Adventist Today attacks Mark Finley going against culture

 

A recent article on Adventist Today website entitled Why Do Our Leaders Insist On Holding the Judgment Now? By Loren Seibold takes direct aim at a video presentation by Mark Finley. The article manages to accuse Mark Finley and Ted Wilson or attempting to judge and exclude LGBT people from the SDA church. Strangely doing so without giving even one quote from either man. The article begins in the 2^nd and 3^rd paragraphs by writing:

“Why, when these men in Silver Spring choose topics to address, do they so often choose to talk about who they want to keep out of the church? 

They teach that we’re supposed to gather everyone in for Jesus’ return. But if God is calling everyone, saint and sinner alike, why do our church leaders disapprove of so many of them here and now, for so many reasons?

 

After reading Loren Seibold’s article I watched Mark Finley’s video. Mark Finley's Sermon: What The Bible Really Says About LGBTQ+

 

 

After watching the presentation I failed to see much of any of the things that Loren Seibold saw in the video. Then looking at the article comments on Facebook it appeared that none of the commenters had watched the video either. I am always suspicious of anyone that writes about someone and does not use any quotes at all from the actual person they are criticizing. In general, I find that they will be arguing against a fictionalized version of the person rather than what the person actually had to say. Since it is now possible to easily transcribe audio from video’s on a computer, now more than ever I question those who manage to write an article without quoting some portion of the actual words of the person they are criticizing.

 

I will use speech to text to aid in this article. Mark Finley begins his presentation this way:

 “Does the message of the Bible align with the current rise and acceptance of the lgbtq+ community or does it contradict it. Join me as we open the word of God and study the scriptures.”

 

Finley then introduces the reason for the presentation.

 “Why have I chosen to speak about this subject now, there's some specific reasons for that first I'm concerned about the direction that our society is going concerned about how that direction impacts the church I love I'm concerned about the Next Generation I'm concerned about young adults who are inbibing a message that may not align and does not align with scripture I'm concerned about children whose minds are being saturated with information regarding lgbtq+ Community you see I'm concerned so it's out of that concern out of that care out of that love that I speak today.  Now there's certain things that have led me to this conclusion that it's time to speak now let me give you some examples of that here just a few recent incidents that have motivated me to address this issue of human sexuality first on July 3 2023 the New York Post reported that at the recent New York drag queens March activist chanted, and hear their words, we're here we're queer and we're coming for your children this seemed outrageous to me it's shocking but it's not surprising in recent years such blunt outrageous rhetoric has become commonplace two years ago the San Francisco gave Men's Chorus released a YouTube video in which 81 of its members sing a song with the refrain "we will convert your children happens bit by bit quietly and subtly you'll barely notice it.”

 

Under the YouTube description  for Mark Finley's sermone we find this: 

Here are the chapters: 00:00 Introduction - Why is it Time to Speak Up? 14:48 Christian Response to LGBTQ+ 18:08 Biblical Perspectives on Gender and Sexuality 48:28 Official Position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church”

 

I did not see any hate or judgment aside from the common judgments about sin which is pretty widely known throughout the Christian world. What it appears to me is that Seibold is not happy that Finley is not affirming the LGBT views. I can’t imagine why anyone would think that a church should affirm this conglomeration of group's views as they are often at odds with themselves. There are such groups as Gays Against Gromers and there are groups who encourage indoctrination in schools with gay activists and encourage children to social transition, some even physically transition. Clumping together small minorities and thinking they are unified is a completely fictitious view of reality.

 

Seibold then presents us with this:

 

Is judging sinners the church’s job? Not according to Jesus.

Three verses

Here’s a parable from Matthew 13 that I’ve seldom heard preached by Adventist churchmen. It starts with a farmer seeing that his fields have a bumper crop of weeds among the wheat. His farmhands think that the best way to handle it is to stomp out into the field and tear up the weeds right away. 

But the farmer says that uprooting weeds will damage the wheat. 

Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”​​

Lord help me, but I cannot interpret this in any way except that we’re not to perform the judgment in our churches now, but leave it to the Lord to do in the end. To the point of Elder Finley’s recent anti-LGBTQ sermon, I see nothing here about ripping out the weeds unless they change into wheat.

We have already seen that judging sinners is not the purpose of Finley’s presentation but note the description of Finley’s presentation is now called “anti-LGBTQ”. We clearly see here that the main problem with Finley for Seibold is that LGBTQ is not affirmed. This point is so far the only idea I will agree with Seibold on; Finley is not affirming LGBTQ+ ideas, Whatever they are. I think that is wise not to affirm a wide swath of ideas even if the current culture pretends to do so.

So what about this parable. Is the parable about the church or about the world? Well, we don't have to guess about that because the parable is explained in Matthew 13:

³⁶ Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”³⁷ He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. ³⁸ The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, ³⁹ and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.⁴⁰ “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. ⁴¹ The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. ⁴² They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³ Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

So contrary to Seibold the subject here has nothing to do with judgment in our churches, now or even in the future. In fact, in an agricultural-aware world no one waits for the harvest to weed a field and they certainly don’t go out at harvest time and collect the weeds first and then go back and collect the grain. Let’s pretend for argument that it is a grain like wheat. No farmer would go out when the grain heads are full and stomp around their field to collect weeds and then go out and collect the grain. Thus they ask for an explanation. It only works if there is a supernatural force like angels involved.

Seibold misuses his first Biblical text and tries to make it say something it does not say. The very idea that Christians do not make any judgments is something no one ever heard of before the last few decades. It certainly has no biblical basis. For those wanting further information about judging see. Is It Ever Right to Judge Others?

His next verse is the parable of the rich man and the banquet. After quoting it he writes:

“Please, Mark and Ted, tell me how you can read this parable in any way except to say that the most vulnerable, most needy people are invited to come into the kingdom?”

He does this without showing where either Mark Finley or Ted Wilson have ever said that all people are not invited into the kingdom. Certainly, in the video nothing like that is said and really even if one is not affirming of the LGBTQ+ constellation of views that would not mean that they are not invited into God’s kingdom.

Seibold I think knows how weak a position he has and that is why he does not actually deal with anything Finley said. Instead, he says things like this:

“Mark, you want new members in our churches—but do you know the kind of gauntlet you create in congregations for all members, old and new, by the kinds of judgment you made in your video?”

If Seibold believes Finley has made such judgments why not list them, give us some examples. Instead, Seibold goes to absurd conclusions, they must be what Seibold thinks but other than his half-baked impressions give us something real, something firm, and not just things like this:

“Do you realize that people are listening to you, then the next Sabbath examining their fellow church members for the sins you’ve suggested to them? You’re making some congregations into little courtrooms, with people spending most of their energy debating women pastors and LGBTQ people and theological heresy.”

What congregations are becoming little courtrooms? Why should the view of affirmation be accepted and no other perspectives viewed or it becomes a waste of energy? Are there such things as theological heresy and are they worth the time to clear up? It would be nice if Seibold took some time to deal with any of those in-depth, rather then making emotional declarations that have no basis in fact.

 

It would have been far better for Seibold to have dealt with Mark Finley’s conclusion. Here is his concluding thoughts:

 

“Each one of us because of the Brokenness of sin have certain passions, desires, orientations but by the grace of God we can choose not to act upon them so having the orientation does not justify the action I may have a predisposition because of the Brokenness of sin to more easily get angry than somebody else but by the grace of God I can be changed so because somebody has a predisposition for that, somebody may have a passion because of genetics because of social environment because of things that happen and you think they may have a passion for sexuality outside of marriage a male for a female but because they have those passions and drives does not mean that they act upon them they make a positive choice for the grace of God to change their life the same thing is true with lgbtq relationships and lgbtq orientation or tendencies or desires the orientation may be part of our beings but God's grace is great,

How then do we relate, how then do we really, what are some things that we can take away from the biblical principles regarding human sexuality I think they're at least five things and here they are

1st God has created all human beings through the fall and Brokenness of sin we all have Tendencies and propensities sorting that's one take away

 

2^nd  god calls us to love not hate the Christian ethic calls us to be compassionate and respectful and accepting of one another

 

3 to love doesn't mean we approve a lifestyle out of harmony with God's will the most loving thing we can do is to share the Amazing Grace of Christ that Forgives our past transforms our present and gives us hope for the future

 

4  the lgbtq+ lifestyle is not in harmony with the Bible and according to scripture deviates from God's will and his sin

 

5 through the grace of God all of us can experience New Life in Christ jesus invites it to reach out to everyone around broken Fallen in Seattle to reach out as Brothers and Sisters in Christ in loving tones to share the truth of God's word and kindness and compassion recognizing that if any man or woman are in Christ they are new creatures recognize that the grace of God the power of God is greater than any sin [52 mins mark]

 Mark Finley in the sermon quotes from a commentary put out by Andrews University on homosexuality. Why did not Seibold even mention that? A commentary put out by the SDA's premier theological school and that does not even get mentioned. Why?

 

 

GYC2009 Hope for Traditionals Dispair to Progressives as we watch reason die

If you are wondering what the future of is for Progressive Seventh-day Adventists is consider the recent Generation of Youth for Christ (GYC), formerly General Youth Conference 2009. When you first click on the following link to the video you will be treated to a song service out of yesterday. Possibly pre 1970’s considering even my Academy Worship programs were a bit more modern than this song service. In any case it is the Seventh-day Adventist traditionalists youth that make up this organization. At the question and answer session a who’s who of Adventist leadership were empanelled. Many General Conference Vice Presidents,two Division Presidents as well as Bill Knott the editor of the Adventist Review. Dr. Mike Ryan, Ted Wilson, Mark Finley, Dr. Ella Simmons, Don Schneider, Paul Ratsara,

GYC 2009 Questions and answers session beginning at 52 minutes (after a period of blank video). Here are a few excerpts that I transcribed from the video. To keep the flow of the event I have footnoted my comments at the end

The first question:

As leaders of the General Conference would you speak to the commitment level of the GC leadership as well as the global leadership to the authority of Scripture even when it cuts across cultural practices?

Mark Finley replies: Culture should never dictate scripture. John 17 verse 17 Jesus said they word is truth the general conference of seventh-day Adventists is clear on the authority of scripture. Scripture always transcends culture. Now there can be cultural aspects in which Paul says I become all things to all men so the methods can be adapted but not theology.

[1]

The Second question dealt with net evangelism. Mark Finley defended Net Evangelism by asking how many had attended and by saying that for those who were baptized through the Net Evangelism how much was it worth to them.

The Third question (1:01 min.) dealt with explaining the organization of the Adventist church. I won’t bother with transcribing the question and answer except to note that the explanation by Paul Ratsara President SID began with this statement:

“Our God is a God of order and He has given us a wonderful structure to support the mission of the church.”

He then goes on to explain the levels of the church organization. Concluding with:

“This is a wonderful structure that the Lord has given us.”

[2]

Fourth question: (1:03) We understand that the church exists to protect our fundamental beliefs…Some not all of our colleges and Universities continue to hire and protect professors who do not believe in our core beliefs such as creation, many youth have lost their faith under such teachers how can this be stopped?

Dr. Ella Simmons responds:

…[F]irst of all my personal stand and the stand of the church is that Seventh-day Adventist schools at all levels including colleges and universities exist for one purpose. In most countries of the world today there are excellent systems of education but we operate Seventh-day Adventist education institutions to pass on to teach Seventh-day Adventist world perspective, Spiritual understanding scriptural knowledge and so forth. Ellen White says, that we must hold onto this, that education and redemption are one. If our schools are not thoroughly and uniquely Seventh-day Adventist they should not exist. We have no reason for them other than that they are thoroughly Seventh-day Adventist. Then that indicates that in order to give Seventh-day Adventist education we need, have an imperative for Seventh-day Adventist committed practicing Seventh-day Adventist faculty leadership and staff. We have all been in a position in which individuals have been hired into our schools who have not been Seventh-day Adventist we appreciate our colleagues but either they will betray themselves as Christians by teaching what we believe if they are not Seventh-day Adventist or they betray us by teaching something other than Seventh-day Adventist believe in our schools. It is clear from Genesis to Revelation that Academics and spirituality are one, the divisions that you hear about that we read about are false they are work a tool of the devil, clearly. I could go on and on…

[3]

So what can we do as young people?

Ted Wilson responds (1:07): It is so important to have leadership at colleges and universities who are absolutely committed to the 28 fundamentals of beliefs, to the word of God, to the three angels messages …

[4]

Question 6 (1:08): How do we work through the system what are ways we can stand for truth?

Dr. Ella Simmons responds:

For example I would always say when called upon to answer those questions evolution lets just go right there. I believe that as a scholar I needed to know the theories of evolution but never to accept it as facts. So I would always have to say in class and on my test papers according to you this is what has happened although I still believe that in 6 days God created the heaven and earth and so forth, and there’s a way to do it without creating a problem and people will respect you even while they continue to disagree with you.

[refer to 3]

Mark Finley (1:11) responds:

To follow up on what Ella has said there is a difference between a teacher who makes a comment in class that I may not fully understand and they may have a different perception of truth then I do and a blatant open statement that violates the tenets of scripture and the Adventist church. A comment on Academic freedom. In a sense Academic freedom is a myth and here is why when I agree to teach in an Seventh-day Adventist college by that very agreement I agree to be supported by Seventh-day Adventist tuition dollars from Seventh-day Adventist parents who want a Seventh-day Adventist education so I voluntarily by choice give up freedom to teach contrary to Seventh-day Adventist values and if I can’t do that the thing to do and be intellectually honest is to say I no longer believe that and go teach someplace else where that can be accepted. So Academic freedom there are Catholic universities whose boards meet who dismissed recently teachers because they weren’t teaching Catholic theology in a Catholic university. There are Presbyterian boards and Lutheran boards who meet and so the issue is yes as Adventists you work together we work in harmony and love but the intellectual honest thing to do for somebody who may no longer believe Adventist theology is to find a place where they can teach in harmony with what they believe.

[5]

Question: for Don Schneider (1:14)...A question that is for those professors who may not take that integrity position and remove themselves from that…I think this question is directed that way. Recently there has been an online petition asking the General Conference to tolerate monogamous homosexual relationships some of the signers are ministers and professors of our schools some sit on boards of organizations that teach very divergent doctrines, what should be done when church employees receiving a check from the church openly seeks to undermine the very teachings they endorse?

Don Schneider after saying he would sit down and talk and not act as if it were a trial says:

It has been my job to deal with people some of them I have asked to quit. Very rarely almost always as we visit I can find the time to ask a question are you having a lot of fun doing what you are doing. People who are not supportive of this church are by and large not having fun either. And people who are not enjoying what they are doing are not the doing the good job supporting this church often. And that leads me to another point then, hey if your not having fun and your not really into the mission of this church would you want me to help you find something else? Almost always that has taken care of the issue for me. Almost never have I said okay next Tuesday we go to trial be ready cause we’re coming at ya. That just hasn’t been necessary in my experience.

[6]

1. It is hard to believe he really believes this answer. Culture even during the Biblical times changed and theology changed as well. If not then we would still be stoning to death Sabbath breakers adulterers and rebellious children. We would not allow any women to even speak in our congregational assemblies per some of Paul’s comments even though earlier in Old Testament times there was a female judge, Deborah. Finley’s answer certainly indicates that he would in no way allow a woman to serve as a Pastor in the Adventist church.

Ultimately if you do not consider culture Scripture would be incredibly hard to interpret. So culture actually helps define scripture and our culture also redefines scripture. For example our culture through the aid of Western culture and scripture has grown to see slavery as an evil. Yet much of scripture allows for slavery. We can find racist ideas in scripture but our culture has shown us the problems of racism. In fact throughout Christian history as culture became more enlightened our theology of God also became more enlightened, we moved from the God of wrath and retribution to a God of love. Culture and Scriptural understanding grow, they play off of each other, one does not transcend the other, they are both components of our understanding. Truth may transcend culture but we are still on the road to truth, what we say is truth even as Christians has changed as history has noted. Even in Adventism short history truth has changed, such as the shut door concept of the 1800’s. Saying we have the truth or something is the truth is far different from really having the truth.

2. I don’t think it is wise to tell such untruths to impressionable youth. I am assuming that he actually knows that God did not give the Adventist church instructions upon how it should be organized. The organization is similar in structure to the Methodists system from which many of Adventist founders came. Since he did not offer to explain where God informed the Adventists of their church organizations structure I can assume that he does know that God really did not give us the organizational structure we employ. The only way to make his statement work is to assume that if the structure was decided by Adventists at some conference to frame the Adventist constitution that action is the same as God giving us the structure. Which really gets us into logical trouble when whatever we decide to do becomes the instruction of God…the Reformation was largely fought to get away from such hubris.

3. The Ellen White quote is: “In the highest sense the work of education and the work of redemption are one, for in education, as in redemption, "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." "It was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fullness dwell." 1 Corinthians 3:11; Colossians 1:19, R.V (Education page 30, 1903)

Of course this is the highest sense and it is expanded upon when she earlier stated: “Love, the basis of creation and of redemption, is the basis of true education.” (Education page 16, 1903) Love as Paul famously said does not always try to get its own way, so education needs to be based upon love rather than traditions or church dictates.

What “thoroughly Seventh-day Adventist” means I don’t really know. Apparently it means that only Adventists can be hired to work at our schools as faculty and staff. Of course the controversy is not about non Adventist faculty teaching evolution it is about Adventists who teach evolution. Because frankly you can’t get anywhere in Science without acknowledging evolution, you can say it is not a fact but for all practical purposes it is a fact. Of course evolution or Darwinism as some critics mistakenly refer to things is not about the first origin it is about change. Those changes are seen, the theory of evolution explains what we see. Saying as Ella Simmons does later that she simply does not believe it because she believes the heavens and earth were created in 6 days is not science, it is not even reasonable it ignores the reality, the evidence, that the theory of evolution is explaining.

She concludes with: “It is clear from Genesis to Revelation that Academics and spirituality are one, the divisions that you hear about that we read about are false they are work a tool of the devil, clearly.” I am reminded of something I learned in College, if someone begins with “it is clear” or “clearly” you are about to hear something that is not clear and is often untrue. You don’t have to say it is clear when something is clear. It is a rhetorical device to try and prop up a weak argument. In this case a gratuitous assertion which is a logical fallacy and really a silly statement as we have great academics who are spiritually not inclined at all.

4. There were several mentions of the desire to have our teachers committed to the 28

Fundamental beliefs during the question and answer period. It appears that contrary to the desires of our church founders and the preamble of the 27/28 fundamentals of belief, Traditional Adventists have taken the fundamental statement as a creed. Wilson also includes the three angels messages which is done with the statement meant as a code word for the doctrines of the Adventist church. Again a very common practice among the Adventist traditionals. (simplified we say the 3 angels message is Present Truth which includes the unique Adventist interpretations of Daniel and Revelation; It encompasses 7^th day Sabbath commandment keeping Sunday worship to be the mark of the Beast, Investigative Judgment, Adventist church as the Remnant called out from Babylon the apostate Christian churches, and Ellen White as the Spirit of Prophecy) The goal of all this is to have only church leadership and teachers and staff who are Traditional Adventists. These statements seemed to be met with hardy agreement from the Traditional Adventist young people at the conference.

5. Academic freedom is a myth if the institution does not hold to such freedom. Not because of the reason Finley gives, a science teacher is not hired to teach the literal 6 days of creation because it is the fundamental belief of the Adventist church, they are hired to teach science. Vague statements like “Adventist values” does not discount the scientific validity of evidence and scientific philosophy to be taught in a Adventist classrooms. In fact one of the biggest Adventist values should be the search for truth and it should demand investigation, including things that may go against the popular beliefs of the Adventist churches leadership or traditions.

I did not find the accounts of Catholic Professors fired for not teaching Catholic theology. I did find some interesting accounts of the misuse of power by Catholic University administrators which amounted to retribution of whistle blowers.

http://www.counterpunch.org/yates12252009.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2297067/posts

6. Don Schneider presents us with the typical way that happens to whistle blowers or those who go against the power of the leadership elite. That is the retribution that makes their work environment so uncomfortable that they no longer seek to remain employed at their job. Here Schneider attempts to make such things appear as compassionate. When support the church means; do what we say, believe what we say to believe, than indeed who would want to support that church. The church is not God. When it seeks to think of itself as God, as doing what it is doing as being what God wants then the church has sunk to a low from which it will never rise. Well maybe I should not say never. As at one time the Roman Catholic Church behaved that way, it took hundreds of years to correct it’s over reaching dogma and still has a ways to go. But when a church that sees itself as carrying on the Reformation starts acting like the all knowing authority that forced the Reformation rebellion against her abuses; then we have serious problems in the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Is God On Trial?

One of the frequent statements made among Adventists is that “God is on trial”. Recently I posted the article refuting Clifford Goldstein article Judging the Judge. Some Adventists will even assert that this trial depends upon us, human beings for the vindication of God. Mark Finley said in Facing Revelation's Judgment Discoveries In Prophecy Lecture #9 Net 96:

“And Lucifer has charged before the whole universe that God is unfair, that God is not righteous, that God's way is not the best, that God's law is narrow and restrictive. So God is on trial before His own universe. And Satan has said that God is unfair, that God makes laws that can't be kept, that God does not desire us to be happy, that God is partial, that He plays favorites.”

In the next paragraph:

“You and I are evidence in the trial. As our lives come up before God in judgment, God says to the angels, "Could I have done anything more to save Mark Finley?"

Bob Pickle website says:

“Fourth, the idea about God proclaiming the truth about Himself is derived from Romans 3:4. In some sort of way, according to this text, God is on trial. During the judgment His character is being vindicated, and Satan's lies are being exposed. No, He isn't a vengeful tyrant. No, He isn't overindulgent. He has been loving, merciful, and just with every sinner.”

[This is a pretty funny section where Pickle tries to defend the Clear Word Paraphrase as being accurate in its representation of Daniel 8:14. Just last week I was at a lecture where a Greek scholar from Loma Linda University also pointed to this verse in the Clear Word Bible and his statement was something to the effect that here, referring to the Clear Word Bible on Daniel 8:14 was a clear example of textual corruption]

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., in his article "THE TYPOLOGY AND THEOLOGY OF THE PRE-ADVENT JUDGMENT" offers a conflicted view if you read his captions but overall he is in the God is on trial camp.

“God Is Not on Trial. In a sense, the ones who are "on trial" in the investigative phases of the final judgment are not the saved or the unsaved, but God Himself. It is God's justice and mercy manifested in His decision to save some and condemn others that is being judged by moral intelligences…”

Then he says:

“God Is on Trial. Yet there is a sense in which God is "on trial" before His moral universe. For several reasons, God is willing and expected to give an account of His creative, redemptive, and punitive activities.”

This is one of the great contribution of the Seventh-day Adventist church, God is on trial. God is on trial before unknown moral intelligences; who we know nothing about. We have no knowledge that they are judging God or question God or God’s choices in who is saved and not saved. But we can be thankful that God is not on trial before the moral intelligences who inhabit our world. How do you think an Atheist would judge God, when he says there is no God? Or what about the Agnostic who says if there is a God He sure can’t be like the God of the Old Testament. God is not going to do too well in that type of trial. We already know the Islamic people reject the God of the New Testament, the writings were wrong and Jesus was not crucified or resurrected. Clearly those of us on earth have insufficient knowledge to judge God. We however can judge whether we believe in God or whether we choose to accept and trust God but we have no way of knowing if God is just or not in any trial type situation. We can believe it, we can accept it as a revelation of God about Himself but as the judge in a trial we are woefully lacking.

So the invention of the “moral intelligences” who examine the books of God was established. As the Bible says man looks on the outward appearance but God looks upon the heart. So in the trial the moral intelligences have to depend upon God’s own truthful recording of man’s thoughts. Unless of course we give these intelligences the same supernatural powers of God. But no matter how you look at it the judges in this type of trial are dependent upon God for all information used in the judgment. This would really invalidate this trial in the eyes of any questioning being. In all this it is hard to imagine that with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, that sacrificial love, that there are moral intelligences out there in the universe with questions about God. If there are however, the Bible gives us no indication of such and really since we have no Biblical basis for this alleged trial it is unwise to waste time on such speculation. As with the other views of the Investigative Judgment this view of God on trial is not held by most Christians.

There is a quote from recent book of collected essays by C.S. Lewis called God in the Dock which is good to remember when we start to think that God is on trial. The following is from Anchor for the soul:

“However, some people would rather think of themselves as being the judge of God. God is on trial. Listen to this brilliant quote by C.S. Lewis.

The ancient man approached God...as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defense for being the god who permits war, poverty, and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the bench and God is in the dock.

Oh! How arrogant we can be! How could we think that we could be more loving than the God, who is love? How could we think that we could be more just than the very Being who defines justice? “