Why I am a Progressive Seventh-day Adventist

The following article is cross posted on the Features section of Atoday.com

Why I am a Progressive Seventh-day Adventist; Am I a Dreamer or just a Fool

Several years ago I wrote an article for Adventist Today on the differences between Traditional Seventh-day Adventists (TSDA’s) and Progressive Seventh-day Adventists (PSDA’s)[1]. The question that is still often asked of me is why, if I don’t agree with the TSDA’s views, I am still an SDA. That question is not restricted to being asked by the TSDA’s; it is asked by former Adventists and even other PSDA’s. To most it appears that the default position of Adventism is the TSDA viewpoint. Frankly I ask myself the question far too often.

When you look at the things the TSDA’s believe it is easy to see that there are significant areas of disagreement. My description of a PSDA was:

--A differing view of what the Investigative Judgment is or acknowledgment that the Investigative Judgment is not Biblical. (And as such a differing view of Christ Activities from His ascension to His Second Coming.)

--An inclusion of other Christians into the category termed the "Remnant".

--A less rigid understanding of the role of Ellen G. White, ranging from acknowledging that she was not always correct in her teaching and understanding to the denial of Prophet status.

--The Seventh day Sabbath is for our benefit, true Christians can and do worship on Sunday and it is not now, or latter, to become the Mark of the Beast, or the Seventh day Sabbath to be the Seal of God.

Those things are but a small part of my differences with TSDA’s but then many of my concerns would be differences with many other Christian denominations. I would have a problem with the literalism of the Genesis stories of Creation and the Flood, huge problems with the ideas of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible and major disagreements with the Penal/Substitution theory of Atonement. Right there I have disagreed with two points of the five points that made up Fundamentalism at the beginning of the 1900’s. Between 1910 and 1915 The Fundamentals [2] were published as a twelve tract publication, there appears to be some wording differences between sources but the fundamentals amount to these: 1. Literal inerrancy of the autographs (the original manuscripts of each scriptural book). 2. Christ's virgin birth, the deity of Christ. 3. Substitutionary Atonement (Also known as: Vicarious Atonement, Penal Atonement). 4. The bodily resurrection of Christ. 5.The bodily return of Christ and alternatively in some lists the authenticity of Christ's miracles.[3] With such a powerful document refuting modernism and higher criticism it is little wonder that the Adventist church plunged into fundamentalism from the early part of the twentieth century. Yet Adventism today does not teach the inerrancy of Scripture or the idea of verbal inspiration. Even though if you look at the beliefs of many Churches in your community you will often find this idea included in the churches belief statements. The Adventist church also rejects the idea of eternal torment of the wicked in Hell. You can see that just with these two issues Adventism has some real advantages.

Unlike many denominations the Adventist church has had to deal with the idea of inspiration in ways that most Christians don’t have to consider. Adventists grew up with the idea of Ellen White as a prophet. What does it mean to have a nineteenth century prophet, how does inspiration work? Ellen White is someone who borrowed a good deal of information and said it was from God. Someone who thought the coming of Christ was mere months away, who at one time believed the door of salvation was shut. She predicted that some people present at an 1856 conference would be translated, some would go through the seven last plagues and some would just die. The myth of the all powerful and all knowing prophet was dashed along with the idea of verbal inspiration. Now whether she was or was not a prophet is still debated but what it did to Adventism was to open our minds to ways that God could work rather than merely holding to the fundamentalist tradition.

As a Progressive SDA I am the byproduct of all that information and experience, the questions raised and the methods employed to arrive at answers. What I have found is that the answers don’t always work and there is a whole range of opinions on a whole range of subjects. My Adventist heritage taught me I don’t have to accept what someone says Christianity is. I can examine and study and come to my own conclusions. In fact that heritage makes it incumbent on me to try and search harder for what works and what the truth really is. The Adventist church even has remained active in the exchange of ideas in Sabbath School classes when many Churches have abandoned the practice in favor of passive acceptance of the words of their pastor’s sermons. As a PSDA I value the Sabbath School time more than any other aspect of corporate worship service. Because done well the class is an opportunity to grow and reason together in a world that has become more separate and isolated and in many things even resistant to the effort of reasoning.

However as a Progressive SDA I am on a tightrope that is rapidly vibrating as the Traditional Adventists shake the rope with claims that are to my mind truly destructive. Such things as Last Generation Perfection with it suggestion that Jesus laid aside His divinity to live as a man with the same tendencies to sin as we have so that He showed us what we must do in the last generation: live a perfect life without sin. That touches on so many issues: Legalism, the nature of Jesus Christ, the reason for God incarnate, the nature of God, the idea of the trinity – which many traditional SDA’s try to redefine closer to tri-theism with the One meaning the three are united in purpose rather then in substance.

So the balance on the tightrope is constantly being challenged. Does Adventism offer enough reasons to stay? Are there other churches, which even though they have what I consider incorrect and illogical doctrines, that have less repugnant doctrines then what Traditional Adventism puts forth? The Adventist church leadership allows the semi-Arian view of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of Last Generation Perfection and other ideas because they don’t want to rock the theological boat in which many members reside. That tolerance could be said to exist for the Progressive Adventists also to some degree. Diversity has advantages as well as disadvantages.

The hope of Progressive Adventists is to take what we have learned and create a better church, first at the local level and working up. The problem is that we have no organization, no established presence in our local churches. Many of our local churches have Progressive Adventist led Sabbath School classes but they are not advertised as such. Progressive Adventist dominated churches are few and far between and again not advertised as such. Within the last year I have seen an Adventist minister leave the SDA church because he could no longer accept the Investigative Judgment doctrine. Progressive Adventists have for a long time rejected the Investigative Judgment doctrine but because we live under the radar, we hide from identification in our local churches. Progressive Adventists in leadership positions have had to leave the denomination rather than live as practicing Progressive Adventists. Frequently I receive requests from people asking if there are any Progressive Adventists in their area, I rarely have a satisfactory answer to give them.

If we don’t do something soon we will be hanging by our fingertips on the tightrope and in that uncomfortable position we will not remain Adventist long. We either must make our stand away from the tightrope or jump off. I suggest we make the stand at the local church level by starting Progressive Sabbath School classes with an internet publication of an index of Progressive Adventists classes. A simple beginning, a simple way to network, but if we can’t accomplish even the simplest objectives then it is past time to jump. The objection may be that by saying we are Progressive Adventists we will alienate some church members; we won’t be able to gently sway them into more progressive ideas. Yet with no organization and no real Progressive Adventist structure to gently sway them to, we gently push them out on the tightrope that we can barely stand.

To this end I have created a website http://progsda.blogspot.com to begin the creation of a Progressive Adventist Network. If you facilitate or are a member of a Progressive Sabbath School Class or would like to connect with other Progressive Adventist email progsda@yahoo.com

---

[1] http://www.atoday.com/magazine/2002/11/progressive-and-traditional-adventists-examined

[2] http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/fundamentals/index.html

[3] http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl050006.htm Definition of Fundamentalism given by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976

“A Fundamentalist is a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who--
1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired Bible.
2. Believes that whatever the Bible says is so.
3. Judges all things by the Bible and is judged only by the Bible.
4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith: The doctrine of the Trinity; the incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and glorious ascension, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ; the new birth through regeneration by the Holy Spirit; the resurrection of the saints to life eternal; the resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death; the fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ.
5. Practices fidelity to that Faith and endeavors to preach it to every creature.
6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth.
7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.”

Dr. Jonathan Gallagher's forced resignation

A sad day for the credibility of Adventism. Today the General Conference released the following statement according to Adventist Today

Official General Conference Response to Dr. Gallagher Accusations

Official Response from the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

July 24, 2008, Silver Spring, Maryland

In recent days, a number of documents have been circulated by email that we understand originated from Dr. Jonathan Gallagher regarding his perspective on his leaving employment with the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. In light of the nature of employment matters, the General Conference is restrained from sharing details regarding such matters. However, because of accusations made by Dr. Gallagher, we want to be clear that actions by Dr. Gallagher regarding his travel raised questions of his significant use of Church funds for personal purposes. These matters were investigated thoroughly by General Conference Administration, including significant communications with Dr. Gallagher's legal counsel, resulting in a recommendation to terminate Dr. Gallagher’s employment with the Church.

Less than three days before the meeting of the General Conference Executive Committee called to decide this matter, Dr. Gallagher submitted a letter of resignation in which he qualified his resignation indicating that the allegations made against him were not true. After a thorough review of the facts, the General Conference Executive Committee voted to acknowledge receipt of Dr. Gallagher’s letter of resignation and ended his employment with the church effective immediately. The conditions raised in his resignation letter were not acceptable to the General Conference. Subsequently an “Executive Summary” of the allegations and actions taken by the General Conference which was prepared by Dr. Gallagher’s attorneys has been circulated by Dr. Gallagher or others on his behalf. The General Conference has reviewed the documents and statements being circulated and states that the document does not reflect the accuracy of supporting documents relied on by the General Conference to arrive at its decision and is not based on the facts accumulated, verified and reviewed by the General Conference Administration and General Conference Executive Committee.

The General Conference and its Administration wish Dr. Gallagher well in whatever his new pursuits may be.

Dr. Gallagher appears to have circulated his evidence in regard to the charges via and executive summary by his attorneys, Ziprick & Cramer, LLP on July 8, 2008, at one point in the article it states:

“…In looking through such materials, all of which were submitted well after the first deadline for a response of April 28, 2008, Dr. Gallagher’s expert and Ms. Cramer both discovered that the times and dates available in which Dr. Gallagher was being accused of downloading and viewing pornography were in fact between 7/5/07 and 7/11/07, all dates and times during which Dr. Gallagher was either preparing or teaching at Pine Knoll with others present. Based upon this discovery, it became very clear that Dr. Gallagher was being attacked by the G.C. as the teacher at Pine Knoll, and that just as distressingly, even Pine Knoll or its class attendees were being implicated.

My first thought at hearing about this was that this is very likely the result of some General Conference leaders antagonism toward the theology produced by Pine Knoll, particularly through their free production of Sabbath School lessons with a focus upon the so called “Larger View” a theological view whose major offense is that it is not the Penal/Substitutionary view of the Atonement.

I have thought for some time that Dr. Gallagher’s position as UN representative for the Adventist Church was largely a drain on Adventist resources though in bureaucratic terms it probably gave a bit of cachet to the Adventist church and Dr. Gallagher certainly was capable of giving the best appearance possible to the Adventist church. The sad fact is that it is very easy for an organization to force someone out of employment when employees are hired and fired “at will” and even if one fights the organization and wins, which is less likely unless the case is somehow racial or sexual discrimination, as a place to work it will usually never be a comfortable again. Under such circumstances it is often best to do as Dr. Gallagher did and submit his resignation.

The attorney’s article conclusion reads as follows:

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Z&C provided multiple Reports to the G.C. of evidence clearing Dr. Gallagher of the outrageous and ludicrous charges alleged against him. There is no question that if Dr. Gallagher had intended to defraud the G.C. and/or the donors, he certainly could have done it in a much more plausible manner. Instead, what Dr. Gallagher did was comply with his job description, give credit to the SDA Church for its desire to work in the area of Religious Freedom and Liberty, worked tirelessly to assist the U.N. in helping peoples who were denied their Religion Freedoms in foreign countries, and set about working to bring the right to worship God to those who are deprived of practicing such right. Unfortunately, what Dr. Gallagher got for his service, dedication and effort in the area of religious freedom were absurd and false charges of defrauding the very entity which he was committed to serving. There was no due process in this matter whatsoever. Due process affords one an opportunity to address and confront his accuser and it allows for an unbiased review of the charges by someone other than the accuser serving as judge and jury. At best, this was a kangaroo court designed for and intended to discredit the credentials of Dr. Gallagher and to persecute him for exercising his own religious beliefs by the G.C. Administration for his involvement in teaching Sabbath School Classes in Redlands.

In case there is any question regarding Dr. Gallagher’s behavior as it relates to the SDA Church and his fulfillment of his job duties and responsibilities, Z&C stands firm in its documented position that in any legitimate organization, Dr. Gallagher’s name would have been cleared and the G.C.’s efforts to disgrace and defame him as well as his involvement with Pine Knoll would have resulted in a clear victory for Dr. Gallagher and sanctions against the accusers.

God With Us, Allegory and Matthew

Our Lesson Study Guide for this week begins with something very similar to that immortal line from Blazing Saddles: We don’t need not stinking Higher Criticism. You don’t believe…well ok here is what they said:

As Adventists, we work from the starting point that the Bible is the Word of God and that what it says about Jesus is the truth, period. We do not have the time to waste on all the nonsensical high-critical speculations about whether Jesus really said and did the things the Bible says that He said and did. As Adventists we believe those things because they are written in God's Word.

After all, if we cannot believe the Bible, what can we believe?

I sincerely hope that quote raises the hackles of most educated and most educators in the SDA church. Such circular reasoning is poor logic, The Bible does not claim to be the Word of God, it could not it was put together from various books written and various times compiled by human beings. Even if it did, say Hosea said somewhere in the book that it was the word of God that would not make the second half of Isaiah the word of God, or any other book. In fact the second half of Isaiah towards the end says we will go out from Sabbath To Sabbath, new Moon to new Moon and look at the corpses.

"And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." (Isa 66:24 NIV)

Maybe the lesson only means it is the Word of God where it records things about Jesus? In which case the book of Matthew gives an account that is contrary to the account of the book of Luke. Luke says Jesus’ family left for Nazareth after the ritual in Jerusalem (Luke 2:39) this does not allow much wiggle room to have them go to Egypt after the Magi’s visit. The NIV study Bible notes says that the Magi probably arrived months after the Birth, but as per Luke the family would no longer be in Bethlehem. Luke has nothing about Jesus’ family going to Egypt in fact it says they went to Nazareth from Jerusalem. Luke has nothing of threatened children, the book uses none of the out of context verses which the book of Matthew does.

“where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." …"A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." (Matt 2:15,18 NIV)

Here is where higher criticism comes in, what is the author trying to say and what are the techniques he uses to get his message across. We see that in the book of Matthew, at least in the first several chapters, an intentional literary device employed. The book tries to recapitulate the events of ancient Israel in the life of Jesus Christ. But there also seems to be a recurring theme if we look a little deeper at the verses that the author of Matthew uses. In the following verses the section used in Matthew are highlighted in bold.

The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 NIV)

The book of Matthew’s use of this verse is often only considered to be a prophecy of Christ. Even though there is no place other then Matthew that calls Jesus Immanuel. However it is not to the name Immanuel that Matthew wants to draw attention, it is to the idea of what the name means, “God with us”. In fact it was the idea of “God with us” that Isaiah had presented to the Israelites hundreds of years before. In our ardor to insist upon Immanuel as a Messianic Prophecy we often ignore the repetition Isaiah uses of the terms with the meaning of “God with us”. Besides the reference in Isaiah 7:14 he precedes to use it two more times:

And sweep on into Judah, swirling over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck. Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, O Immanuel!" Isaiah 8:8

Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us. (Isaiah 8:10 NIV)

God is with us is Isaiah’s words of comfort to a people about to suffer a major defeat by their enemies. And even when the enemies appear to be winning God notes that even the purposes of the enemy will not stand because God is with his people. So like the sign to Ahaz, the child born is a reminder that “God is with us”, though bad may come, God will not abandon his people, He does not leave them alone. In the echoes of Immanuel we see that though the people may have failed in their covenant with God, God has not nor will He fail. For we see an inherent promise of hope in Isaiah.

In the book of Matthew the author has taken this hope, this certainty of God with us and applied it to the person of Jesus Christ. Not because Jesus was to literally be named Immanuel and not even because of a virgin birth but because Jesus Christ was now seen as truly “God with us”. Remember the author is writing after all the events in Christ’s life had happened. He is going back in time to state his case as to why this Jesus is the Messiah. In some ways the book of Matthew is very much like the book of John. When they both begin to tell about the person of Jesus they both tell us that it is God with us, Matthew by means of Immanuel and John by means of the Logos, the Word become flesh.

After the proclamation of the good news that God is with us Matthew moves on to the recapitulation of the Messiah with Israel or some say Moses.

"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them. (Hosea 11:1-4 NIV)

Herod’s death decree against baby boys reminds us of the death decree Egypt inflicted upon the children of Israel in slavery "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." ((Exodus 1:16). NIV)

Like the miraculous deliverance of Moses, Jesus is delivered from Herod’s evil also. Matthew then quotes Jeremiah 31:15-17 to show the sorrow of the people under Herod’s decree.

“ Then maidens will dance and be glad, young men and old as well. I will turn their mourning into gladness; I will give them comfort and joy instead of sorrow. 14 I will satisfy the priests with abundance, and my people will be filled with my bounty," declares the LORD. 15 This is what the LORD says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more." 16 This is what the LORD says: "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded," declares the LORD. "They will return from the land of the enemy. 17 So there is hope for your future," declares the LORD. "Your children will return to their own land. (NIV)

The verses in Jeremiah are referring to the exile of Israel and once again while the people must suffer the exile, God has promised relief, they are not abandoned, they can say, “God is with us”. While the verse in Jeremiah has nothing to do with Egypt or Herod’s decree Matthew has changed its setting to reflect the story he is telling. The story being told may has a much deeper meaning than a recitation of history. All the verses he has used reflect in their original context the healing and deliverance God offers. Matthew is a book that presents us with this Messiah, the anointed one who delivers his people from sin and its consequences.

The book of Matthew then moves a step farther then we today can comprehend. …and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene.”. (Matthew 2:23 NIV)

Since there is no Old Testament reference like this it may be that the author was using an expression of scorn used against the Messiah. Such as that expressed by Nathanael:

"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked. "Come and see," said Philip. (John 1:46 NIV)

Conceptually there may be some places which could offer the author the incentive to make the statement. Certainly the ancient history of Israel is filled with Israel’s scorn of the things of God.

But Matthew’s failure to reference something in the Old Testament while stating it was something said through the prophets is perhaps the key to unfolding Matthew’s intent in the second chapter of Matthew. The history might not be accurate, but the concepts are what the author found most important. The Messiah has come, God with us, the deliverer miraculously inserting Himself into mankind’s world. The precious pure gold of God presented to a world that would kill its very savior. So in the book of Matthew the author tells us of the myrrh given to child, an aromatic resin used for the preparation of a corpse for burial. The gift of incense, the sweet fragrance that for centuries was used in the worship of God, even the gifts of the Magi have deeper meanings.

Matthew 2 is not the simplistic story I was indoctrinated to believe. It is a piece of in depth literature with more allegorical substance then history. But then isn’t that the way of so much of the Bible. Literature, poetry, Chiastic Structure, and analogy all and more find themselves used within the Bible. Human creativity and God given inspiration can create amazing things. Yet we can in our excitement of discovery often trample all over what was written in our haste to explain what our tradition has taught us; leaving us to ignore the deeper thoughts and explaining contradictions by saying; “well those things were not important to that author.”

Paul and the Post Moderns

Post modern people are characterized by asking questions, Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally felt they have the answers. Why then are not Post Modern Americans rushing to visit Seventh-day Adventist churches?

I somehow got on a mailing list for a company selling banners and signs to churches. One of the featured pre-made signs was something to the effect of “you have questions, we have answers”. I have yet to see any of the local churches here using that sign but I am certain that many churches think that they indeed have the answers. The Lesson study for this week is about how Paul dealt with the culture of his time and established Christian congregations. How similar is Post Modern America to the culture of Paul’s day? The lesson for Tuesday July 8 states:

“One of Paul's most well-known missionary endeavors occurred in Athens, home of some of the world's greatest philosophers of antiquity, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. And yet, how interesting: Even with all the philosophy and all its appeals to reason and logic, the city was still "wholly given to idolatry" (Acts 17:16). What a testimony to how, in the end, philosophy cannot answer basic human needs. “

Consider that Socrates was tried for “corrupting the youth and disbelieving in the ancestral gods.”[1] It is not too likely that such a charge would be made against the philosophers of this age whether in the form of Rap/Rock music, TV, books or straight out philosophers, though other then a few atheists it is unlikely we could even name a current philosopher. Instead our lesson study would have been more accurate in saying it is a testimony to the time when superstition was more believable than reason. Today reason is often subjected to popularity; popularity being dictated by the media at least for many of our nation.

While Paul is a good case study in getting things done he is of another time and place. The here and now and the tomorrow will call for different methods to reach a very different people. In America we are not unfamiliar with Christianity or Christian concepts. The majority believe in a heaven (76%) for the people who live good lives and a hell (71%)[2] for those who live bad lives. That is clearly a wonderful sociological tool to get people to live together hopefully trying to be good. At least until we determine what it is to live a good life versus a bad life, I would not want to try and do a poll on that question (only half of 1% think they are headed for hell).

The lesson for Wednesday says:

“Paul understood that before we can lead people to where we want them to be we must first meet them where they are. That means focusing on their needs, their interests-and shaping our message in a way that connects with them. This does not mean watering down the message. It is just an issue of communication-talking to people in terms and in language they can understand.”

Is our Adventist Christianity focusing on people’s needs and interests or have we determined that our so called “distinctives” cannot be “watered down”? My guess is that this is one of the biggest sticking points in the Adventist church leadership that prevents us from reaching people’s needs and interests. People need a connection with others and acceptance and respect as well as an opportunity to grow in understanding as they and we search for truth and relevance in our lives. If we assume that another Christian is nominal or Apostate because he or she worships God on a different day then we do, how are we going to relate to them on more important issues such as the character of God. Because that is really what it is all about, not our distictives whatever they may be whether health issues or apocalyptic interpretations. Our goal has to be to declare the beauty of God that is revealed through Jesus Christ. We are all probably poor imitators of the love and acceptance that Jesus Christ revealed which is why it is so important that we point to Him. Yet to reach the post modern world we have to reach out in friendship to them, not with the attitude that we have all the answers but that we have one answer, Jesus Christ. That one answer is reasonable because of what it can lead to in people’s lives.

Before the Post moderns come beating down our doors we will need to have churches that create friendships, within the church first spreading outward. Well maybe that is not so different from Paul’s day as they really did work to create a community that looked after each other. As much as some things change some things still remain the same.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates

[2] http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=150

Ellen White and Henry Melvill

From  The Inspired and Inspiring Ellen White, Part 1: 1982 in Historical Perspective by Arthur Patrick:

One of the most important areas of study focused on Ellen G. White's extensive recourse to the writings of other authors. The White Estate has reconstructed carefully the titles of some of the books she used in "A Bibliography of Ellen G. White's Private and Office Libraries," a 50-page document. A 46-page pamphlet "E. G. White's Literary Work: An Update" gives a popular introduction to this subject as it is now understood. A comprehensive example of Ellen White's approach was examined in an 85-page document. "Henry Melvill and Ellen G. White: A Study in Literary and Theological Relationships." Articles from Adventist Review of 17 September 1981http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/whitelie.html#study were distributed in a reprint under the title, "Was Ellen G. White a Plagiarist?" An appeal was made for assistance by competent and dedicated researchers in the large work yet remaining to be done before we can fully understand and interpret the details of this subject, even though the major outlines are evident.

In the online document The Truth About The White Lie prepared by the staff of the Ellen G. White Estate in cooperation with the Biblical Research Institute and the Ministerial Association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists first published in 1982 and revised in January 1999. The end section called "For Further Study" contains the following indication of publications to come:

[Note: Documents below marked with a double asterisk (**) were available at the time of this paper's publication in 1981 but are no longer in print. However, they are being prepared for on-line viewing at this site.]

One of the articles mentioned is the following:

**"Henry Melvill and Ellen G. White: A Study in Literary and Theological Relationships." An interim report on a cooperative study project undertaken by Ron Graybill, Warren H. Johns, and Tim Poirier, in which Ellen White's selective use of Anglican clergyman Henry Melvill's book of sermons is examined. 107 pp.

Why has it taken nearly 10 years to provide this document online? I can’t answer for the White Estate but I think it is because the document is pretty powerful in showing that Ellen White was heavily indebted to Henry Melvill for both language and very likely some of her theological ideas. True she did not use all of Melvill’s ideas but then the reality is that few of us use all the theological ideas of another person no matter how much we agree or admire their work.

In hope of spurring the White Estate to release their proposed online documents I am going to post a link to a searchable PDF of “Henry Melvill and Ellen G. White: A Study in Literary and Theological Relationships”. (new host free account unsure how long it will be up. Linked 4-17-25 make a comment and I will renew the link)

It is interesting to read the first section of the book which contains information about Melvill and opinions by the authors of their faith in Ellen White as a prophet. They however do acknowledge her use of Melvill, something that still seems to be hard for many SDA's to accept.

Only faith can say it was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit rather than mere common sense which enabled Ellen White to choose the best and leave the rest of Melvill, but choose she did, using some ser­mons, ignoring others, picking some thoughts and passing others by. She moved back and forth within sermons, weaving Melvill's thoughts and words together with the thoughts and words of other authors as well as her own into a fabric distinctly different from his.

...

We will continue this study so as to analyze Melvill's theology more thoroughly to compare and con­trast It more helpfully with Ellen White's, and to place Melvlll more firmly within the context of his own church's development. Finally, Melvlll will take his place along with other authors Ellen White used as we attempt to define the genre of Christian literature on which she most commonly drew.

The Dark Side of the Second Coming?

My title is taken from this weeks Lesson study guide ( Tuesday June 24), the subject title for the week however is “His Return as King and Friend”. The dark side it appears, being similar to what happens when a group of home invaders in the midst of their pillaging are surprised by a SWAT team’s arrival with tear gas and guns. The criminals fun brought to a sudden end while the victims are filled with joy at the sight of their saviors.

I have never been good at predicting the future, I am part of a church who has one of the worst records of predicting the future yet that has not stopped them. Maybe it should but we all love to predict the future, after all the Bible gives us indications. The lesson study guide mentioned the Left Behind series, which aside from the pre-tribulation rapture is probably the most literal of interpretations of the book of Revelation you can get. I am quite sure that their vision of the future is just as mistaken as ours however. What if we played with the idea that the second coming does not have a dark side?

There are two ways that I can see this happening. One is universalism. That is the idea that God will save everyone from Hitler to Mother Teresa. After all we are all born into a defective world with defective characters, as much as some of us may want to deny it we love to sin it feeds something insatiable inside us. Not really our fault we were born into this world and it is no hardship for God to change us into people that want to be with Him. I have to admit I like that idea, but then it has some Bible verses that go against it. (Dan 12:2, 2 Thess 1:9, Rev 20:15)

The second way is found in the concept revealed in such verses as Matthew 24, where people’s love has turned cold and if not for God cutting short time with His second coming no flesh would survive (Matt 24:22). What would it be like to be in a world so filled with violence where there was no love and people were fainting for fear. The Second Coming would then be a relief even if you hated God. Rather like the welcome release of death after a painful sickness. But then we have verses such as where people cry for the rocks to fall on them. (Rev 6:16) We also have verses where life seems to be going on completely normally (Mat 24:37-47).

The Left Behind theory references troublesome verses to refer to different events. Such as Matt 24:37-47 being about the pre-tribulation rapture and verses about troubled times being right before the second coming. We as Adventist have some similar traditions. For instance Ellen White speaks Matt 24:42-44 as not being about the Second Coming but about the leaving of the second apartment in heaven.

“Jesus has left us word: “Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the Master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: lest coming suddenly He find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.” We are waiting and watching for the return of the Master, who is to bring the morning, lest coming suddenly He find us sleeping. What time is here referred to? Not to the revelation of Christ in the clouds of heaven to find a people asleep. No; but to His return from His ministration in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, when He lays off His priestly attire and clothes Himself with garments of vengeance, and when the mandate goes forth: “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, 1885 page 190

Ellen White quotes Mark 13:35 The verse certainly contextually seems to be talking about the Second Coming Mark 13:26-37:

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’” (NIV)

It is a parallel to verse Matt 24:42 (NIV) “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.

It seems that we Christians can be very elastic in what we believe regarding future events. Could it also be possible that the Second Coming may not have a dark side even for non believers? Could it be that God is King and Friend to even those who despise Him, like Jesus on the cross forgiving those who tortured and killed Him? If the Gospel is really the Good News about God can the Second Coming really have a dark side? As I said I don’t predict the future too well, but maybe if I was to play that game…

“Don’t ask me for the answers, I’ve only got one that a man leaves his darkness when he follows the Son.” - Larry Norman, The Great American Novel 1973

To reach youth, do we know what we think we know

Sometimes I wonder about the understanding of those who write for the Adventist Review. Here is an excerpt from a recent column by Kimberly Luste Maran entitled With the Times Knowing our youth is vital to ministry She begins by relating the following:

Adventists are not the only ones that are sometimes behind the times.¹ Earlier this month I heard a radio commercial for a major chain store informing listeners that the retailer had lots of dresses this season for young women (for prom, graduation, etc.). The gimmick was a reporter interviewing a girl in the juniors’ department trying to decide between two dresses. The teen mentions to the male reporter that she’s surprised to find so many dresses all in one place and then basically says, “When I get home tonight, I’m totally going to IM all my friends.”

Ouch! In trying to be down (or up, if you prefer) with the lingo, those responsible for this dialogue blundered—especially if they are really trying to get teens into the store.

Many of you, I’m afraid, won’t understand the gaff in the commercial. And that’s part of the problem.

What is the gaff? According to Maran it is this:

But I do know enough to know that in our living-in-the-moment, 
I-want-it-now popular culture no person under 20 would wait to tell friends about something they think is cool and important, and they likely wouldn’t use a computer-generated instant message.

Apparently everyone uses phone texting in Maran’s world. This may actually reflect more about her being influenced by commercials then actual statistics. According to the AP-AOL Instant Messaging Trends Survey even with the increase in cell phone text messaging computer generated IM are still more common. The key to debunking the columnist supposed gaff is found in the following from the AP-AOL survey.

Multi-tasking remains very popular, as IM users tend to engage in multiple online activities while sending instant messages. Checking email is the most popular activity among eight in ten adult and teen IM users. After email, adult IM users most often conduct online searches (49 percent), while teens say they like to research homework assignments online (57 percent).

As the Daily Herald article states:

But when they're at home, Neilson, Manno and friends explained, the school-night routine is to open up one computer window for homework and a second for instant messaging.

So why is this important? Because it reflects the incorrect assumptions that permeate church leadership. Her point is entirely accurate as she says:

“If this kind of thing can happen out there, it surely can happen in here. And it does. Some well-intentioned church leaders have devised youth programs and outreach, thinking they’re on the cutting edge. They might have run it by a kid or two (usually a relative who may or may not be paying complete attention). Then they launched 
it. And wondered why it wasn’t more successful.
…

Just as the retailer would have benefited from better research and vetting, those who lead our youth need to really know what is going on in their kids’ lives and figure out how to make the best, positive impact in the short time they have with them. An eternity depends on it.”

Often because church leaders just as the columnist think they know more than they really do. Which leads to the kind of assurance that what they say is true even when it is not or what they try can or can’t work in their church. This has led to an amazing lack of innovation and experimentation in dealing with youth and Adults in the Adventist church, often their first reaction is that can’t work which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

A good example of this false information syndrome is found in the recent book published by Pacific Press authored by a theology student Seth J. Pierce (this book is one of the Pacific Presses top ten best sellers according to Adventist Today May-June 2008 page 7). The book is on the 28 Fundamental SDA beliefs for teens. It is entitled What We Believe. Pierce writes this “Fun Fact” on page 149 in a special little box:

“As a precaution, the high priest had bells around the bottom of his tunic and a rope was tied to his ankle. If the priest was not clean and he had a less-than-happy encounter with the most holy God, his bells would stop jingling alerting those outside that something was wrong. Then they could drag the body out by the rope tied around the ankle.”

That bit of fiction made it past the proof readers and editors because they thought they knew more than they really did. For more see Theology Student Book to Confuse Your Teen .

It is important to know your audience but just as important to know your subject. In the main leadership in our churches do not know either and that is a big problem.

Atoday Blogs and a conversation with Goldsten

Adventist Today has completed their new Website and they have included a new blog feature. As Reinventing the Adventist Wheel says:

The new Adventist Today website has been officially launched after being down for nearly a week. It was worth the wait. Six bloggers, including Alex Bryan, Cliff Goldstein, David Person, Heather Quintana, Shayna Bailey and Erv Taylor will blog regularly from the left, right and center tackling anything from emerging church, creation/evolution divide, relationships and dating, trends in pop culture, Adventist doctrines, social and racial issues, and more.

There's also a news, interviews and reviews section. The kickoff feature article is an interview I conducted with Adventist-turned-Catholic and Hawaiian judge David Pendleton.

Only subscribers to the print magazine will have full access to the new site. For $19.50/year, it's a steal. Check it out.

Why in the world of blogging would they choose to prevent wider readership I don’t understand. As some of the comments in the above mention blog state, it does not seem like a good idea. Still they have also reduced the price to the magazine and blogs to an electronic version of the magazine with its access for only 8 dollars per year so in that respect they are making it pretty affordable. But as a blogger I know that most of those who access the blog do so through the process of keyword searches. So if you don’t have your blog open and available to be indexed by the search engines you have a very limited readership. Also as a blogger it is now difficult for us to link to the material that is membership protected. For example I had a bit of a discussion on Clifford Goldstein’s blog, I could create a link to it but you won’t get in unless you have a membership. Since I don’t know what restrictions there are when dealing with members only blogs I will only quote a few sections and then give you my comments. In this case I can sum up his responses fairly easily.

Goldstein’s topic was “no other options” which is that Adventists who hold to a few particular beliefs really have no where else to go. He then goes on in a comment section to tell someone who believes in theistic evolution to get out of the church as he says: “They exist but if they had a modium of rational thought they would know that they don't belong in this church”

My first reply was as follows:

That is funny, Cliff starts out saying there is no place for Adventists to go if they hold to some key doctrines, if my math is right our choice is stay in the Adventist church or find that elusive .01% to go to. Then in the comments section he wants Adventists to leave if they accept theistic evolution. It may just be me but the message seems contradictory. Maybe an article by Cliff telling us what we can disagree with in the Adventist church would be more helpful than proclaiming that we have no place to go. Then again what good would it do for Cliff to tell us what we must agree with and where we must go if we disagree with Cliff...Cliff is not the Adventist church for which I think all the universe both in earth and in heaven may rejoice.

His response was that I was distorting what he said and that we should leave.

My response:

Cliff wrote:

"I'm not saying, Ron, that they have to agree with me. That's a typical distortion."

I never said that you were saying that we had to agree with you, in fact I expressed my joy that you are not the Adventist church so that we don't have to agree with you. So what you call a typical distortion was not even present in my comment. Now lets assume for the moment that a person believes in evolution of the non theistic kind. Do you not think that there could be some benefit to a sabbath day's rest in their lives?

It always seems funny to me to hear people like Cliff express their contempt for evolution yet they don't believe that animals were created with those ripping and tearing teeth, that predator and prey web of life. It is OK for God to make those evolutionary changes but the idea that evolution beginning from simple forms to more complex forms under the guidance of God is just too much to believe. Both would be God's creation, both would be systems established by God. The question is what makes the most sense with the evidence around us. The idea that there was once a perfect world of which we can't even imagine, of which God expelled humans from for one violation prompted by a talking snake and then cursed the entire earth, humans and animals and plants seems less likely then a world where God established life through a process of growth and development until humans developed the capability to communicate with God just seems more reasonable.

The other day I was playing tennis and watched a hawk capture a small animal and fly away. Anyway you look at it if you are a deist that is something that God had a hand in. If there was indeed once a perfect world why not keep the perfection in the world, let man have his consequences from sin, why inflict it upon the small animals, why should they have to deal with the terror of being picked up and carried away from everything they have known only to be torn apart by the hawk. How much more we would have learned seeing the way animals responded without fear from other animals. What a marvelous opportunity to see what God had really intended for us all. No that is not the world we see, in fact in our Bible stories we see God so upset at wickedness that he wipes out all living creatures not in Noah's ark.

So the question we have to ask is are these stories reasonable or our they methods ancient people used to inspire a conception of God, primitive true but introducing the idea that God could be more then a local deity who we have to pay homage to. The beginnings of a great new understanding of man and God...unless we become stuck in the primitive mindset by making the stories into literal history to which God must be tied and restricted to, what today would be viewed by most intelligent people as unreasonable and backward. Do we grow in our understanding as we grow in our other human areas of knowledge or is our faith placed not in God but in the ancient assumptions and stories as if they were God. This is not merely a struggle about Adventist doctrines but about how we understand ourselves and our God. If the answer is to force those people out of the church then it is likely on the wrong path, a path similar to the Roman Catholic church took during the reformation. The path of least resistance usually goes downhill.

Cliff’s response:

If you don’t agree then “I find the lack of moral integrity astounding, and depressing, to be honest.”

So I explained further:

Cliff wrote:

If you are so sure our basic view of the Bible is wrong, and that the "primitive mindset" of the Bible is "unreasonable and backward," then why are you a member of a church which accepts the "primitive mindset" of the Bible as gospel truth?

You have placed two things together there that are not the same. Your basic view of the Bible is wrong, that is pretty clear. That does not however mean that all the Bible is unreasonable and backwards, only sections are. The Bible as a progressive work also goes on to correct some of the earlier primitive mindsets. That is why Job deals with why bad things happen even to good people, why Jesus did the same thing correcting the view that if you were righteous then you would be healthy and wealthy. In an article you wrote about the test of adultery preformed in Numbers 5, I think you are in the minority who don't think that was a primitive and backward mindset.

The interesting thing also is that the Adventist church is not really made up of those who accept the primitive mindset, true there are many that do, the people who collect their pay from the denomination and who never talk about their beliefs or those who are paid by the denomination to defend it's beliefs (I guess if you can hire a lawyer to defend you the church can hire apologists to defend it, both probably on the same level of respect). Does that make the church right because they hire people to defend and support them, or is that simply how bureaucracy's work? Is supporting a bureaucracy the high calling of a Christian, again shades of middle ages Roman Catholicism there. Yet there are others in the Adventist church who don't tow the line but seek to raise the standards, the standards of reasoning and textual criticism in ways that make God respectable. Now I know there are people who trust God no matter how they view Him. There are those who rejoice at the God who hates sin so much that He will torture people for eternity. It is right for God to do that because that is what God does and God does only what is right. Adventism rejected that because what they said was right is unreasonable, it is a poor representation of love and of God. They have wonderful verses they can use to demonstrate that that is what God will do. They have a method of interpretation that makes it easy to hold to the literal view of the texts they use. Just as you do with what appears to be an equally symbolic story (garden of Eden), but you would say it is not symbolic, and they will say their texts are not symbolic. We end up with only having our reasoning abilities to tell us which method to use.

So the Adventist church helped teach us to think and now when lay Adventists and Adventists College Professors do apply their reasoning abilities the traditional Adventists say "stop that, this is what we believe accept it or leave". So it is understandable that for many of us integrity means applying reasoning and knowledge even above the support of a bureaucratic church organization. Because really in the search for truth just because you have a denomination does not mean you have the truth. And just because we offer other methods of interpretation does not mean we are tearing down the denomination. It could tear down, it could build up or it could do nothing. We have yet to see the result, fundamentalism and it's fear of change is probably not the best course of action however.

His closing response today was:

Well, we have a whole lot of examples of other denomination in which the so called "progressives" got control, and look where those churches are today. Many of them are debating over whether the resurrection of Jesus was literal, or just a symbol of something else. Kind of like what the wacko left does to Genesis. We're holding the the line against that kind of compromise and apostasy, and if in so doing we are called anti reasonable and the like--who cares? I certainly don't.

Actually the conversation is not nearly as frustrating when I abbreviated Cliff’s responses. I kept the last one in its entirety because it is instructive. First he claims that there are many denominations that are debating whether the resurrection of Jesus was literal or not. As last week that was the subject of the lesson I taught I actually looked to see and found that even among liberal Christians most believe in the literal resurrection, it is a very small minority such as the Jesus Seminar people and Bishop Spong who think the resurrection is symbolic (that even death should not stop our quest for life and love). That other churches hold these debates just as we in the Adventist church hold these debates does not mean that the no resurrection view has a foothold. It is too central to Christianity and the extremists who hold to no resurrection have so little to base their view upon. A good example is found in the 1999 report of an Anglican debate Jesus scholars debate at National Cathedral

In any event the debate of ideas is not the problem, it is the fear of examining ideas that is the problem. If one fails to even try to be reasonable, if they fail to even try to look at possibilities then how can they ever expect to spread their views to others, asking others to look at different reasons and possibilities? If we all just went around assuming what we believe is the only truth then we would be the most foolish and unproductive people in the world.

SDA Spammers

It does not take too long in any religious community until you find that there are people who become so invested in an idea that they freely lie and try to make others believe their lies. Somehow I got on a mailing list from philton.moore@btopenworld.com That appears to be a spam address as I can't find an internet service provider by that name. In this latest piece of drivel from the Jesuit conspiracy theorist philton.moore who proudly hides his/her identity. He/she steals an article posted on a Church of God website entitled From Sabbath to Sunday: The Bacchiocchi Agenda Which "Sabbath" Does He Truly Support? The Spammer changes the title to From Sabbath to Sunday: Is Dr. Bacchiocchi A Jesuit or otherwise an Agent of Rome? Which "Sabbath" Does Dr. Bacchiocchi Really Support? The Spammer requests at the top of the Spam E-mail FOR THE WIDEST POSSIBLE CIRCULATION AMONG SDAs.

Aside from stealing the main parts of the article the spammer adds his/her own lies to the article in an attempt to Make Dr. Bacchiocchi out to still be a Roman Catholic. Here is what he/she says in part (colors supplied in the E-mail):

Here are Dr. B’s own words from his website:

"I grew up as a Seventh-day Adventist in Rome, Italy, a stone-throw from the Vatican wall in the days when considerable hostility existed against religious minorities.

[Note: This appears to be the first blatant inconsistency in Dr. B's personal testimony regarding his family and religious history! For as you will recall at the very start of this email I quoted Dr. as saying "I was born in a godly Catholic family" and that "For the first 18 years of my life I lived [as a Roman Catholic] under the shadow of the Vatican. My parents attended Sunday Mass regularly and recited the rosary faithfully every night." Question: How could Dr. B. claim that he "GREW UP AS A SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST" when on his own admission, "for the 18 years" of his life he was a Roman Catholic, and his parents attended Mass faithfully every night??

Here our intrepid spammer inserts in brackets one of his lies by making it appear that Dr. B said he grew up as a Roman Catholic, by his own admission. Of course the admission was not to growing up a Roman Catholic but to living under the shadow of the Vatican. It is nearly impossible to read Dr. B's piece and misunderstand this, the only exception is if you don't care anything about the truth and are so obsessed you can't read straight and have no problem with telling lies. Here is what Dr. B says in the context of the quote our spammer used (notice the line in bold):

My Parent’s Discovery of the Sabbath

I was born in a godly Catholic family that lived close to the Vatican wall. For the first 18 years of my life I lived under the shadow of the Vatican. My parents attended Sunday Mass regularly and recited the rosary faithfully every night. This continued until my father was introduced for the first time to the study of the Bible by a fellow carpenter who belonged to the Waldensian Church. In their earnest desire to become better acquainted with the teachings of the Scriptures, my parents joined the Waldensian Church when I was a year old baby. They attended with keen interest also the mid-week Bible study conducted by students of the Waldensian School of Theology in Rome.

One Wednesday evening, a theology student presented a Bible study on the origin and significance of the Sabbath. Basing his meditation on Genesis 2:2-23, the young man explained how the Sabbath is a creation ordinance for mankind. The presentation sparked a lively debate between those students who defended the Biblical origin and validity of Sunday observance and the few who refuted such a view by arguing for the continuity of the Sabbath. That animated discussion left my father astonished and perplexed, because he firmly believed that Sundaykeeping was a biblical institution, established by Christ and the apostles. That experience ignited my father’s interest for the study of the Biblical basis and historical origin of Sundaykeeping.

Months of intense study led father to the conclusion that the seventh-day Sabbath had not been nullified but rather clarified and magnified by Christ’s teaching and example. In fact, he became convinced that the Sabbath is a divine institution that enables the believer to express and experience commitment to the Savior.

Unable to find in Rome a Christian Church that observed the seventh-day Sabbath, for several months my parents chose to worship privately in their home on the Sabbath, thus disconnecting their affiliation with the Waldensian Church. An invitation to attend a Bible study held in the home of a friend, introduced father and mother to a pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which they soon joined. ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 159

The problem here aside from lies and spam is the stupidity of the Jesuit hunter mindset that inhabit many of the Traditional Adventists in the SDA church. Truth is of no importance to these people as it is of no importance to the spammer. They are an embarrassment to all SDA's and a disgrace to anyone who knows how to read.

How Traditionalists explain why Christ died

The Adult Teacher’s Guide for the Sabbath School Lesson asked the following question:

Jesus died on the cross to save us. How can someone dying save anyone?How would you explain Jesus’ death and the purpose of His death to a tenyear-old? How would you explain it to someone who has never heard of Jesus Christ before? See 1 Peter 1:3–9. http://www.absg.adventist.org/2008/2Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ208_10.pdf

I was curious to see how this question would be answered on various internet sites. Here are some quotes from the various sites, the question we need to ask is do these answers make sense, do they answer the question above in a way that is satisfactory to a questioning child. As you read these think of what they are saying. Justice of Jesus paying the penalty is a common thread. Yet know where does God say justice is ever arrived at by punishing the innocent or substituting one person to be punished for the actions of another, or for that matter that punishment is needed in order to forgive. This first one is most interesting because it wants to teach Substitutionary punishment. Though I can’t imagine any child wanting to sign the purposed agreement or thinking it was fair or just.

--
One of the consequences of our sins is that Jesus died for our sins so we could have an eternal life with God.

However, before a person can have eternal life with God, that person must trust in Jesus as Savior and repent from a sinful life.

Punishment Sharing Agreement. Use this activity to help the students understand that Jesus, having never sinned, took on himself all of our sins and all the punishment for our sins when He died on the cross.

Circulate the Punishment Sharing Agreement

Explain that a person who signs the agreement is agreeing to take the punishment for any wrong acts done during the week that person signs up for by anyone who signs this agreement.

For example, Billy agrees to take the punishment for Week 1. Billy does no wrong during Week 1. But Sue lies to her mother. Her punishment is no TV for a week. Since Billy agreed to take the punishment for Week 1, Billy cannot watch TV for that week, but Sue can.

After everyone has an opportunity to sign the agreement, explain that this is similar to Jesus dying on the cross for all of our sins.

He died on the cross in our place for our sin, then rose from the dead.

Why Did Jesus Die On The Cross For Me?

Purpose: Help the children understand why Jesus died on the cross.
Objective: Teach the children that God sent Jesus to earth as man to die on the cross for the sins of the world. His death provides a way to have forgiveness of sin and a personal relationship with God.
http://www.kidzplace.org/atf/cf/%7B899BDF78-4CC9-48F8-8AD7-2A88AC21D94E%7D/day3_lesson.pdf

He came as a substitute. The Old Testament said, Ezekiel quoting, "The soul that sinneth it shall die." Paul said, "The wages of sin is death Now sin by virtue of the justice of God is punished by death. If I then sin I will die. If I bear by own punishment and I die I die physically, spiritually and eternally and am sentenced into eternal hell without God. And God looked into this world and He saw men.

He saw men who were going to die because of sin. And He said because of His love, I will not ‑ I will not allow all men to die in their sin, I will send someone else to bear their punishment to die their death. And thus did Jesus come. He came to be my substitute and when He was nailed on the cross He died for me and He died for you.

He died my death, paid my penalty. See, that's the only alternative God had. Either He punishes you for sin and me for my sin and that's eternal punishment in hell or else He substitutes someone else in our place and they pay our penalty. And that's exactly what Jesus came to do, be our substitute. The exalted second person of the Trinity, the divine Son ot God, God in flesh, humbled Himself, came to earth to die my death to provide for me an escape from eternal hell. The sinless one became sin, the living one died, the perfect one became the punished one. And not because He deserved it but because I deserved it and He was my substitute.
--
God is a perfect God and yet has chosen to allow sin. He is also a holy God who must show His wrath against all sin. At the same time God has accepted the payment that Christ made for the sins of every person when Christ died on the cross. This means that Christ took the wrath of God against sin for every person. As a result, God must show His wrath by bringing judgment on every person that does not repent and turn to Christ. That way God is not unfair. He accepts the payment for sin by Christ for all those who turn to Christ. To be fair He also judges all those who reject the payment of Christ and choose to pay for their own sin.

--
Jesus Christ’s life could pay the penalty for all sin for all time because His divine life is worth more than the lives of all humanity before or since. Only by the sacrifice of a life of enormous worth could the enormous penalty for all sin be paid.

--
Why the Son of God had to die

Why did Jesus have to die? He had to die because of the sins of humanity and the death they demand—to make possible a relationship between the Father and all men and women, who are invited to become children of God; to make possible the resurrection to eternal life; to defeat the awful penalty of eternal death.

Why did Jesus have to die? Jesus had to die because He chose to die for each of us in a decision of pure love made with His Father. If They are willing to pay such a price to gain a relationship with us, what are we willing to do to have a relationship with Them?
--

Sin is the transgression of the law of God (1John 3:4) - which amounts to living contrary to God's way of life, a way of outflowing love and concern for others. God's law is so important that He has decreed the penalty of eternal death for its violation.

God's perfect justice demands that the penalty for sin be paid. It is vital that the seriousness of the matter be made that clear. And yet God is supremely merciful - so it was determined that God the Father would give up His only Son (who would Himself lay down His own life) in sacrifice to atone for the sins of all mankind - those who would rightly accept it. The Father, it should be understood, had actually created mankind through Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:9; John 1:1-3). Thus, as our Creator and God, His life was worth more than that of all humanity. When He died for us, the penalty for all human sin was more than paid.
--
Jesus died to take the punishment for your sins.
--
In other words, the punishment for our sin which is ours by right was transferred to Jesus Christ. He died our death, in our place, so that our sins might be forgiven and we night know fellowship with God. The chastisement which we deserved was laid upon him. And he had to do it, because our salvation could be achieved in no other way.