Moral Influence Theory and the Adventist World Magazine

In the most recent edition of The Adventist World Magazine there is an article by Angel Manuel Rodriquez under the section Bible Questions (page 40). Before I get to the subject of the article there is something peculiar about the article. That is, the article is entitled “The Revelation of Salvation” and is meant to answer this question which appears at the top of the page:

Question: How are we saved? What is the moral influence view of the cross?

If you click on the link for the December 2007 articles under the section Bible Study you don’t find the current article instead you find Christianity's Great Mystery. However if you happen to check on a different language edition such as Spanish there you find under the Bible Study section: La revelación de la salvación. As we are already halfway through December I don’t think the correct version is intended to be linked to for whatever reason.

To save myself time I am going to use the Google translation from the above link rather then retyping the article. I am actually impressed with the Google translation though I will change many of things to better reflect the English version, as I am sure that most Adventists do have access to this magazine since it is sent out free to Adventists in North America there should not be much confusion caused by using a translated version. This article seems quite long since it includes the full text of Rodriguez’s article (blue font), but please take the time to read it even if it takes several sessions to get through it.

It begins well enough however no atonement theory is complete until you factor in the resurrection which is the proof that God can do what He promises even to raise the dead. Interestingly enough Rodriquez does not talk once about forgiveness in his summary of moral influence theory which is something that Jesus offered on the cross even to those who tortured and were killing Him, probably he means those things to be covered under the heading of love but the specifics add to the meaning of what love is. When one is willing to forgive then one is not saddled with the problem of punishing and that is where Rodriguez begins to really go off track, under the heading 2.

The Revelation of Salvation

By Angel Manuel Rodriguez

QUESTION: How are we saved? What is the theory of the moral influence of the cross?

For centuries, Christians have sought to explain how the death of Christ on the cross saves us. We call these explanations "theories of atonement." One is known as the "theory of the moral influence" of the atonement. I will summarize its contents, strengths and finally make an assessment of this position.

1. Summary of teaching: There are slight variations of the theory of moral influence, but basically is based on the following ideas. First, it is understood that the cross is the supreme revelation of God's love. There, God was identified with us to the point of going through all that we all experience, namely death. Secondly, the manifestation of divine love was so full that as a result transforms us. That is called "the moral influence of the cross." The voluntary death of Christ on the cross awakens in us the love of God, it changes our attitude toward him and prompts us to exemplify his love in our lives.

It is obvious that this understanding of the effectiveness of saving the cross is nothing bad. The Scriptures testify that the cross is the most glorious manifestation of the love of sacrificial love of Christ toward sinners (for example, John 3:16), and his death should prompt us to express the same quality of love in our lives. But this theory has significant weaknesses that limit its usefulness.

2. It denies a central aspect of the atonement: One of the fundamental problems of the theory of moral influence is rejecting the Substitutionary nature of the death of Christ. The idea that God had to kill the innocent rather than guilty, to save us, is considered a violation of justice. Yet the witness of Scripture is that Christ died in our place (Isa. 53; Mark 10:45; 2 Cor. 5:21). In atonement, God Himself so voluntarily assumed responsibility for our sin. This is a glorious manifestation of divine grace, not an injustice. Atonement is God’s work for us, it is a matter between him and us. Nobody else is involved.

This argument amounts to nothing more then an appeal to tradition. The Substitutionary view of the atonement came out of the Middle Ages Satisfaction view of the atonement. Unfortunately people have merely assumed that the Substitutionary view is what is meant by certain Bible verses. In fact the Substitutionary view is being read into those verses. Not that there is not substitution involved in the New Testament view. For there is a Substitutionary view in such verses where Jesus is referred to as the second Adam however those have nothing to do with what has become known as the penal/Substitutionary Atonement. (see Church History of the Atonement)

Isaiah 53 is often the prime piece of evidence the Substitutionary believers uses, however it is but a foreshadowing of Christ and most of things we use to say it is Substitutionary are not used by anyone in the New Testament. A foreshadow is rarely accurate in details and you can see that from reading Isaiah 53, however we often ignore the inaccuracies and focus only on what seems to fit our presupposition. That in fact is what the other texts also do. For instance 2 Cor 5:21 is a paradoxical statement and if you take it out of the context of rest of the chapter it seems to mean that Jesus became sin and we became the righteousness of God. The chapter tried to explain how Jesus became sin by being put to death. The sting of sin is death (1 Cor 15:56 ) and “the death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. (Rom 6:10 NIV) We cannot understand the paradoxical statement unless we allow the previous verses to interpret how it is used.

2 Cor 5: 14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. 16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (NIV)

Jesus died for all that all may become new creations raised as new people to live for God; Compelled by the love of God who does not count men’s sin against them. How did Jesus then become sin? By being put to death the ultimate end of rebellion against God because You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. (Acts 3:15 NIV) We become the righteousness of God as we being a new creation point others to be reconciled with God.

Those who often quote 2 Cor 5:21 practically never address what it can mean they simply assume that it refers to a Substitutionary transfer where Jesus becomes sin and we become Jesus. Of course not really, only it appears that way to God because for some reason He no longer knows what is real we become hidden behind Christ who apparently is no longer sin but is righteous and God only sees Jesus. It is a confused view and unworthy to be assumed as a starting point to understand atonement. Clearly the moral influence view does not need to point to such a contrivance as the “central aspect of atonement.”

3. Narrow View of the Human Predicament: The theory of the moral influence presupposes that the human tragedy of sin lies in the fact that we have misinformation regarding God. We do not need to be free from the power of sin, but our ignorance of its His loving character. Humans, it is argued, see God as a tyrant who imposed arbitrary demands and disciplines them. The cross saves by changing their understanding of God. Such opinion is not consistent with the biblical perspective of sin and its impact on human beings. The sin is a deliberate rebellion against God that has separated us from him. It is not simply solved with a change in us (an subjective atonement), but through divine intervention that removes barriers and produces reconciliation (objective atonement).

You will notice that in Rodriguez’s summary of the moral influence theory he did not mention it’s view of sin. Sin is the attitude of people toward others and God. The Bible goes so far as to say: …everything that does not come from faith is sin. (Rom 14:23 )

But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. (Gal 3:22-23 NIV)

The answer to the sin problem then must be faith which is another way of saying trusting God. From that all of our actions change and as 2 Cor 5:16 above says we no longer look at things from the worldly point of view. Indeed we were separated by sin from God but the love of Christ compels us to be reconciled with God. We have learned from childhood John 3:16 but for some reason when we get to talking about atonement we suddenly forget the love of God that whoever believes may be saved. Instead the Substitutionary view seeks to muddy the waters with clever and deceptive bookkeeping practices in heaven.

Rodriguez only hints as this cosmic bookkeeping scam by cryptically saying: It is not simply solved with a change in us (an subjective atonement), but through divine intervention that removes barriers and produces reconciliation (objective atonement).

Yet it was God who is the active agent in tearing down our barriers to God. Did God have to do something to knock down His own barriers between Himself and us? If so then the sacrifice of Christ was not for us but to change God. But that would make no sense for God to do the sacrifice to Himself only to change Himself a God who does not change. It is why I think that the Penal/Substitutionary atonement theorists resort to innuendo and vague statements. When pressed to specifics the theory looks silly which is why it is so clouded with trite but wonderfully religious sounding sayings.

4. Separation of Judgment From Love: When the atonement is limited to the work of God in us, his judgment against the sin is incompatible with his love. As we have said on other occasions, this makes love synonymous with the divine indifference. Judgment against sin means that God takes seriously our actions because he cares about us. But also, it means He was willing and able to assume that judgment against us on the cross. The wrath of God is an expression of divine love; reveals a God who is interested to the point of showing us how painful sin is for Him.

As we saw above what is God’s judgment against sin (at least those who are reconciled)? Not counting men's sins against them. What kind of judgment is there against sin? Sin does not exist outside of the person, there are results of sinful actions but the sin was a consequence which is lost in time. What kind of judgment can be executed upon David for his infidelity with Bathsheba 200 or 4,000 years after he made his choices and actions? In number 3 Rodriguez says that sin is deliberate rebellion against God. That is an attitude problem of a person it is not something that can exist apart from the thinking individual.

Here in the space between his point 3 and 4 he disagrees with himself. Judgment against sin can only occur within a person so the work of atonement has to be limited to God working in us. Since God is not the problem and sin is only a problem in thinking people. You will not find any verse in the New Testament which says that God poured out His wrath on Christ, nor will you find anywhere that says Christ paid our penalty for sin. Yet these are common Christian expressions based upon the Substitutionary atonement theory rather then upon what the Bible says. Since the New Testament does not say these things the Substitutionary atonement proponent has to go to the more vague foreshadowing statements of Isaiah. But if those statements were meant to be used that way surely some New Testament writer would have used them because they did quote several verses from Isaiah that were applied to Christ; yet never about suffering our penalty or the wrath of God.

5. Love and the Cross: Perhaps the key question is to know how the cross reveals love. The theory of the moral influence asserts that it is a demonstration of love because Christ, the Innocent, died identifying Himself with us, but not to die in our place. But many others died on crosses. Why is the cross of Christ a revelation of the love of God, but not the other? Yes, the Holy died there, but there is more. He died for sinners, to save through His atoning sacrifice (Rom. 5:8, 1 John 4:10).

I think Rodriguez was just trying to fill space with this point. The moral influence is based upon the idea of what is God like, not what a human being or someone else is like. Does God forgive and accept us, will God raise the dead to life, is God worthy of our trust and worship? So His death answered our questions about God, a sacrifice that brings us together with God, that is atonement, that is reconciliation. Certainly he died for sinners, for the whole world because all involved were sinners and sinners are the ones in need of reconciliation with God. Only God can reveal the character of God, God could have sent an angel to pretend he was God and the effect would have been the same as if God had done it Himself but that would be inconsistent with His character. For what good is salvation if we find that once given eternal life we find that God has lied to us?

The death of Christ is indeed the greatest revelation of God's love, because it "God was in Christ reconciling the world, not taking into account the sins of men against them," but rather making, "Him who knew no sin to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:19-21).

Finally a point we can agree upon at least once you remove dross that seems to always get inserted into those verses. We may never fully understand all that God did for us to reconcile us but we need to at least be honest with the reason we do present. Because what we say, we are saying about God, and making Him appear confused and less just then humans will not help us lead others to be reconciled and after all that is our mission.

Golden Compass part 2

I got so tired of reading the Christian websites and blogs saying that Lyra killed God that I thought I would put in the quote from the final book where they meet the ancient of days who was earlier identified as an angel but may be assumed to be a type of the god that exists in the books. Imprisoned in a crystal cell the children come across the decrepit being.

Between them they helped the ancient of days out of his crystal cell; it wasn't hard, for he was as light as paper, and he would have followed them anywhere, having no will of his own, and responding to simple kindness like a flower to the sun. But in the open air there was nothing to stop the wind from damaging him, and to their dismay his form began to loosen and dissolve. Only a few moments later he had vanished completely, and their last impression was of those eyes, blinking in wonder, and a sigh of the most profound and exhausted relief.

Then he was gone: a mystery dissolving in mystery.

---Page 181 The Amber Spyglass , Phillip Pullman

I do not think the above incident spoils anything in the story but it does destroy the claim that they killed God in the books. At least when Christians decried the Da Vinci Code they did not have to make stuff up, just counter the stuff that was made up. Here we have Christians making stuff up to counter stuff that was not even present in the stuff that the author made up.

What do you think? Devotional Challange

"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.' "'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. "Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go. "Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. (Mat 21:28-32 NIV)

What do you think? What do we hear when we stop to listen. In the above story Jesus asked the ever present authorities so desperate to catch Jesus saying something wrong. Jesus did not avoid these troublemakers he engaged them, he challenged them. In this story he asks for their opinion about the two sons the one who refuses but changes and does what he is asked and the other who says he will do what is asked but never does it. Which one did what the father wanted? It is a simple question of logic a simple application of information and a simple answer.

What is your opinion of the outcasts of society? Can it be true that they too are entering the Kingdom of God ahead of you? What do we do when we hear the message of John who came saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." (Matt 3:2) Do we turn our backs and walk away or do we gather at the river? Many hear yet are they listening “Like an earring of gold or an ornament of fine gold is a wise man's rebuke to a listening ear.” (Prov 25:12 NIV) Jesus the wise man provided the rebuke “And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.” What we do with the information we receive is what sets us apart from others. It may be a simple question of logic or a simple application of information but our answers point to where our heart is. For from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. (Matt 12:34)

What do you think?

The reason I wrote the above is because someone in my church challenged me to write a positive post for this blog. Apparently he felt that my posts are too negative. So I decided I would attempt to write in the commonly used devotional manner. Many probably think of those short articles as positive and deeply moving. Are they positive? It depends upon your perspective, was the incident in Matt 21-28 positive? No it was a rebuke it pointed out their rejection of John and need of repentance. Religion is not all positive or all negative just like most everything else it is a mixture of elements.

For the challenge above I had my son open the Bible to a page at random with the only provision being to try not to open it in the very center because that is a person’s natural tendency. I then asked my daughter to pick a section on the one of the two pages that was opened. My thinking was that I would write a devotional about whatever appeared because I had told the person at church it would be no challenge to simply write something that was a positive (devotional). I still hold to that opinion though I think it was fortuitous that the verses above were selected. The challenge is not to write something that other Christians agree with. We have tons of books like that. We have churches with so called prophets who string together multiple quotes from the Bible and simply preface it with “the Lord is saying to you”. They are held in high regard in their churches, but those of us who try and present a reasoned argument are often viewed as agents of evil, negative and certainly not devotional. A devotional whose point is that we need to have more faith, actions or compassion will not be considered negative because we all know we need more faith, actions and compassion. But if you deal with the day to day issues of our doctrines or practices… that is negative. So positive is repeating what we already know, negative is examining what we do not know.

“The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.” --- Elbert Hubbard

The first step towards knowledge is to know that we are ignorant.
--- Richard Cecil:

Special Adventist Sanctification

In a Recent editorial in the Pacific Union Recorder Tom Mostert presents the type of fundamentalism that infects so many leaders in the SDA church. His article entitled:
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0 demonstrates the all or nothing attitude of many of the Traditional SDA’s, which is, unfortunately either agree with us or you have nothing. My comments are interlined with the following copy of his editorial.

Dear Pacific Union Member:

As some of you who regularly read my letters know, I tend to focus on issues impacting the personal or collective faith and mission of our members and the Church in general. Matters we recognize are there, yet for various reasons are not discussed. Here is my latest hot button issue!

The Zero Sum Equation

More and more Adventist members and some pastors are modifying their faith according to what is or is not convenient to believe and practice. Most do not admit this is the reason, but I have noticed most of the modifications are in the area of sanctification; the process of progressive development of a God-like mind and lifestyle. Few tamper with the basic free gift of salvation. Let me illustrate how it works...

He begins as do most fundamentalists with a gratuitous assertion. An assertion he admits most who modify their faith would not admit and I would say more likely not accept. But because it is his belief and he feels he needs no evidence to support, he states his erroneous belief as if it were a fact. He then moves on to a rather narrow definition of sanctification. Is sanctification the process of progressive development of a God-like mind and lifestyle? Well not if we use any theological definition of sanctification, the subject of Sanctification is found in an article which summarizes well by saying:

To summarize, sanctification is the same Greek word as holiness, “hagios,” meaning a separation. First, a once-for-all positional separation unto Christ at our salvation. Second, a practical progressive holiness in a believer’s life while awaiting the return of Christ. Third, we will be changed into His perfect likeness—holy, sanctified, and completely separated from the presence of evil.

Many Christians have incorporated these various aspects of the Christian life in the term “Now and Not Yet”. We are saved now with our acceptance of God’s gift but we have still not fully realized the gift because it cannot be realized till it is manifested at the second coming.

Sanctification

A person is raised with the guilt trip of legalism hanging around their neck in the name of sanctification. It robbed them of peace of mind and made religion an intolerable burden to bear. But they are more enlightened now, and have simply accepted the free gift of salvation provided through the death and resurrection of Jesus. In general, they hope to become more like Him in thought and lifestyle, but any worry about specifics simply destroys their peace of mind. So if it is important, God will bring it to mind — otherwise, they practice sanctification only in general terms.

Total acceptance of the traditional Adventist understanding of sanctification is ZERO.

Amazingly Mostert does not even refute the idea that the Adventist view of sanctification has incorporated legalism which robs most everyone of their peace of mind. In fact to believe in the legalism concept destroys the threefold definition of sanctification. The legalism makes it impossible to accept that we have been set apart for God at our point of belief in God’s offer of salvation. I am encouraged that there are people in the SDA church who are becoming more enlightened and find their rest in Christ rather then worry about how they are failures who do not measure up to the standards presented by Christ on the Sermon on the Mount. Read Romans chapter 7 to realize how important it is to acknowledge the salvation over our own wretched condition.

Health

Someone decides they will believe in general healthful living, but not worry about the details. Since various studies show the benefits of red wine, and they like the taste and relaxation qualities of it anyway, it is incorporated into their diet — in moderation, of course! Likewise with coffee. After all, what is a modern lifestyle without a caffeine kick?

When the list is finished, the incorporation of the traditional Adventist health message in their lifestyle is ZERO.

Sanctification is now interpreted to be a quality developed from the incorporation of traditional Adventist health message. So now Mostert has moved passed the narrow view of traditional Adventist sanctification to expand upon what one must do to be sanctified by accepting particular 19^th century health reform movement conceptions. Even though the Bible does not condemn the use of Wine or other drinks like Coffee, since traditional Adventist health messages do then they become a part of Adventist sanctification.

Evangelism

Church leaders have attempted to get people involved in various witnessing activities. But they don't like the pressure to participate, and strangers always scare them. So they say to themselves, "Why go through the pain and discomfort of activities which bring limited results? I'll settle for saying something positive for God when someone asks me a direct religious question. That leaves it to God to bring me the person, and spares me the time and energy necessary for an unpleasant activity. Anyway, I am so busy with job and family it is impossible to find the time."

Intentional sharing of the Adventist faith with others? ZERO.

I have no idea what this is referring to other then a sheep like willingness to do whatever church leaders want. Surely we could develop methods of witnessing for different types of people. What I have found is most traditional Adventist witnessing activities are ineffective and based upon ideas which lead to such a restricted understanding of the Gospel that I as well as others hate to be involved. What is more important Christians faith sharing or Adventist faith sharing? As it appears in order for the above issues of sanctification to be added and they are developed from traditional Adventist messages, the gospel is not enough for sanctification. As such we are at a point where traditional Adventism conflicts with general Biblical Christianity.

Prophecy

Where once it seemed important to have a modern day prophet to warn and instruct us as we prepare for the second coming of Jesus, it is now inconvenient to accept Ellen White's pointed counsel about personal changes. My, the list is endless! So we look for reasons not to read her: some say she might have simply copied large portions of the material in her books; the church was so legalistic in the past, she probably just flowed with the times. Now our emphasis is on salvation through Jesus, full and complete.

Total serious consideration of the prophetic messages from Ellen White = ZERO.

Mostert could have simply said that in order to be sanctified people must accept Ellen G. White as a modern day prophet. Being that this issue and the health message are both from Ellen White. I do find it curious that a supposed prophet who died in 1915 is considered a modern day prophet. I have a college aged daughter who has no remembrance of a rotary dial telephone, so just how relevant is the instructions given to a people before there was mass media communication radio, television, movies or most anything we think of as modern today. Not really anymore relevant then Reformation era information or Early Christianity. A person can draw relevance from all types of historical information whether story or sermon or commentary but to claim it is modern day is like saying that World War I describes modern warfare.

It is not that some say she borrowed large portions of material in her books that is widely know as Fred Veltman’s study reveals and can be read on the archives at Adventistarchives.org. specifically the Life of Christ Research Project

But that in itself should not necessarily persuade or dissuade one from reading her work. However Mostert does not try to persuade anyone to read Ellen White but takes it as a given that one must read her and hold to her as a modern day prophet. Indicating further that unless one agrees with her as a prophet as opposed to any other Christian author they are not seriously considering her prophetic messages. Which returns us back to the fundamentalist viewpoint which began Mostert’s editorial. Because the fundamentalist begins with their presupposition and looks no further. This might not be so bad if they did not then accuse nearly everyone else of being unsanctified if they came to different conclusions. But then again the traditional Adventist as the name implies is only seeking to confirm their traditions. Thus they are antithetical to Progressive Adventism and the attitude that created the Seventh-day Adventist church in the first place.

What Do You Have Left?

These are but a few examples of a long list of thought patterns developing in members' lives. You could add belief in absolutes, the unique mission of the Adventist Church, and faithfulness in tithing. In the end each area equals ZERO.

A church whose distinctive truths have been zeroed out is left with nothing different from the community church down the street. The unique Seventh-day Adventist message and mission is reduced to ZERO.

Sincerely your friend ,Tom Mostert, President Pacific Union Conference

It is strange how the Gospel commission has been reshaped into the SDA distinctive mission. But this appears to be an ongoing attempt by our Conference papers as we earlier pointed out in a response to Jere Patzer Gleaner article Conference recommended ways to really kill your church

New Book on Adventists

From Carolina Newspapers.com
New book sheds light on Adventist

By Adam MacInnis Staff writer
(Published November 22‚ 2007)

CLOVER -- For 27 years, Edith Fairman Cooper was a faithful Seventh Day Adventist.

She was religious liberty secretary, taught at Sabbath School and was once Sabbath School Superintendent.

But that was all before 2002, when she took a closer look at what her church believed. Now she's Baptist.

Cooper, a Clover resident who spent 35 years doing research for the U.S. Congress, said she was talking to a friend one day when he said, "You know what they say about Adventists."

She didn't, but determined to find out.

She found several online Web sites that said what Seventh Day Adventists said was wrong. She decided to see for herself whether there was any truth to what was said or if it was just disgruntled Adventists.

"I wanted to step back from that and look at it objectively, like I would a reporter writing for Congress and see what both sides of the issues are saying," she said.

She has reported her findings in a new book, "It's all about Jesus: Observations of a former Seventh Day Adventist."

Her findings aren't what she had hoped for, she said.

Points to ponder for the 21st Century

Mission Catalist Blog has an interesting article entitled: Which Denominations Will Thrive in the 21st Century?

The article lists 10 points, here are some of the ones I think are most important.

1. They proactively acknowledge and function with the understanding that real denominations serve congregations, and all they do points to enhancing the vitality of local congregations.

Most of us hate statements that begin with the psychobabble word “proactively” but the important point here is that a congregation needs to serve their congregations first. The vitality of the church is based upon the congregation’s attitudes and then the congregation can move outward to the community. The denomination is a conglomerate of local congregations therefore it is only as strong as the local congregations. The Denomination is a facilitator it does not serve the local congregation nor do the local congregations serve the Denomination.

2. They unite on a clear and compelling message that seeks to make a transformational difference in the world. That message is so powerful that it gives them great reason to work through issues that seek to divide them.

This becomes something that is often lacking in our churches. We don’t have a clear compelling message often in Adventist church this is because instead of the message of the Gospel revealed in the love and forgiveness and healing offered by God we focus upon the distinctives of the SDA church. As if our interpretation of Daniel and Revelation are more important then the clear and compelling love of God.

3. They develop clarity around their doctrinal values that focus on core doctrines and allow flexibility for congregations who do not agree with every non-core doctrine espoused.

Most churches do not develop clarity around their doctrinal values. Most including Adventists cling to traditional denominational beliefs, assuming that holding to the tradition is clarity. When you don’t have clarity because the doctrines are not well developed because the traditional view is only offered there is no flexibility on other so called non-core doctrines. Because traditions dictate that there are not non-core doctrines. In fact there are many non-core doctrines and in fact there are numerous interpretations on many doctrines however if the local congregation is not informed upon the different views they will act hostilely towards fellow Christian believers who hold to different beliefs.

8. They make peace with the parachurch world, and even become more parachurch in nature themselves. They partner with parachurch organizations to increase effective service to their congregations.

After skipping some which are pretty meaningless here we see something that is also frequently ignored. Local congregations should be involved with homeless rescue mission and food banks rather then try and reinvent those organizations. If there is a local congregation that has an active Adventist Community Service (formerly Dorcas) they should connect to other churches of other denominations in the area. This goes back to number 3 above however in that we have to discard the tradition that other Christian Churches are Babylon or apostate.

The congregation is an integration of so many factors and often we assume only one point of view. As I previously related in earlier articles here, what are heard in our sermons by our pastors is often only views based upon their views and their perspectives (The Problem with Preaching). For example in the earlier instance (Clean and Unclean Meat) where the Pastor answered questions from the audience in at least 2 of the 4 questions he did not offer anything about the predominant Christian perspective. He answered with traditional SDA answers; of course he was answering off the top of his head and was presenting what he believed. However to incorporate the ideas that are proposed to insure a vibrant church in the 21^st century we have to actually change our techniques as well as our expectations. We don’t teach our people to think when we don’t give them information to think with. They will therefore lack flexibility and when issues divide them they will not seek ways to remain in unity on the big picture.

Clean and Unclean meat

Clean and Unclean meat

Our Church today was different as the Pastor called for questions from the audience which he attempted to answer. The last question was by a woman who had a ham in the freezer and wanted to know if she could eat it. As this is an Adventist church his final albeit somewhat confused answer was that she should dump it, vegetarianism is preferred. However it does not answer the real question which is does the Bible still maintain the division of Clean and unclean meat. If you search the internet you see it is still a contentious issue. It starts with a very small difference in the manuscripts which ends up creating two different translations of Mark 7:19

A site which accepts that the division continues states:

*Although there are many minor textual differences between source documents of the New Covenant, it is very rare that a variance significantly affects meaning. Mark 7:18-19 is one of these rare passages. The difference of a single letter (Omicron or Omega) determines gender for the word "purging, making clean" near the end of v.19 (katharizon). If the word's gender is neuter (written with the Omicron), it attaches to "stomach," and is speaking of the digestive process. (See the King James Version, for instance.) But for translators who believe the word's gender is masculine (written with the Omega), it must look all the way back to the "He" (Yeshua) at the beginning of verse 18 for its masculine subject. For the sake of clarity, these translators insert a phrase that never appears in the Greek: "Thus He declared."

Thus we end up with two contenders in most translations.

(NKJV) Mark 7:19 "because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods?"

(NASB) Mark 7:19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

There is to the modern mind a preference here; as the idea that human feces purifying one’s food is not too scientifically reasonable. It represents the waste that the body does not use if the food had toxins or contaminants they well may still be in the body to cause whatever trouble they may cause. We are however not going to get a certain answer to which Greek rendering is correct as clearly from the different translations there is scholarly disagreement.

Those who hold that there is still a division of clean and unclean meat will focus on the context which in Mark begins with the contention that Jesus’ Disciples did not ritually wash their hands before they ate. This again to the scientific Western mind is a pretty good ritual, beneficial even if not using soap and running water. Never the less they hold that the context is about this tradition of the Elders and not about God’s explicit commands given in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 (if those commands were for health purposes it is a shame that God did not tell them to wash their hands because it would have been far more healthful for all concerned). In order to maintain the clean and unclean meat people will us Malachi 3:6 which says God does not change. A true statement but also goes against the contextual use, in that God does not change but then again He does use different techniques to teach people depending on time and place. Jesus very frequently answers questions in ways that are not limited to the original context of the questioner. That is why in this case the disciples asked for clarification after Jesus had given his answer to the Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law. The disciples may not have been the brightest fellows but having been with Jesus they quickly realized that His answers were not all that simple. A classic example I often use to stress this point is when Jesus was threaten with death and accused of blasphemy, He responded by quoting Psalms “you are gods”. John 10:34-36 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods' ? [Psalms 82:6] If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken-- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'?( NIV) Jesus could rhetorically duel with the best of them. He asserted that Psalms was their law which would likely start and internal argument as would what was meant by gods and the phrase Scripture cannot be broken. So before they can declare Jesus guilty of blasphemy they have a lot of work to do. So it is no surprise that the disciples asked for clarification. Many of those who argue for the division of clean and unclean remaining will choose this point to declare that what goes into a man here is speaking of the dirt on unwashed hands. This is a possible answer but what if the meaning was broader, what if Jesus was laying a foundation for future concepts, which would end in the dismantling of the clean and unclean meat restrictions. If this is like the Omicron vs. Omega difference the respective ways of interpreting the following Biblical texts may also be different and also the understanding of New Testament Christians in regard to clean and unclean meat.

If we begin at this point with a broader understanding of the text in Mark 7, that is, that it is a reference to anything entering man’s mouth is not what makes him unclean but rather the things of his heart that make him unclean we see that clean and unclean meat could be meant just as well as dirt on the hands or a bug flying into your mouth etc. Being clean or unclean is a matter of how you think and act rather then rituals. It is from this perspective that the Expositor’s Bible Commentary writes:

This statement clearly has its eye on a situation such as developed in the Pauline mission churches in which questions of clean and unclean foods (cf. Acts 10:9-16; 11:5-10 and see Rom 14:13 ff.) and idol-meats became live issues (as we know from 1Cor 8:10) This chapter in Mark 7 is perhaps the most obvious declaration of Mark's purpose as a Christian living in the Graeco-Roman world who wishes to publicize the charter of Gentile freedom by recording in the plainest terms Jesus' detachment from Jewish ceremonial and to spell out in clear tones the application of this to his readers. (Martin, Mark, p. 220). If Peter stands behind Mark's Gospel, these words are particularly apropos in the light of Acts 10:15.

Peter had a vision recorded in Acts 10 which concludes with these words:

“Acts 10:14-15 Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean. “The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." (NIV) The vision presents the idea that God can make something clean that was once unclean in which case it is not God changing but the change God has made upon people. So why were the Gentiles unclean for the Jews, naturally because they did not follow the Jewish laws and rituals which included the dietary restrictions that separated the Jew from the Gentile and would make the Jew unclean by the mere contact with a Gentile. Peter’s vision here in Acts 10 is not restricted to only dietary restrictions but they can’t remain if the concept is taken to include the gospel going to the Gentiles. You can’t have contact with the Gentiles yet avoid the Gentiles because they were unclean. While we may not know the exact time sequence we do see a similar drawing away by Peter from the Gentiles as recorded by Paul: Galatians 2:11-14 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (NIV)

The Conference recorded in Acts 15 demonstrates that clean and unclean meat were not restrictions placed upon the Gentiles. Again this is not a change of God it is a different way of dealing with a different people.

Acts 15:19-20 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. (NIV)

The council of apostles and Christian leaders at Jerusalem in approximately A.D. 49 indicates that the leaders were not instituting Jewish laws or traditions upon the Gentiles. It hit probably what they thought were the biggest concerns but even then as we continue in the New Testament we see that even food offered to idols is not really a problem unless the Christian believes it to be a problem.

1 Corinthians 8:7-9 But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. (NIV)

Paul continues upon Jesus’ foundation that it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles by declaring us free from the external rules of clean or unclean foods and not simply based upon food offered to idols. To Timothy Paul writes: 1 Timothy 4:1-6 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. (NIV)

Romans 14:14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food n is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

Romans 14:20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. (NIV)

To read an article which takes the opposite view starting at the Mark 7 verse see Are All Foods Clean?

There is a basic philosophical difference in the two methods of interpretations, that which I have set forth above and present in most of the Christian world and that represented by the article Are All Foods Clean? I think the philosophy which I reject is well summed up in the final paragraph of the Are All Foods Clean article when he says:

God does not change. The prohibition He placed on which animals man can use for food still exists. As the prophecy from Isaiah 66 shows, those who do not acknowledge these commands will be among those God pours His anger out upon at the time of the return of the Messiah. Don't be counted among this rebellious group destined for punishment.

As opposed to the philosophy which sees God as the kind of personality who reaches out to people where they are, dealing with them in their life situations, whose commands reflect the freedom from ritualism to reason. A philosophy which sees God as one who does not demand obedience or He will kill you, but asks us to choose to accept a better way, a reasoned way of living. Open to ones own perceptions and based upon their own convictions of what God wants for their lives. As John 8:36 says: So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. Today if one wants to choose to not use a food they should present a reason from a scientific or philosophical position rather then asserting that something is Biblically restricted when there are legitimate differences in the interpretations of the data.

Life Expectancy and the Attractive Church

In reference to my last post on a literary work of fiction here is excerpt from another literary work of fiction showing how some ideas interact with others.

In reference to her husbands loving yet unconventional family Laurie says:

You know, parents and children and love come in some strange combinations. I mean your parents can love you and you can know they love you and you can love them and still grow up so lonely that you feel hollow…

Love isn’t enough your parents have to know how to relate to you and to each other. They have to want to be with you more then with anyone else. They have to love being home more than anywhere in the world and they have to be more interested in you then in “snakes and tornadoes” I suggested…[speaking of her parents occupations]

God I love them, their nice Jimmy they really are and they mean well but they live inside themselves more then not and they keep their doors closed. You see them mostly through windows…

You grew up with everything I wanted so bad, everything that I dreamed of having your folks live for you and for each other for family…It’s bliss Jimmy and I am so damn grateful that you all let me in.

(Dean Koontz, Life Expectancy chapter 26)

What strikes me about the above excerpts is how attractive the family is. Others want to be part of that family and are thankful when they become a part of the family. How nice it would be if our church reflected that position. Sabbath school classes where people enjoy the communication, the opportunity to share ideas and listen to other ideas. That is the way I have felt about many of the Sabbath school classes I have attended. That is what I look for in the classes I choose to attend. I would hope for that experience in the other parts of our church experience as well.

Recently my daughter’s youth Sabbath School got involved with discussion of some challenging life situations. I was pleased to see that my daughter was excited about going to Sabbath school and she had prepared some notes to discuss her point of view. Then after our respective Sabbath school classes I found out that instead of the open communication and sharing ideas, ideas were stomped on by those who for some reason think that the miracles of mission stories are the answers to every Christians life. Simply put instead of being a welcoming family it became a fundamentalist dictatorship where the two adults present worked as a team to repress the thinking of the youth. No doubt with the best of intentions. They feel they are responsible to teach the youth what they think the SDA church believes. As with many fundamentalist views they have assumed that they know what the Adventist church believes and that the church is restricted to a certain way of belief.

The point here is not whether the adults in the youth class were right or wrong in their beliefs. The point is that they destroyed the opportunity to create a friendly challenging and stimulating family, which would make the youth glad they were there, and something that would interest others to be included.

Our traditions have in many ways limited us here. Many don’t even know how to discuss ideas without getting upset with someone who holds an opposing view. We have for so long thought that we had “the truth” that we assume anything different then our traditional “truth” is actually an enemy of both God and/or Adventism. We must change our philosophy to allow for discussion, to allow people to express themselves and create the impetus to research things further to either come up with an answer or at least communicate our position based upon reason and allow the others to express why they believe what they believe. Your philosophy and my philosophy may not agree but that does not need to separate Christian families whether physical family or spiritual family. We need to learn to relate to others in such a way that shows we are open and accepting just as our God is open and accepting. Jesus says come and lay your burden on Him we have no business adding more burden upon those coming to lay their upon Him. And of course if we do that we will never create the kind of family that someone would be so glad as to say, “I am so damn grateful that you all let me in.”

Is the Golden Compass Anti-Christian

I recently received a forwarded E-mail about the upcoming movie “The Golden Compass” Here is the first part of the E-mail:

PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS PLEASE BE WARNED!
Subject: A movie NOT for Kids/teens or Family
I just got an e-mail warning about an upcoming movie for children in December. It is called The "Golden Compass" and it stars Nicole Kidman. I don't know if you have heard anything about it or not, but they are going to advertise it as a normal children's movie but in the end it is trying to teach children that there is no God. It is based off of a trilogy of children's books and the author is an atheist ( Phillip Pullman )
They evidently do some strange things in the movie and at the very end a girl and boy are supposed to be depicting Adam and Eve and then they kill God. They are trying to be very mild about it through the movie until the end so a lot of parents won't even know that it is coming so I wanted to pass the information on to you before you decide to take your children to see this movie. Also, it will be promoting his books so you may want to become familiar with the authors name and the books that he writes! If you want to read more info about it the website is: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

Since I recently listened to the audio book versions of the trilogy (because I listen to lots of books at work) I found the current excitement over the movie interesting. It is set in an alternative world one of the billions of possible worlds that quantum theory proposes (Mulltiverse). Writers should rejoice that science produced the idea of parallel universes because it has been used in so many books and is a great technique to create a fictional world. In the Golden Compass the world is an alternative to our world in that Calvin became the pope and science is known as experimental theology.

9. How does the Catholic Church figure into the story?
The Church in Lyra’s world exerts a major influence on the lives of all the characters. It has a college of cardinals, a college of bishops, priests, nuns, and a magisterium. It even boasts converts from Protestantism. In Lyra’s world, Protestant reformers remained within the Church, elected John Calvin as Pope, moved the Church’s headquarters to Geneva, and then did away with the papacy altogether.

We are uncertain of the time period as it is a different universe and a different England and frozen north. The technology is somewhere between the Victorian to Post WWI period. When opening into different universes (In the second and third books) it appears they open into different times. The story center's around Lyra a 12-13 year old orphan raised at an Oxford college.

One of the things I thought Christians would be most upset by was that the people all had their own Daemon's which are a part of the person yet take the form of an animal which can talk to the person and be seen by everyone.

Every character in Lyra’s parallel world possesses something called a daemon (pronounced “demon”). The name daemon is borrowed from the ancient Greeks. The philosopher Socrates described his daemon as a quiet voice inside his head that helped him discern right from wrong. Socrates, therefore, equated his daemon with his conscience.
In Pullman’s world, the daemon is a cross between a person’s conscience and a person’s soul. The daemon is external and attached to a human. It takes on an animal form that best reflects the personality and character of the human to whom the daemon belongs. Its form changes from moment to moment during childhood. However, the daemon chooses a fixed form sometime during its human’s adolescence. Thus the individual’s personality and character become fixed for life. The daemon dissipates upon death.

For young children the daemon can change animal or bird forms and at some point in adolescence the daemon takes on a permanent form. It is a great concept, sort of like talking to yourself only with the comfort of a cuddly animal. The daemon can also go a little distance from the person which makes it good for spying on things but they cannot go very far or there is terrible mental anguish involved in separation. Except the witches up north their daemon's can travel long distances separated.

In this world there is a mystery involved with dust from space and it's contact with consciousness. There are two forces the Magisterium which seems reminiscent of the power of the Roman Catholic church in the Middle Ages yet clearly is not the Catholic church yet has control over the science (experimental theology) and Lyra's Guardian who turns out to be her father (it turns out Lyra's mother is the beautiful agent of the Magisterium). We really don't know if he is the hero or the villain. In the later books he brings together forces from angels and witches to armored bears into a universal war between other angels and other witches etc. Heaven it seems has been taken over by Megatron a powerful angel who has captured the ancient of days and it has become The Authority. I thought Adventists if they could get to this point as I know many are afraid of reading fiction would see a reflection of the Great Controversy idea and Biblical references aside from the common good versus evil concept which predominates in most literature. It is the human agents of Megatron who have established the authoritarian Church in Lyra's world. Sort of similar to the idea of 2 Thessalonians

(2 Th 2:4 NIV) He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

(Rev 13:4 NIV) Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?"

In other words we see a religious institution which does not care about truth but seeks to control. I read, or listened to if you want to be technical, the books before I heard that Pullman was an atheist so the idea that it promoted atheism does not really register with me. The dust is more of a pantheistic idea but it still must have a source and intelligence as it communicates though various devices. So even though there is the villainy of the Magisterium the book does not seem to be against all forms of religion. In fact the view of Pete Vere is a canon lawyer and a Catholic journalist Linked above the book as sympathetic to alternative religions such as this quote :

These witches and shamans are important supporting characters. Without their assistance, Lyra and her father, Lord Asriel, would not be able to organize the war against the Authority.

The overall effect is that there is more to life then the physical reality. Are the books anti-Christian? I don't think so nor are they anti-religious, though it incorporates many religious ideas from Greek gods to souls in hades. One thing appears to fuel the controversy which inspired the E-mail that is circulated, that is the misunderstanding that any one form of a religion represents all religions or any one form of Christianity represents all Christianity. Martin Luther decried the Roman Catholic Church vigorously that does not mean he was attacking Christianity. Sometimes in defense of something people have to attack the abuser. Just as it is wrong to assume that all Roman Catholic Priests are pedophiles it is wrong to assume that a fictional authoritarian church represents all churches.

Most people have learned that they don't really get a philosophy or a religion from a fantasy book. I think Scientology will be the last religion created by a fantasy author. The rest of us look for meaning where we can find it whether in fiction, fantasy or nonfiction. A good story is entertainment for the mind, it may explore new ideas or ways of looking at things but it certainly does not mean that one discards their religion over a story that is obviously a fantasy adventure. We do of course look for commonality between the story elements and what we see around us. That is the beauty of literature and its importance. But how we use that information is the critical part of the process.

You may have noticed in the E-mail letter this section which are used to trigger a contempt response by Christians to the book:

They evidently do some strange things in the movie and at the very end a girl and boy are supposed to be depicting Adam and Eve and then they kill God

It is very doubtful that this is part of the movie. It is also not part of the book trilogy.

Spoiler Alert: There is a reference to Adam and Eve as a prophecy that spurs one of the Authorities spy’s to attempt to kill the Lyra and Will (Will is not in the first book) but he fails and in the end Lyra and Will are separated forever as they must go back to their respective universes. During the great war they actual aid in the release of the ancient of days which perhaps is a reference to God. Interestingly enough there is a good deal of self sacrifice involved throughout the books. In fact the destruction of Megatron is done by willingly giving Lord Asriel’s life in the site of Lyra, his daughter. It is where we finally see that he is not a villain. Even though at the end of the Golden Compass he opens a door into another universe by the killing of Lyra’s friend Roger. Which if that is how the movie ends will make a lot of unhappy movie goers.

From the Guardian http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190765,00.html

Northern Lights, the book which first introduced readers to Pullman’s 12-year-old heroine, Lyra, is as dear to its many fans as JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and JK Rowling’s Harry Potter saga, so tampering with the philosophical content is not likely to be welcomed when the film is released before Christmas.

While Pullman himself has said he believes ‘the outline of the story is faithful to what I wrote, given my knowledge of what they have done’, the National Secular Society - of which the author is an honorary associate - has now spoken out against the changes.

‘It was clear right from the start that the makers of this film intended to take out the anti-religious elements of Pullman’s book,’ said Terry Sanderson, president of the society. ‘In doing that they are taking the heart out of it, losing the point of it, castrating it. It seems that religion has now completely conquered America’s cultural life and it is much the poorer for it. What a shame that we have to endure such censorship here too.’

Kidman has said the critical stance of the film ‘has been watered down a little ... I was raised Catholic, the Catholic Church is part of my essence,’ she told film journalists in Australia in the summer. ‘I wouldn’t be able to do this film if I thought it were at all anti-Catholic.’
...
At a preview of footage staged at the Cannes Film Festival in the spring, director Chris Weitz, best known for directing About A Boy, said the film would be a fair retelling of Pullman’s tale.

‘In the books the Magisterium is a version of the Catholic church gone wildly astray from its roots. If that’s what you want in the film, you’ll be disappointed,’ he admitted, but added: ‘We have expanded the range of meanings of what the Magisterium represents. Philip Pullman is against any kind of organised dogma whether it is church hierarchy or, say, a Soviet hierarchy.’

Washing Osama's Feet

I just saw this post on Random Reflections by Greg Boyd Washing Osama's Feet
He begins by saying:

Brad Cole is a friend of mine who runs a ministry called Heavenly Sanctuary. This ministry puts on Conferences around the country on the Character of God -- and they get it right. This year they hired an artist named Lars Justinen from the Justinen Creative Group to paint the above picture to use on posters advertising their conference. Under this picture they had captions like "Follow the Leader," "God IS Great," and most accurately, "Jesus - Still Too Radical?"

Heavenly Sanctuary had contracts with several malls in the Seattle area to hang these posters advertising their conference, but no sooner had the posters gone up than angry calls began flooding the malls. Many people -- but, it seems, mostly Christians -- were offended at the image of Jesus washing Osama Bin Laden’s feet. There was such an outcry that each of the malls decided to go back on their contract and take the posters down. The Christian College that Heavenly Sanctuary was renting space from to host the Conference also canceled their contract. Brad had to scramble to find a secular venue (which, ironically, had no problems with the poster).

What does this say about how many American Christians envision Jesus? Obviously, the protesters believe that Jesus would not wash Osama Bin Laden’s feet. But Jesus died "not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world" (I Jn 2:2) -- and this obviously includes Osama. So if Jesus died for Osama, how are we to imagine him being unwilling to wash his feet?

As Don on Atomorrow.com pointed out there are a number of questions that come to mind. It is not simply that protesters believe that Jesus would not wash Osama's feet. In fact my first reaction two years ago when I saw it was that Islamic radicals would love the picture because it showed Jesus in a submissive role to Osama. It is a matter of perspective. Which is interesting in that the people are dressed in today's clothes which include modern footwear which would make foot washing meaningless, as is the entire cultural foot-washing tradition amongst most of those people present. One question I would ask is would these people even allow Jesus to wash their feet or would some of them instead wash the others feet and Jesus' feet and which ones would use the whole thing for a photo op. Here were some of the questions that Don asked:

This picture provides the base for some interesting discussions:

1. What message does the drawing convey?
2. Do you agree with that message?
3. Was the original foot-washing focused on the whole world?
4. Can we consider the people in the picture the disciples of Jesus?
5. Would you wash Judas' feet? Who was worse, Judas or Osama?
6. What is right with this picture?
7. What is wrong with this picture?

8. Which of these captions would you use for this picture?

• "Follow the Leader"
• "God IS Great"
• "Jesus - Still Too Radical?"
• None of the above.

"no sooner had the posters gone up than angry calls began flooding the malls."

9. What might these angry callers have said? Suggest a few possible sentences.
10. If you were the spokesperson for a shopping mall, how would you answer these callers?
11. Would you agree to take down the posters? Explain your reasons.

So if Jesus died for Osama, how are we to imagine him being unwilling to wash his feet?

12. Would Jesus wash Osama's feet? Explain your answer.
13. Would you wash Osama's feet?
14. Would all of these people partake of the Passover with Jesus?
15. Where would these people be when Jesus agonized in the Garden?
16. What would be their attitude when Jesus arose a few days later?

The Christian College that Heavenly Sanctuary was renting space from to host the Conference also canceled their contract. Brad had to scramble to find a secular venue (which, ironically, had no problems with the poster).

17. Explain the 'irony' mentioned here.
18. Why do you think those supporting these posters do not understand many Christians' opposition to this poster?
19. Are the poster supporters being reasonable?
20. What does it mean to be intolerant? Who is being intolerant in this story?
21. Would the Heavenly Sanctuary people wash the feet of the Christian College who cancelled their contract?
22. Are the Heavenly Sanctuary people being 'smugly moralistic'?

Update: This is actually the Portland Oregon area not the Seattle area. The Following is from KGW News:

Posters showing Jesus washing bin Laden's feet pulled from malls

04:45 PM PDT on Wednesday, October 3, 2007

By ANTONIA GIEDWOYN, kgw.com Staff

Large posters depicting Jesus Christ washing the feet of world leaders and terrorist Osama bin Laden have generated numerous complaints at the Oregon malls where the banners briefly hung.

The posters promote the Good News Tour – a religious conference – and organizers say they were trying to make a statement about God, not politics.

The complaints, however, prompted advertising executives who initially approved the posters to remove them.

The paid advertisements were hung in Lloyd Center, Clackamas Town Center, Cedar Hills Crossing, Mall 205, the Columbia Gorge Outlet stores and in Salem’s Lancaster Mall.

“Clearly we’re disappointed… we knew the pictures evoked a lot of response…A lot of people think we’re trying to make a political statement, which is not it at all,” said conference organizer Mark Merizan.

Brad Cole, founder of HeavenlySanctuary.com, told KGW that the picture was meant to parallel the story of Jesus washing the feet of Judas.

“No one is Judas in the picture, but the meaning is that Jesus would stoop to wash the feet of his enemies. The meaning is that in that painting of powerful world leaders -- and one powerful terrorist -- the one with all the power is ultimately Jesus.”

The purpose of the conference is to discuss the character of God, according to Cole.

“People opposed to this picture feel that God isn't that kind. We believe that he is,” Cole said.

In the Bible's Gospel of John, Jesus washes his disciples' feet prior to Judas's betrayal and urges the disciples to wash one another's feet going forward.

Christian scholars interpreted Christ's act as an example of humility and willingness to serve even his enemies.

The Good News conference takes place November 2 and 3 at the Oregon Convention Center.

Is Penal Best part 2 Wrath and Fear

Continuing with Stan’s comments:

Graham Maxwell teaches that there is no literal lake of fire that will punish the wicked. He simply denies the doctrine of the wrath of God, and this is a gospel that Satan would love. If Satan can get people believeing that there is no just punishment for their evil deeds, then folks will see no need of a Savior and salvation. Frankly, before I was converted, I wished that there was no such thing as a lake of fire as taught in Revelation 21:8, and if I could be convinced of that, then I could just go about my merry way really living it up. I certainly wouldn't have bothered with any time worrying about religion or even caring about the things of God.

While I don’t want to simply discuss Graham Maxwell’s views I will say that I have no problem with Maxwell’s idea that the wrath of God is revealed when God let’s people go their own way. As Maxwell’s website says:

Romans 1:18, 24, 26, 28. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth... Therefore God gave them up... For this reason God gave them up... And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up.." (RSV)

As the article God Always Takes The Blame says:

This is just one more sample of how it sounds like God is destroying people when His patience runs out and He lets His wrath go and kills them all. But that is not what it means at all. Psalm 78:49 teaches us that God's wrath is when He lets go and allows evil angels to destroy. "He cast upon them the fierceness of His anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them." Another version says: "He showed them his hot anger. He sent His strong anger against them, His destroying angels." Now, when we put with that Rom. 1:18-26 regarding the "Wrath of God" and what Paul says that it is, we find that God is not striking down the wicked or lashing out against the sinners but He is simply taking His hands off and letting the sinner do his own thing and go the way he wants to go even though it leads to suffering and death. For example, when a person chooses to drink and/or smoke, God will not send an angel down to knock the cigarette or marijuana joint out of his mouth or the beer can out of his hand. No, the Lord at that point allows the inevitable consequence of this man or woman to take place. You do not break the laws of nature. They break you…

When you read the Old Testament you see this type of thing happen a lot. It is recorded that God destroys when in actuality it is the consequence of the nation’s behavior which causes foreign nations to attack Israel. A classic example is this verse in Amos:

(Amos 4:9 NIV) "Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards, I struck them with blight and mildew. Locusts devoured your fig and olive trees, yet you have not returned to me," declares the LORD. (Amos 4:10 ) "I sent plagues among you as I did to Egypt. I killed your young men with the sword, along with your captured horses. I filled your nostrils with the stench of your camps, yet you have not returned to me," declares the LORD.

We know from history that God did not come down and kill people and horses with the sword. The writer however sees everything as the result of God. As most of the Old Testament knows nothing of Satan as an agent of evil it was natural for them to think of these things as acts of God. God was in charge after all anything that happened was therefore and act of God. From fungus in the vineyard to national defeat these were all punishments of God. With advances in knowledge particularly from the New Testament the battle between good and evil is expanded and the realization that life has consequences apart from those of God’s actions becomes apparent. As the Disciples once asked Jesus who sinned, this blind man from birth or his parents. The answer was neither but even physical problems of nature can be used of God for his glory (John 9:2-3).

When you think about it, if the wages of sin is death is there really any need for God to pour out wrath upon anyone? Do we insist upon people being tortured before they die? Does that equal justice in anyone’s mind? I can hear some saying oh but that is not the death that we all face, it is the “second death”. Well it does not say second death and that idea only is seen in the book of Revelation and not likely to be the type of death referred to elsewhere in the Bible. But we will discuss more about that later. Remember Jesus is the firstfruits of those raised from the dead, it is not talking about the second death.

Would it really make Satan happy “If Satan can get people believeing that there is no just punishment for their evil deeds, then folks will see no need of a Savior and salvation.” In other words unless God is going to punish you for your evil deeds your death is not enough and no one would want salvation (healing) or feel a need for God to offer them reconciliation and life. That is a doubtful proposition but then many doubtful propositions are produced when people pretend they know what Satan wants or does not want. As a liar and murder from the beginning as Jesus said of Satan, it would seem that anything that was a lie would fit into the purview of something Satan uses and thus may like. But that could just as easily be the idea that God wants to pour out His wrath upon His creation then the idea that God does not want inflict additional punishment over and above the natural consequences of death.

In the context of the Penal/Substitutionary atonement is a just punishment ever produced by punishing the innocent or substituting the punishment of one person for the violations of others let alone billions of people. Not likely aside from this atonement theory would this type of justice even be considered just.

Stan’s testimony that he would have no interest in God had he not been afraid of God’s lake of fire is a troubling way to come to God. Fear is generally not a good technique to achieve a loving relationship. It may happen in a Stockholm syndrome situation but it was not generally the method that Jesus advocated. Yes you can find elements there but overall they were not the major focus of His ministry. Healing and teaching were His major efforts only using those harsher ideas upon those who did not seem to accept the more loving aspects. One thing about the Bible is you can certainly find some aspects that reach your particular need. However your need is not the need of everyone else or necessarily the need of the majority. That however seems to be a point the Penal theorists don’t understand.

The Problem of Preaching

I recently ran across the following article entitled: The Problem With Preaching
By David Allis

The article from 2006 goes over a lot of the things that I have expressed here (see side bar links). I can't agree with all his assessments because of the philosophical disagreement I have with the idea that we have to do everything the same way that New Testament Christians did things. Culture and times change and people have to change also. But the article is interesting, here is my pruned version of the article, there are comments from others for those who go to the website.

2. Preaching is an Ineffective Form of Communication
'Preaching' is a form of monologue, which is proven to be an ineffective form of communication. Passive listening is a very ineffective way of learning. Scientific studies of education show that passive listening leads only to a small percentage of retention. Few people can remember a sermon the next day, week or month (often the preacher can't remember it either). Although modern communication methods are improving, through the use of things like visual aids, the monologue remains one of the least effective forms of communication.

3. Preaching Limits Learning, Discussion & Debate
Preaching usually allows no opportunity for questions or discussion. It is rare for a church to allow interaction during a sermon, or questions & discussion time afterwards. Sermons are designed to be listened to, not interacted with.

6. Preaching Disempowers People
People who have been in church for many years, and have often heard 50-100 sermons each year, still think they need to be 'fed' by a sermon each week. They remain dependent for their spiritual nurture on getting a 'spiritual fix' each week through corporate worship and a sermon from a professional preacher. This seems to be the milk of Heb 5:12-14, rather than the meat that adults should be feeding themselves.

7. Preachers are a Problem
In each local church, most preaching is usually performed by one main trained professional minister.

Hence, sermons are usually built around the 'person of God', Some of the unfortunate implications of centering preaching around one trained professional religious person are -->
* It implies that one person hears from God & mediates to everyone else.
* It creates a dependence on being 'fed' by the necessary combination of professional ordained ministersxii plus theological training plus eloquent preaching.
* Week after week, the Christian message is filtered through one person, the preacher. It is filtered through one set of experiences, one personality, one mind, and one limited life experience.

* It devalues the experiences, insight and revelation of other members of the church, as they are relegated to only being listeners and often never being preachers. It implies that their knowledge of God & life wisdom are of no value to the wider church. Although we might give lip-service to the 'priesthood of all believers', we definitely don't practice it.
* By centering our gatherings on one person and their sermon, we are, in practice, reversing the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:14 and suggesting that the body is not many members, but one (often the same person, usually a man, who preaches most weeks). Moreover, by centering our church meetings on one persons ability to speak, we subtly begin to form a personality-cult around their talents. In many churches, this person becomes the final authority on spiritual and theological matters, effectively producing our own brand of 'Protestant Popes'.

"Where did our practice of preaching a monologue Gospel sermon to assembled believers on a weekly basis come from? Much of it came from the Protestant Reformers who saw the "church" as consisting of all those within a given territory - saved and unsaved. Because so many unbelievers were present within the Reformation churches (and even compelled to attend), it was necessary to continually preach the Gospel to them."xiv
However, in current western society, the majority of people in churches are 'believers' - hence preaching in these churches has virtually no evangelistic value.
There have also been other major cultural shifts which affect preaching - Stuart Murray Williams identifies three:
The first is a cultural shift away from passive instruction to participatory learning, from paternalism to partnership, from monologue to dialogue, from instruction to interaction. Those who teach, especially those who teach adults, no longer assume they are the experts who know everything and that their task is to convey information to others who simply receive this information. The new paradigm is of partnership, where teachers and learners work together...
The second is a societal shift away from an integrated world to a world where networks overlap, a shift away from simplicity to complexity...
There are very few generalists; most of us are specialists in one area or another. The education system is geared towards this, despite occasional attempts to broaden the curriculum. For preachers, this raises the issue of how to address such a complex world: the biblical text may not change but if we are concerned with application as well as interpretation, how are we to make the connections? Many preachers seem unable to relate the Bible and theology to the world of work or to issues in public life - these are areas of profound weakness in most churches. Perhaps we need the help of those in the congregation who have expertise and experience in areas where we do not.
The third is a media shift away from linear to non-linear methods of conveying information, from logical argument to pic 'n' mix learning. Whether we like it or not, the television age has deeply affected the way in which communication takes place and how people learn. A careful argument that takes thirty minutes to develop does not make for good viewing in the age of sound bites. Watching someone lecturing for thirty minutes, however many camera angles are used, is not an effective use of the visual media. Communication now frequently involves the use of images as well as words, short contributions from diverse points of view, and open-ended presentation that allows freedom to choose your own conclusion. For preachers, this implies not only the use of visual communication as well as verbal communication but hard challenges about the style and purpose of preaching.

What is the Alternative?
I believe that a better & more scriptural alternative is personal and corporate Bible study, listening to God, discussion, and working together in mutually-accountable community to help each other apply biblical truths in our lives, community and world.

Is Penal Best part 1

I am going to take this opportunity to discuss some of the comments that Stan of the Blog For The Gospel made in my previous blog post. I thought I would address his major points. His points are fairly representative of those who have accepted whole heartedly the Penal/Substitutionary theory of the Atonement. As I once asked my Pastor at a previous church I attended what did he know of the other Atonement Theories. His answer was that he thought they may have read about them in the seminary. Most Christians are in that same category they don’t know the Church History of the Atonement or the Atonement theories themselves. This leads them to think that the only theory in Christianity is that of the last couple hundred years and known as the Penal/Substitutionary theory. So I will be going over the ideas involved in these different theories with major emphasis upon the Penal theory and the Moral influence theory.

From the first part of Stan’s comments:

I did find it very interesting that new age and liberal views of God and the atonement are very similar.

I spent a lot of time listening to Provonsha, whose theology is similar to Maxwell's while I was in medical school, and I have spent too much time reading Maxwell's disciples on www.heavenlysanctuary.com.

Graham Maxwell teaches that there is no literal lake of fire that will punish the wicked. He simply denies the doctrine of the wrath of God, and this is a gospel that Satan would love. If Satan can get people believeing that there is no just punishment for their evil deeds, then folks will see no need of a Savior and salvation. Frankly, before I was converted, I wished that there was no such thing as a lake of fire as taught in Revelation 21:8, and if I could be convinced of that, then I could just go about my merry way really living it up. I certainly wouldn't have bothered with any time worrying about religion or even caring about the things of God.

Are Progressive SDA’s (since we are not really dealing with Liberal Christianity per se) views of God regarding the atonement similar to the New Age views of God. No in fact they are very different. However the New Age is famously known as a eclectic mix of ideas from many other religions it is very likely that there will be similarities between some things just as Adventism has similarities with Roman Catholics, Jews or Latter Day Saints. In most ways the New Age movement has no need of atonement theory because their belief is that everyone is part of God if they will only recognize the Christ consciousness inside them. The person who wrote the article trying to say that Graham Maxwell’s atonement view is the same as that supposedly channeled in the book “A course on Miracles” does not really do an adequate job or research. He merely finds a few similar sounding ideas and then proclaims Maxwell’s views as doctrines of demons. Research is not done by assuming one’s presuppositions and then arranging documentation together while the subjects are largely unrelated.

I do share Stan’s view that the contents of HeavenlySanctuary.com is made up of many ill advised statements. They along with Graham Maxwell have a tendancy to rely upon certain Ellen White ideas while completely ignoring contrary Ellen White ideas. For instance Ellen White is very clearly Penal/Substitutionary in most of her comments. Yet these statements are largely ignored or they will say that she was reflecting the thoughts of her day. Yet that is not the case when they look at other Ellen White statements such as the idea that Jesus felt on the cross like sinners will feel at the second death. Then they simply assume prophetic status for her statements. If one were to look at their rather inconsistent views it makes it hard to hold their views in high regard. So I understand Stan’s views but that does not mean that by default the Penal view is the winner.

Like Graham Maxwell I do not believe in a literal lake of fire. In fact the book of Revelation is very doubtfully meant to offer us literal explanations. It is a book of symbolism and allegory. What fire in the Bible often represents is complete destruction as in the ancient world fire destroyed material more fully then anything else known. The symbol is destruction of the wicked it is hardly necessary to restrict God to one particular method simply because the book of Revelation uses a particular term.

Tomorrow I will go over the rest of the last paragraph of Stan where he says: He simply denies the doctrine of the wrath of God, and this is a gospel that Satan would love. Because it is an intriguing idea that Satan would love the idea of God’s wrath not against man rather then God’s wrath against man.