was supposed to be done. What could the minister do?  Call the people to the task, even if it meant profaning the Sabbath? Or let them be destroyed in order to honor the commandment? Finally, the minister felt that he couldn’t bear the decision alone, so he called an emergency meeting of the church council. The direction of the discussion was clear: God’s will is what is most important. If God wants to, he can always perform a miracle with the wind and the waves. Therefore, the Christian’s duty is obedience to the commandments, even if it means death. The dyke would not be rebuilt, not on a Sunday. At this point, the pastor tried one more argument, maybe even against his own conviction. Didn’t Jesus himself occasionally break the commandment about the Sabbath, and didn’t he say that the Sabbath was made for humankind, and not the other way around? At which point an older member of the council stood up: "I’ve always been troubled, pastor, by something I’ve never said publicly. Now I have to say it.  I have always had the suspicion that our Lord Jesus was just a bit of a liberal."1

Suspicion of liberals and of our ideas became something of a blood sport in the United States about thirty years ago, and to be honest, I never really thought I would live to see the day when the “L-word” would be willingly embraced again anywhere beyond the academy, but now I believe myself to have been wrong.  The excesses and shortcomings of conservatism – both political and theological – are coming home to roost, and though that storm has not passed, it is surely passing, or at least breaking up, and liberals are beginning to emerge again, as if from their underground shelters, a bit bewildered, to be sure . . . blinking gratefully against the resurgent sun of progressive ideas and stretching their intellectual limbs where before they felt cramped and constrained.   There can be no doubt about it: the progressive religious movement is greening up across the country, from the Center for Progressive Christianity in the East to Progressive Christians Uniting in the West to the Network of Spiritual Progressives everywhere, and here in the Twin Cities – I am proud to say – at the Plymouth Center for Progressive Christian Faith, an outgrowth of Plymouth Congregational Church where I serve.  This is a movement

•      that values tolerance and inclusiveness,
•      that embraces pluralism, 
•      that honors the role of individual reason and the gifts of science,
•      that is open to an expansive and imaginative hermeneutic,
•      that envisions world unity and the waning of nationalism,
•      that seeks the God who transcends all of the various faith traditions but who may be experienced profoundly in each of them. 

In its Christian form, progressive religion eschews legalistic and mechanistic views of the atonement, including those that seem to sacrilize violence, and it replaces them with a view that emphasizes the moral nature of Jesus’ death-defying love.   Through it all, as Professor Gary Dorrien points out, liberal theology offers today, as it always has, a third or middle way between the extremes of atheistic rationalism on the one hand and rigid orthodoxy dependent on external sources of authority the other.2 

Now, news of a liberal resurgence may seem odd to hear at a place like United Seminary where progressive ideas never really ebbed, but unless you have been quarantined on this bucolic campus for the last four decades, you know that United has been the exception, not the rule.   At any rate, like the people of Israel returning to a destroyed Jerusalem after the Exile, we liberals face massive challenges of rebuilding and daunting tasks of restoration.   Put it simply:  Friends, we have work to do.  A lot of work to do.  And given the failures in our recent past as well as some of the soft spots in liberalism’s essential nature, it is not at all unreasonable to wonder whether we are up to the task.   More about that in a moment.

First, though, I want to make sure that I cast our situation in something other than polemical terms, tempting though such language may be.   To begin with, it is simply too easy to set up fundamentalist straw men – Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell are the usual suspects – as though they were broadly representative of Christian evangelicals and conservatives.   They are not, nor is the so-called Religious Right nearly as monolithic as some make it out to be.   Then, too, it is hardly productive – especially in a post-modern context – to continue to envision liberal and conservative Christians at one another’s throats, battling for turf and seeking domination over one another.   We may differ in everything from hermeneutics to theology, from Christology to cosmology, but I take it as a given that the search for truth is absolutely dependent on vigorous argument from both sides of any question.   And the church – the Body of Christ – can only be whole when all of its parts are healthy.     Don’t get me wrong.   There are surely strains of conservative and fundamentalist Christian thought and practice that deserve our censure, but as Bill Coffin used to say, anything worth our censure is also worth our compassion.   So if I speak of the difficult work ahead for us, and of rebuilding the liberal and progressive movement, its infrastructure and its institutions, I’m not suggesting that our task is to achieve dominance or to be victorious over anyone but only to hold up  - ably and without apology -  our end of the argument . . . to seek health for our part of the body.   Conservative and liberal Christianity each need the other in order to be whole . . . not that we seek some muddled synthesis of ideas but that we understand the creative power of a lively and ongoing tension between great poles of thought.

So, back to the notion of liberal religion as hard work.   As I said, we have a movement to build.  I would say “re-build,” but that would imply a simple replication of what existed before.   At a recent gathering of Progressives where I spoke, a lovely woman came up to me at the break and gushed:  “Oh, it’s just like the sixties!”   Ouch!  Friends, the last thing we need is a sixties re-run.   That’s not progressive, that’s regressive.   Actually, the best metaphor I’ve heard recently came up at a meeting where we were planning an upcoming conference that will bring together fifteen of the brightest progressive seminarians from around the country together with fifteen progressive elders for three days of talks and relationship-building.   Dierdre Hinz of United is one of the planners.   The question was:  What to call the event?   Alex Carpenter, a seminarian from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, also on the planning committee, said, “How about this: ‘Re-weaving the Dream?’”  We liked it, and that’s what our conference, to be held next month, will be called.   Whatever the metaphor, though, it’s work that will require creativity, courage, patience, and lots of resources.  It is not for the faint of heart, the weak of conviction, or the selfish of spirit.  Earlier I raised the question of whether we are up to the challenge.   The fact is, I see a series of weaknesses that will threaten our effort.  Time is short this morning, so I will only speak of three.   Each of them, I think, traces to a hyper-extension of what is essentially a good thing:  the Enlightenment notion of the autonomy and value of the individual.   Frankly, I hesitate to take a negative tack like this, but I hope you’ll see that in naming our weaknesses, my aim is to bolster our strength.

The first weakness is a conundrum endemic to liberalism itself.   The belief in the value of the individual, her autonomy, his right to a life guided by his own reason rather than by some external authority, has a paradoxical effect.   On first blush, it suggests a grand permissiveness.   You can believe what you want to believe, and no one can tell you different.   Many people in churches like the one I serve are drawn to those congregations because of that permissiveness.   No priest or bishop will set down doctrine for you.   No minister or church council can dictate the faith.   This freedom is a great gift of the liberal tradition.   But if it is a freedom that fails to mature, it can foster a theological laziness.   If there is no external authority dictating theological orthodoxy, this false reasoning says, then I may be able to get away with not thinking about the questions at all.  If the Bible is not to be read literally, then perhaps I can jettison it – and its insistent, maddening questions – altogether.  Liberalism, taken this way, can be a massive defense against God.   The task of those who would lead the progressive Christian movement is to gently but firmly remind ourselves and our congregants that the freedom implied by the liberal idea demands, in the end, more work and more discipline, not less . . .  and surrender to the Divine not rational garroting of the eternal mysteries.   If no external authority is going to dictate doctrine or prescribe a particular praxis, then the burden is on me, on the individual, on my local community, to do the theological ditch-digging, the ethical heavy lifting, the spiritual scut work.   That initial blush of permissiveness gives way to a daunting, though holy, burden.    The question – to which there is no sure answer – is whether we have the fortitude to wean ourselves and others from the more superficial view of liberalism, that apparent permissiveness, to a deeper view which demands a soul-shaking responsibility, a life-long labor.   Liberal religion is, indeed, hard work

The second weakness, like the first, grows out of liberalism’s essential nature; it is the flip-side of one of our great strengths.   Liberals are, congenitally, an “on-the-one-hand-this-and-on-the-other-hand-that” kind of people.   The liberal idea itself invites a host of competing views, and that’s a wonderful thing, but it leads, too often, to a fractured vision.   Paul asked, “If the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will prepare for the battle?”  And a contemporary evangelical leader said, “People will go out on a limb for an exclamation point, but they won’t go out on a limb for a question mark.”   I’m not sure he’s absolutely right about that, but his point is still telling for us.  How do progressives, who entertain a pluralism of ideas, come together enough to sustain a cohesive movement?  How do we find our exclamation points?  I listed a few of them earlier in my talk, but I have no certainty that they are broadly representative even of this community, let alone the greater progressive movement.  This too, then, is hard work that will demand difficult soul-searching, painstaking coalition-building, and not least what Bob Edgar, formerly of the National Council of Churches, calls “ego-disarmament.”3   For progressives to come together around a common vision will be no easy task.

The third weakness (and here I realize I may step on some toes) is what I would call the cult of self-care.   It has become particularly popular in the seminaries in recent years, and it is an understandable corrective to the masochistic self-abnegation that marked generations of clergy who went before.  So don’t get me wrong.  I’m not against ministers seeking balance and wholeness in their lives, ministers who set appropriate limits on what their churches may require of them.  I’m not against Sabbath or the regular laying aside of our work.  But I am concerned about clergy whose view of self-care makes them so intent on avoiding burn out that they never experience the ravaging joy of being on fire with their calling.    Yes, “Come to me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”   But also, “The harvest is plentiful and the laborers are few.”   Yes, “Jesus went to a secluded place to pray,”   But also “Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every infirmity.”   Yes, “I have come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly,” but also, “Whoever seeks to save their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.”  The ministry, especially now for progressives, is no place for those who aren’t ready to work hard.   In a conversation among a small group of clergy, one was complaining endlessly about how exhausting the work was.   Finally, a wiser colleague, in a moment of fine pique and excusable theological incorrectness turned to him and said, “Hey man, get down off the cross.   We need the wood.”   

Indeed, we need the wood.   And we need the brains and muscle and endurance and sweat and courage of people ready to “re-weave the dream,” to re-build a movement.   We need a strong, growing United Seminary, and other seminaries like it.   That means some of us (and I speak here as a Trustee) need to be out there seeking support, raising money, telling the story.   We need to be encouraging the difficult intellectual work that liberalism undertakes on the boundaries of orthodoxy.    We need to be in that exhausting, tenuous place where faith and politics overlap.   We need to endure insult from those who would draw a restricting line of Christian doctrine that leaves us out.   We need to be about, with quiet perseverance, the inconvenient demands of pastoral work, the challenging regularity of sermon preparation, the tedious but necessary tasks of church administration.   What we need, heaven help us, clergy and laity alike, is to be so swept up by the majesty of God, so seized by a vision of God’s shalom, so flooded with compassion for the world, and so consumed by the primordial and everlasting love burning at the heart of the universe that even when our work leaves us tired and worn and spent, we will still rejoice and feel ourselves strangely filled.   I think it is possible.   I know it’s possible.  Our movement alone will not save the world.   But without a strong progressive presence much that is necessary and many who are precious will be lost.  In this time, United Seminary is a great inspiration to me and to many; the work you do here is as encouraging as anything I know.  Thank you for that.   As you go about your tasks of teaching and learning, of research and exploration, of administration and service, and when, in the end of the day, you find yourselves exhausted, may it be said of you – may it be said of us all – as in the blessing from an unknown fourteenth century writer:

To [them] shall be proffered and returned gifts of such an astonishment as will rival the hues of the peacock and the harmonies of heaven, so that though [they] live to the greate age when [they] go stooping and querulous because of the nothing that is left in [them], yet shall [they] walk upright and remembering, as one whose heart shines like a great star in his breaste.

Thank you.

1 Käesmann, Ernst, Jesus Means Freedom, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968, pg. 16.

2 Dorrien, Gary, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive
   Religion, 1805-1900, Louisville: Westminster John Know Press, pg. xxi.

3 Unpublished paper from Res Publica, “The Future of the Progressive Faith Movement,”
   2004, pg. 14.

One reason churches grow

by Nathan Brown

Why churches grow is one of the mysterious quests of pastors, evangelists, church administrators and many concerned church members. The allure and elusiveness of a key, catch-all ingredient is evidenced by the multiplicity of books and seminars claiming to offer the answer. Many of these are well intentioned but limited in their credibility and applicability, and of course as with any marketing opportunity to ardent customers a variety of snake-oil salesmen are always ready to promote their products and programs.

So it is refreshing to find a carefully researched and Adventist-specific study of this question. Monte Sahlin, director of research and special projects for the Ohio Conference, has spent most of the past decade asking the questions about why churches grow, primarily focused in urban and suburban areas. As part of this, he has surveyed all 647 Adventist churches in the north-eastern United States mega-metropolitan area, stretching from Boston to Washington, DC. Sahlin’s research has previously been blogged about by Ryan Bell  and Marcel Schwantes of course has now been published as Mission in Metropolis: The Adventist Movement in an Urban World (Centre for Creative Ministry).

Without wanting to dismiss or discourage traditional evangelism, Sahlin concluded that “there is no correlation between the number of Bible seminars [conducted by local churches] and soul-winning.” This does not mean public evangelism is necessarily ineffective, but that such programs are run as regularly by churches that do not grow as by churches that do.

By contrast, Sahlin’s research found that the strongest correlation with church growth was engaging with the community in active service. And, sadly, Sahlin concludes, “very few Adventist churches are involved in the types of programs that have the strongest correlation with church growth.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, the significance of community involvement for church growth is not a new suggestion. In the book he edited to mark the centenary of Seventh-day Adventists in New Zealand, sociologist Peter H Ballis comments on the significance of involvement in real social and political issues in the founding and early dramatic growth of the church in New Zealand. He notes how “Adventists found themselves joining committees, speaking before audiences that under different circumstances would have been inaccessible to them, and, at times, co-operating with clergy of other denominations. All this has the effect of creating a favourable image of the Church. . . . Such interaction with the public served to acquaint Adventists with large numbers in the community” (“Seventh-day Adventists and New Zealand Politics, 1886-1918” in Ballis (ed), In and out of the world : Seventh-day Adventists in New Zealand).

Ballis cites membership figures that show a doubling in church membership in New Zealand during this period (1911-21). “It is tempting to conclude that it was the Church’s involvement in New Zealand’s social issues that brought about this unprecedented growth rate,” he reflects.
Of course, churches grow for more than one reason. But it seems community service  works in at least two ways—attracting those benefited by the church’s community service and those considering joining a faith community that is making a difference.

Sahlin argues that community involvement is key to gaining credibility within the community to which the church ministers. “A church that is invisible and largely absent from the public arena will not be taken seriously by educated citizens who care about their communities,” he urges.

But such activism is also vital for those within the church. In her survey of growing mainline Protestant churches—Christianity for the Rest of Us—Diana Butler Bass quotes one of her interviewees: “People are looking for a place that will enable and encourage meaningful service in the community, a way to live out the faith they hope to espouse.”

And that is the challenge for all levels of the church. In one sense, engaging with the community is simple: whenever one walks out the front door or out the church driveway, we are involved in the community. But for this to be both meaningful and useful is not always so straightforward. Church leaders—from local church ministry leaders to the most senior administrators—must create and encourage opportunities for real community involvement and service.

And this begins with learning to listen to our communities. Sahlin points out that “there is little evidence that the community service activities carried on in most cases have anything to do with the need of the community as viewed by local residents and civic leaders.”

As a church, we need to work together to find creative, authentic, practical and ongoing ways to serve our communities. As Peter urged the early church, “Live an exemplary life among the natives so that your actions will refute their prejudices. Then they'll be won over to God's side and be there to join in the celebration when he arrives.” (1 Peter 2:12, The Message).

Colbert on Mother Teresa's crisis of faith

By Alexander Carpenter

Stephen invites Fr. James Martin, SJ, to discuss the recent revelations about Mother Teresa's struggle with her sense of God's presence.

Loma Linda University Prof. of Adventist History, Julius Nam writes:

"Funny how a glimpse of the dark doubts of her life minister to me so profoundly.  despair gives me hope. Turning my eyes toward Adventism, I wish we knew more of Ellen White’s problems and more of her problematic, conflict(ed/ing), at times paradoxical unpublished writings were published in the manner of Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light.  I know that it’s going to happen eventually (hopefully in my lifetime), and I long for that to happen soon.

Read more at Progressive Adventism.

Spong's positive and negative Christianity

By Steve Parker

Bishop John Shelby Spong visited Adelaide recently to deliver a series of three public lectures promoting his new book, Jesus for the Non-Religious. Spong is a controversial figure evoking enormous amounts of criticism from the evangelical end of the theological spectrum, in particular. I went along to hear all three of his public lectures to try to find out what his essential message is for myself. Spong has a very negative message about traditional Christianity and a positive^* message about what he sees as the true meaning of the Christian message.

A "negative" message about traditional Christianity

Spong makes the obvious point that we are now living in a different time to those when the biblical books were penned. Whereas the first century believers accepted a three tiered universe that stopped just above the roof of the sky, we now know so much more about the universe and how it works. Science has increased our understanding of the natural world to such an extent that, according to Spong, the language used to express the first century believers’ experience of God is outdated, irrelevant, and unbelievable.

For Spong, we can no longer talk, for example, of a virgin birth, a literal bodily resurrection of Jesus, or miraculous healings. According to Spong, none of these beliefs make sense to a modern person living with the knowledge we have of the world and the universe. He also rejects the substitutionary model of the atonement (that Christ died for humanity’s sins instead of humanity dying).

Spong also believes that fundamentalist Christianity, in particular, represents a narrow-minded belief system that is unwilling to move forward in its understanding of the original meaning of Christianity. He believes that Christian fundamentalism is exclusivist and promotes racism, sexism, and homophobia. Much of Spong’s life has been spent focusing on social justice issues around these themes. He is a vocal defender of the equality of humanity, the right of women and gay and lesbian people to serve as equals in the Christian Church, and the acceptance of homosexual people within the church community as living a legitimate lifestyle, consistent with their unchosen orientation, in the context of loving relationships similar to monogamous heterosexual relationships. He is highly respected by many for his work in this area.

It is easy to see why Bishop Spong has evoked such emotional outrage from fundamentalist Christians and significant criticism from others. His teachings strike at the heart of much that is held, by many Christians, to be essential in defining Christianity. This is the "negative" side of Spong’s message. Spong also has a "positive" message about what Christianity has to offer.

A "positive" message about the Christian message

A constantly recurring theme in all of Spong’s lectures is that Christianity, rightly understood, has an incredibly positive message for society. Spong reassures his audiences that he is a committed Christian, believes in God, and prays daily. Clearly, this language has a specific meaning for Spong. For Spong, God is a presence which suffuses the world. The God presence found its highest expression in the life of Jesus Christ. For Spong, the life of Jesus provides the clearest expression of God’s intentions for humanity:

• to live life fully
• to love wastefully
• to be all that one can be

This is a "mantra" for Spong that expresses the essence of the gospel. Every one of his lectures finishes with the reiteration of these three themes. And excellent themes they are!

Very few Christians, I imagine, would disagree with these emphases. Unfortunately, for many Christians, they are overshadowed by Spong’s "negative" message to such an extent that they are not heard. And for those on the other end of the theological spectrum, the "negative" message is so powerful for them that the they wonder why bother with Christianity at all. They would argue that you don’t need Christianity to assert the value of living life fully, loving wastefully, and being all one can be. (Following one of Spong’s lectures, I had a conversation with an ex-Christian who made precisely that point.)

For traditional Christians, the literal, historically embedded beliefs about Jesus Christ (eg, the virgin birth, miracles, the resurrection) are indispensable in defining Christianity as distinct from other religions. Thoughtful and honest Christians can surely agree that new forms of expressing the gospel of Jesus Christ need to be found for the 21st century. And they can surely agree that Jesus’ life shows humanity what it means to live in the presence of God and be empowered, by the Holy Spirit, to live fully, love wastefully, and become fully human.

But many Christians will also want to argue that this can only be done by a God who is able to work supernaturally - any lesser God is not enough and, without such a God, Spong’s vision of living fully, loving wastefully, and being all one can be will be an unfulfilled yearning - a God-shaped hole in the human heart that only God can fill. There is a challenge here for traditional Christianity: the Church, which is often the worst advertisement for Christianity, needs to live out its good news in everyday living so that God is, indeed, understood to be a loving God of infinite mercy who accepts all and empowers them to live fully, love wastefully, and be all that God intended them to be.

---------------------

* I am using the terms "negative" and "positive" to indicate that Spong is critical of Christianity and yet wishes to affirm that Christianity has a significant message for the modern world.

Steve Parker heads the Adelaide, Australia, Adventist Forum chapter and blogs at Thinking Christian where this report originally appeared.

The ethics of conversion

By Alexander Carpenter

You may have been aware that Christians churches throughout the world have been gathering recently to knock out a ethics of conversion. The Associated Press writes: Evangelical groups have joined efforts spearheaded by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainstream Protestant churches to create a common code for religious conversions that would preserve the right of Christians to spread their religion while avoiding conflict among different faiths.

The World Council of Churches, which joined the Vatican last year in launching talks on a code, said Wednesday that the process was formally joined by the World Evangelical Alliance at a meeting earlier this month in France.

The code aims to ease tensions with Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups that fear losing adherents and resort to punishments as extreme as imprisonment and even death for converts from their faith and foreign missionaries.

And ReligioScope reports:

"'Evangelical' and 'ecumenical' Christians have never been as close in this regard as they are today. Thus, something that would not have been possible 30 years ago has become achievable," said Thomas Schirrmacher, a German theologian who chairs the WEA's International Institute for Religious Freedom. "It would be the first time ever that such a broad Christian backing is given to an agreement of this kind."

 Adventism's own North American Religious Liberty Association (I'm a proud member) has a position on this, and executive director James Standish shares his opinion below.

A lil' Old Testament fury

By Alexander Carpenter

Here's a great scene from a great show. . .with a queer moral implication. Yeah, yeah, I know that this is not as tightly argued as a Bruggemann tome, but you get the point.

An Adventist witness in these times

By Alexander Carpenter

Check out Hollywood Seventh-day Adventist Church pastor (and blogger) Ryan Bell speaking out about affordable housing for the least of these in his community. Instead of diluting faith down to the privatistic mantra: "personal relationship with God," Ryan endeavors to lead his members in turning their personal faith into a public witness for peace and justice. A prophetic voice beyond the old works oriented salvation, or guilting people into social service handouts. . .this is a Christian community confronting society with the gospel of salvation in action.

Loma Linda University profressor Julius Nam writes: "My heart beams with pride for your voice. May your angelic loud cry awaken hearts and minds for life-changing actions and decisions in Los Angeles!" Perhaps this is the new evangelism, the prophetic Adventist witness of the future.

Who controls the gates of heaven?

By James Coffin     (Originally published in the Orlando Sentinel.)

   I need a change of job title. That's the pope's idea, not mine. At least that's what I deduced from an article in last week's Sentinel.

   You see, I call myself a church pastor. But according to Pope Benedict XVI, I shouldn't  because I'm not even a church member. Not a true church, anyway. He says there's only one of those  the Roman Catholic Church.

   Well, he might grant a little latitude. I mean, Orthodox communions are kind of quasi-church knock-offs  church-lite, so to speak. But all those Protestant groups? They're just that: groups. And non-Christians? Let's not even go there.

   "It's no big deal," you say in a patronizing tone. "Let the pope make all the pronouncements he wants. We're still going to do as we please." But it's not quite that simple.

   You see, Pope Benedict also maintains that the only door to salvation is through the one true church. In short, if you're not Catholic, you're hell-bound.

   Needless to say, Protestants aren't comfortable with such a viewpoint. And quite a few Catholics also find it troublesome. It just doesn't mesh with the openness we've come to appreciate in our postmodern society. What arrogance, we say, for any spiritual group to claim to have the management contract for the gate to heaven.

   And, we wonder, just how do the Catholics think they're going to retain adherents  let alone gain new ones  with such archaic thinking.

   But not so fast.

   Suppose momentarily that the pope is right. Suppose the Roman Catholic Church is indeed the only way to salvation. Shouldn't we be grateful that he's so outspoken? Wouldn't we want every Catholic to shout this fact from the housetops? I mean, we're talking eternity in paradise versus hellfire. Would we really want someone to soft-pedal such crucial information just because it wasn't politically correct?

   As a Protestant, I find myself at odds with Catholics over quite a few issues. But I have to admire any organization that isn't always holding up a finger to see which way the wind of political correctness happens to be blowing. Catholic dogmatism isn't all bad. But that doesn't mean I buy into their theology.

   Purporting to possess the only gate into heaven is no small claim. With the human longing for eternal life and the fear of eternal punishment so intense, such theology has immeasurable potential for abuse, whether the claim is made by Catholics or any other faith system.

   A great principle of Protestantism is the priesthood of all believers. Salvation doesn't come through one's church affiliation but through one's personal relationship with God. Jesus said, "Whoever comes to me I will never drive away."And lest his listeners assume a monopoly on that promise, he later reminded them: "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen."

James N. Coffin is the senior pastor of the Markham Woods Church of Seventh-day Adventists in Longwood.

Circumcision, Child Sacrifice, and Sanity vs. Psychosis in the Abraham Epic

By Alexander Carpenter

Good Spectrum Blog community member Arlyn sent me an email and suggested that this Sabbath School Commentary by John Berecz would provide some fuel for thought. I mean, what could possible be interesting about a Sabbath School Commentary entitled: Circumcision, Child Sacrifice, and Sanity vs. Psychosis in the Abraham Epic?

Note: This commentary contains explicit anatomical language.

The Abraham epic—like much of the Old Testament—is permeated with all sorts of intriguing stories and back stories. Violence, incest, racism, slavery, animal and child sacrifices, are but a few of the earthy ingredients that comprise these sagas. This is definitely R-rated stuff. If it were made into a movie that accurately depicted what James Dobson would not rate it family friendly. And the lesson quarterly committee apparently also struggles to sanitize the presentations so that this week’s lesson appears to focus on such PG 13 themes as infertility, lying, and the dangers of attempting to help God out with our own plans.

So, I’d like to stay closer to the script and talk about circumcision, child sacrifice, and sanity vs. psychosis. Let’s begin with circumcision.

I’ve always wondered why God chose clipping off some of the most sensitive parts of one’s anatomy as a sign of "faith." Couldn’t s/he have snipped an ear lobe or chopped off the end of a little finger between the nail bed and the first joint? Why pick on the penis?

Read more here.

And let us know what your learned opinion is.

Nazarene regrets and Adventist resurgence: Entire Sanctification and Last Generation Theology

by Johnny A. Ramirez

Christianity Today gave high billing in it's daily email today to news that the Nazarene church is having internal discussions on their theology of perfection and entire sanctification.  This church shares a lot of it's theological heritage with our Seventh-day Adventist denomination from having founders rooted in Methodism to articulating a theology deeply indebted to Wesley.  An excerpt-

Nazarenes belong to an evangelical church that formed in 1908 when various groups in the holiness movement came together under the leadership of Phineas Bresee, a former Methodist minister. This new denomination, which stemmed largely from Methodism, emphasized entire sanctification as an "act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made free from original sin, or depravity, and brought into a state of entire devotement to God, and the holy obedience of love made perfect." But it hasn't always, if ever, been clear what such a sanctified life should look like.

"[T]he question in the last decades of the 20th century was whether or not the Church of the Nazarene had a coherent and cogent doctrine of holiness at all," Mark Quanstrom, professor of theology and philosophy at Olivet Nazarene University, wrote in A Century of Holiness.

Oord has been working to redefine holiness and to persuade the church to drop the word entire in its Article of Faith on sanctification. He said the Wesleyan tradition has more to do with social justice than social conservatism. In particular, Oord focuses on Jesus' "love command" in Luke 10:27: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Read the rest of this article at Christianity Today.

The article also mentions the Wesleyan Holiness Study Project, an intriguing effort being undertaken by several holiness churches.  Adventism, of course, has a lot in common with other holiness movements including our shared Wesleyan roots. Here, from wikipedia, are two paragraphs on entire sanctification and last generation theology-

Entire Sanctification-

The Holiness movement is composed of people who believe and propagate the belief that the carnal nature of man can be cleansed through faith and by the power of the Holy Spirit if one has had his sins forgiven through faith in Jesus. The benefits professed include spiritual power and an ability to maintain purity of heart (that is, thoughts and motives that are uncorrupted by sin). The doctrine is typically referred to in Holiness churches as "entire sanctification", though it is more widely known as "Christian perfection."

Last Generation Theology-

Last Generation Theology (LGT) or "final generation" theology is the designation given to a line of theological emphasis associated with certain members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It teaches that Jesus Christ was not only the Substitute for man but the Example for man, insists that Christians will have to cease from sin after the close of probation just before the Second Coming, and confesses that the close of the age has been delayed by unconsecration in Christians but can be accelerated through their living of holy lives.

Rob Staples describes the problem of Nazarene identity and says that "It is time for the Church of the Nazarene to finally admit … that in the issue of equating Pentecost solely with entire sanctification, along with a few other issues as well, the American holiness movement got it wrong" in "Things Shakeable and Things Unshakeable In Holiness Theology." (from the footer of the Christianity Today article linked to above)

Currently the strongest voice for Last Generation Theology is Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick who yours truly had the privilege of meeting at Julius Nams house whose blog features an interview, and fascinating subsequent discussion, with Larry himself.  Today movements like the General Youth Congress are having marked success within Adventism in evangelizing their perfection theology in order to raise up "youth and young adults who are passionate about hastening Christ’s return". Last Generation Theology within Adventism also links eschatological events with the entire sanctification of the church and it's adherents in ways similar to Nazerene beliefs on the Pentecost.

Although Adventism never really embraced perfection theology like Nazarene church did, Adventist culture, practice and lifestyle has been richly formed by the theology of John Wesley and his children.  The Church of the Nazarene developed alongside our own and shares many of our impulses, including a cornerstone belief in the great commission.  Adventists do have much to gain, and little to lose, from becoming aware of their past and present.

The worship industry

By Alexander Carpenter

Pastor and author Brian McLaren discusses art, propaganda, and the worship industry.

h/t to Marcel over at Re-inventing the Adventist Wheel.

Ultimate prior claim

By Pastor James Coffin

From the Orlando Sentinel:

   May 31, 2007

   In  her Sunday column "Peering Through a Glass Half-Full, Darkly," Kathleen Parker lists among her "less-happy" statistics about American Muslims that 60 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds consider themselves to be Muslim first and American second. But is that really a problem?

   Oh, I recognize that at first blush it might seem scary to have people in our midst who openly admit that national loyalty isn't their ultimate priority -- that they have other, higher considerations.

   But wait a minute. Don't we often admire people whose moral/spiritual values leave them to some degree at odds with the rest of U.S. culture? I mean, don't we actually feel a sense of pride knowing that in the United States a Quaker can be a pacifist -- even though pacifism isn't the cultural norm, and even though many Americans think pacifism is a crackpot idea?

   The point is, Quakers are pacifists because they place a higher importance on their moral/spiritual values than on America's majority norms. In fact, religion, by its very nature, stakes a prior claim on one's loyalty.

   One of the radical aspects of early Christianity was its disregard of the nationalistic, gender and socioeconomic traditions that had long held sway. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," says the apostle Paul. For those early Christians, a new moral/spiritual value system took prior claim over existing cultural practices.

   I would suggest that in an ideal world, 100 percent of the citizenry would place their sense of moral/spiritual obligation ahead of their sense of nationalistic obligation. And I'm not talking just about Christians. I'm talking about Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims.

   I'm not even talking solely about religions. I'm talking about any moral ideology that governs our individual lives and by which we as individuals evaluate the morality of our national culture and the actions of our government. So atheistic morality is included in this list of value definers.

   Our country was founded on the belief that there are certain "unalienable rights" that don't come and go at majority whim. Certain freedoms and certain values are transcendent.

   Our Constitution declares that our nation's citizens have a right to live their lives on the basis of the transcendent values to which they subscribe -- unless the collective national interest is so compelling that conformity must be forced. Our nation's founders seem to assume that forced conformity would be rare, but that it can and should be implemented if a true need arises. So there are safeguards.

   The real threat to the United States isn't that 60 percent of a certain religious group acknowledge a prior claim on their loyalty. Rather, it's the danger that the rest of us might forget that such a prior claim should exist for everyone.

James N. Coffin, senior pastor of the Markham Woods Church of Seventh-day Adventists.

Religion: choose it or lose it?

Guest essay by Elaine Nelson

The Gospel Commission commands all Christian believers to go and make disciples and baptize them.

When this was written there were only two classes of people:  pagans or Jews.  The pagans or "barbarians" were those who had not yet been converted. During most of Christendom's history there were few atheists who dared to make their lack of faith known.  The constant fear of Hell was a deterrent to anyone during the Middle Ages and beyond, and no one dared express doubts about its existence.  Apart from Judaism, and after Constantine legalized it, Christianity was the only religion in the civilized West.

During the early period of the Reformation, a mayor or prince who ruled over a designated city chose the religion that would be practiced therein: either Lutheranism or Catholicism; there was no individual religious freedom. Salvation was a decision blessed and guaranteed by the church if adherence to its teachings were faithfully followed.

Following the Protestant reformation in the mid-sixteenth century, many reformers arose and became most effective in gaining followers, particularly in northern Europe and the Low Countries. Luther's compelling doctrine of justification by faith for the first time allowed individual believers to be accepted by faith on their personal belief and no longer practice the former rituals demanded of the Church. 

It was not until the mid-sixteenth century that the Church began internal reforms with doctrinal definitions, disciplinary and organizational reforms, now known as the Counter-Reformation.  It became necessary to clarify and define Catholic orthodoxy, the relationship of scripture to tradition, the sacraments, and other doctrines.  These were some of the positions that were designated for study at the Council of Trent in 1545, to seek the "extirpation of heresies and the reform of morals." 

Heretofore, there had been no countervailing doctrines and the Church had been the only arbiter of beliefs and practices.  The Reformation forced it to declare both orthodoxy and heresy and the importance and place of the sacraments in the believer's life.  This was a drastic change from the previous millennium when there had been only one form of Christianity:  Roman Catholicism.  Now there were multiple "heresies" springing up and gaining followers throughout the Church that forced it to establish its doctrines and deal with the apostasy of large groups, even whole cities, to some of these new religious beliefs.

The founders and settlers of the North American continent immigrated to this new country hoping to enjoy freedoms not allowed in the countries they left behind.  Some fled their countries because of religious persecution and looked for a place where there would be freedom to believe as they wished.  Like their previous persecutors, it was not long until they soon developed religious intolerance with rules that were enforced by public shame and even worse. 

Today, in most of the so-called Christian world, there is freedom of choice in religion that was never enjoyed by most Christians in earlier centuries.  One may choose among a wide range of churches affiliated with a denomination, attend and join a non-denominational church; or none.  There is no fear or shame in not believing or practicing any religion, and unlike the experience of our ancestors; one can be an agnostic, or even an atheist, openly, with little derision.  There is both freedom of religion and freedom from religion, if one so chooses.  What is often overlooked is that the religious belief of most people was chosen by their parents even before they were born; much as it was a choice of the community in which our ancestors lived hundreds of years earlier.  We do not choose our parents; did we freely choose our religion, or was it largely their decision?

When discussing religion or spirituality with a friend, wouldn't you wonder why she wanted to persuade you to become a Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, or some other belief?  Should they expect less of us about Christianity?  Should we not be able to offer the benefits and advantages of Christianity if we truly believe it is the only path to eternal salvation?

Before we speak to someone about Christianity, we should ask ourselves these questions:

Do I truly believe that everyone should be a Christian? And an Adventist?

Adventist spirituality?

By Alexander Carpenter

From Sabbath school discussions to blog comments, there's no doubt that Adventism involves dialectic and debate. Rooted in the rationalism of modernity, with prominent heretics known for doubting this or that belief, many a conversation devolves into questions of hermeneutics or rhetoric with little attention to Near-Eastern languages, ferreting out footnotes, cultural analysis, or even checking out a monograph or two.

Most debates never get to epistemological assumptions. How do our texts, traditions, experience and our reason represent meaning? Of course it is essential to have these conversations as humans to share information, to broaden awareness, to grow faith. But all too often it seems that doctrinal or theological debate has to carry most of the burden for defining our faith and we are left with the unbalanced presumption that what someone believes tells us how spiritual they are.

Let's face it, Adventism sucks at spirituality. We understand the import of the "what" of doctrine, and we increasingly hone the "how" --from keeping the Sabbath to helping the poor. But where's the "why?" 

In other words, what is Adventist spirituality? It often seems that we are Adventists because of beliefs or culture, but are there good spiritual reasons to be Adventist too?

Of course one can argue that spirituality transcends particular religions, but it seems to me that while we rush to debate over the true understanding of say, the investigative judgment or creation, we often don't stop to ask what a particular belief means for our spiritual health.

It's clear how our doctrines function. They are cultural markers, like clothes or language. If someone expresses doubts about a literal six-day creation, it's fair to ask how that impacts their Sabbath-keeping or their ecology. But outside of emotional displays, it's hard to tell someone's spiritual state.  And frankly it doesn't seem that our institutional leaders seem very concerned. As long as I pay tithe, go to church on Sabbath and call myself an Adventist, do our leaders have a vested interest in promoting anything deeper than the old mantra about "relationship with God." Every relationship I have is with people in the flesh. At least for me, GOD is a bit more profound than a friend or a lover. Humans require more than relationships, we need spirituality.

Perhaps more experiential sermons on spirituality. Applied to being an Adventist, a Christian, and a humane being. We need more plain reading of scripture in church. We need more silence. Sabbath schools should to be less about opining about the truth and more about finding the meaning of it as a group. This year I've had the chance to practice lectio divina with other Christians. By letting the passage sit in silence and repetition the texts take on richer meaning.

I recently read this from Albert Schweitzer:

One realizes that he is but a speck of dust, a plaything of events outside his reach. Nevertheless, he may at the same time discover that he has a certain liberty, as long as he lives. Sometime or another all of us must have found that happy events have not been able to make us happy, nor unhappy events to make us unhappy. There is within each of us a modulation, an inner exaltation, which lifts us above the buffetings with which events assail us. Likewise, it lifts us above dependence upon the gifts of events for our joy. Hence, our dependence upon events is not absolute; it is qualified by our spiritual freedom. Therefore, when we speak of resignation it is not sadness to which we refer, but the triumph of our will-to-live our whatever happens to us. And to become ourselves, to be spiritually alive, we must have passed beyond this point of resignation ("The Ethics of Reverence for Life," Christendom, 229).

It is not merely that Paul was the first to champion the rights of thought in Christianity; he has also shown it, for all time, the way it was to go. His great achievement was to grasp, as the thing essential to being a Christian, the experience of union with Christ. Out of the depths of the expectation of the Messiah and of the Messianic world this thought wells up in him, a thought to which expression had already been given by Jesus when He spoke of the mystery of the consecration of believers through fellowship with the unrecognized future Messiah who was dwelling among them. By penetrating to the depths of the temporarily conditioned, Paul wins his way to a spiritual result of permanent value. . . . So we too should claim the right to conceive the idea of union with Jesus on the lines of our won world-view, making it our sole concern to reach the depth of the truly living and spiritual truth (The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 377ff).

And this is what's occurred to me: Not only do we need to pursue spiritual depth for ourselves, but it moves us beyond the old left/right ideological divides of the church. For of course the doctrinal, the social, and the spiritual are interrelated. And the Truth is revealed and remixed in all three.

In fact, I think that the spiritual is what saves us - individuals and communities - from destroying ourselves. It's easy for liberals to prioritize social action and for conservatives to focus on doctrines. I think that spirituality is what helps both sides balance out. This common meaning occurs, not by focusing on the other side, but by looking inward and BEYOND.

Now I wonder, Where can we emphasize the spiritual in Adventism?