The Graying of North American Adventists

The following is from Center for Creative Ministry Newsletter.

To refresh your memory, the opening statement of the original article said, “The median age for the Seventh-day Adventist community in North America, including the unbaptized children in church families, is 58. The median age for the general public is 36 in the U.S. and 37 in Canada. Among native-born White and Black members the median age is even higher.”

Some told us that they had read in the Adventist Review and elsewhere that the majority of Seventh-day Adventists are under 30 years of age. Keep in mind that those statements are about the worldwide membership; the information we shared is only for North America. The source of that worldwide information is a survey of youth leaders, not direct research with church members. What you’re reading is reflective of Adventist membership in Africa, Asia and Latin America, which is largely comprised of teens and young adults. But when it comes to North America, Europe and Australia, the evidence tells us another story.

Others wanted to know the source of the information we published. We actually gathered information from several different studies. The median age of 58 for Adventists in North America is from a forthcoming study by Dr. Ron Lawson, professor of sociology at the City University of New York, who has published a number of articles in academic journals about the sociology and demographics of the Adventist Church. The median ages for the general population in the U.S. and Canada, we got from the respective census web sites of those two nations. The fact that more than 1,000 Adventist congregations in North America have no children or youth comes from an unpublished survey that the Center for Creative Ministry did for NAD Church Resources in 1997.

That is a rather amazing statistic because that means that over half of the North American Adventists are older then 58 years of Age. When we consider that the future of the church is held on the other side of that median we really should be thinking about how we reach out to the post modern world and our own post modern children.

Here are some statistics from Canada developed from 2001 data:

Median age of Protestants well above national level

The median age of individuals who identified themselves as Protestant in 2001 was 42 years, well above the median of 37 for the Canadian population as a whole. (Median age is the point where exactly one-half of the population is older, and the other half is younger.)

Those who identified themselves as Anglican had a median age of 44, as did United Church members. Lutherans had a median age of 43, while Presbyterians were the oldest, with a median age of 46.

Conversely, Protestant denominations recording growth were generally younger. The median age of those reporting Hutterite as their religion in 2001 was 22 years. For Mormons, the median was 29; Christian and Missionary Alliance, 34.5; and Adventists, 35.5. All were below the median for the total population.

Assuming Ron Lawson is correct and we have not seen the data yet, that is a huge difference between the Canadian numbers and the United States numbers. In fact possibly too big a gap to be believed. Though Adventists in Canada represent an even smaller percentage of the population then in the U.S.

Canadian Adventist Statistics: Churches, 341; membership, 57,431; population, 32,950,000 about 0.17% of population

United States Adventist statistics 2001: 724,000 self identified 0.3% of population.

Today the SDA church is estimating their U.S. membership at 1 million.

The discrepancy may be caused by a predominance of immigrants in Canada which tend to have younger Adventist characteristics as those in Asia and Africa etc. Though that is only speculation on my part. I do know that the church my wifes relatives attend is very small, mainly elderly and rural.

Hopefully we will see more about these statistics in the not to distant future.

Quotes from Steven Mosley

I got this from an internet friend and thought it was a good follow-up to my last post. Sorry he did not provide page numbers.

"Some people are just not very expressive. Thier melancholy temperament has made them introspective and solemn. That's OK. What's not OK, however, is to create a picture of God that is stern, severe and grumpy out of that limited personality and demand that others bow down to it. It's not OK to create worship in your image and demand that others follow it or be damned as rebellious."

"Judgmental people are critical, gossipy and cruel. Judgmental people create unhealthy religion. It's something that needs to be confronted in church. Judgmental people shouldn't be in charge. They should not hold church office, they should not be voices that we obey. We shouldn't mistake intimidation for conviction. We shouldn't mistake bluntness for insight. We shouldn't mistake someone who seems stricter than us for someone who is closer to God than us."

"Dysfunctional people violate boundaries. They get bent out of shape when everyone else doesn't tow the line-their line. It's not OK for another member to have a different opinion about the investigative judgement or Sabbath observance. They have to straighten that person out. They have to sabotage their ministry if this 'enemy' is in a position of leadership. It's not OK if someone sings special music in a sleevless dress. They have to complain about it to member after member until the singer is appropriately embarrassed and changes her ways. It's not OK if the church votes to lay down new magenta carpet in the sanctuary if they want blue. They have to embark on a campaign to change this terrible error in hue. Controllers manipulate others in countless ways. They try to make other people feel guilty in countless ways. They draw lines between enemies and friends in countless ways. The tradgedy is that unhealthy people rise to the top in so many congregations. Needy people desperately want to be Sabbath School superintendent or head elder or chairperson of the church board. They are eager for these positions of honor and influence. They desperately need approval; they need affirmation. They can't love and be loved so they have to control. So, in church after church we end up with rigid superintendents, bullying head elders and manipulative chairpersons. "

"Healthy people can be flexible. Unhealthy people can't. They are obsessed with how things should be. Things have to be a certain way.. Sabbath School and church have to proceed in a certain way or it just isn't worship. The music they are comfortable with has to be played or it's just false worship. So guess who ends up shaping the our church services? This wreaks havoc on churches; it destroys the joy of worship, the joy of fellowship. Controlling people, in fact, create dysfunctiuonal churches that no healthy person in thier right mind would ever join. "

Mosley devotes a whole chapter that deals with solutions entitled Setting People Free. Here are a couple of excerpts:

"Some engage in serving others because they have to be needed. They don't develop healthy relationships with equals-only subordinates. They create paternalistic relationships. They need others to be dependent. They are traumatized when they can't hold on to certain positions or 'turf' within the church. The most loving thing a church can do is confront these individuals about thier problem. It's not helpful to simply enable them to dig into thier 'turf'. They need to be confronted-privately, directly, and compassionately-according to the principals Jesus laid down in Matthew 18: 15-17."

"We have to start building the right kind of churches by starting with the right kind of relationships. We can't sit back anymore and just let the needy and the controlling speak and act for the church. We need to have healthy, as well as doctrinally sound, individuals in charge."

"Obviously judgmental people shouldn't determine the kind of worship that takes place in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. But no one kind of people should. We have got to stop demonizing people and things we are not comfortable with. The things that annoy us may be just the kind of language, style or approach someone else needs to hear. Sometimes we need to create more than one kind of worship service in a church to meet different needs. But through all of this, it's important to remember that the diversity of members in the body of Christ is something that reflects the breadth of God's character and personality. It is something to be cherished, not feared. The diversity of tastes does not have to be a battleground. It can remind us that God is bigger than anything we can imagine or express, that no church can contain His wonder and mystery."

"That's the bottom line behind a lot of theological smoke that has blown up around this or that kind of worship. People may think they are waging a battle for the 'truth' or for a 'pure' church. But too often they are just documenting the narrowness of thier hearts. They instinctively want everyone else to fit into thier painfully limited worship repertoire. They can't bear the idea of others exulting freely in the Lord when they can only mourn and 'sigh and cry for the abominations done in the church.' It doesn't seem that these celebrants can possibly have genuine religion. The chronic mourners have laboured so long and hard in thier attempts to serve the Lord-with so little joy to show for it. Surely it can't be true that joy could fall so abundantly on others who are much less worthy."

From the Back Cover
How do you feel about your church body? Does it fill you up with spiritual enthusiasm? Does it create an irrepressible joy for salvation? Does it nurture a healing love? If, sometimes, it doesn't--this is a great book for you.

Steve Mosley doesn't circle the issue?he hits the nail straight on the head. He's refreshingly honest. Refreshingly direct. Easily holding your interest with illustrations and examples, Steve shows you the distinction between an unhealthy religion of "avoiding sin" and a healthy religion that seeks God. One weakens Adventist worship--the other strengthens and invigorates. One is controlling?the other is loving. It's no wonder that sometimes you're burned our--where's the love to fuel the fire?

Loving each other is what a living, vibrant church is all about?and it starts with you and me There can be a change. This book helps you spark the healing love that the source of positive Christianity: "Love creates healthy religion. There's no substitute . . . Everything else is counterfeit. Everything else eventually burns out."

Know God. Know the love

“Theologolatry”—making an idol of our own theology

The title of this post comes from an article published at Progressive Adventism Blog, The article is a presentation at the 50th Anniversary Question on Doctrines conference by Fritz Guy entitled:

The Saga of Questions on Doctrines and the Adventist Future

I am often troubled by some of the things I read about happening in the Adventists church. In a recent discussion on a forum I will not mention because I think overall the majority of people there are toxic I posted a defense against the claim that Roman Catholics worship Mary. I felt pretty comfortable posting the material from the Catholic church which says that they don't worship Mary yet to the majority on the forum it matters little what they Roman Catholics themselves say but what the anti-Catholics say. Of course to the Protestant mind all the Roman Catholic Mariology is silly, but to these traditional SDA's by saying that Roman Catholics worship Mary and bow and worship idols they move from silly to saying "look if they are not worshiping God they are worshiping the devil." They have moved to take fellow Christians away from the community of Christianity.

How big is your God? Can you serve God if you have some wrong theology, which by the way I can assure you is true of every human being alive from Old Testament to today. God alone is perfect and even when God was incarnate He was hindered by having to communicate to people who were often stuck in their traditions. Think of all those people in the middle ages who only had the words of their priests and the theology of abuse of the rich over the poor. I often think of the two greatest problems in Christianity, the idea of a God who would eternally torment those not saved and the idea that God can't forgive until He punishes someone. Yet in reality there are people who accept and embrace both of those problems and love God and trust Him. Granted I could never believe those things and be a Christian, but I love that God can still develop a relationship with people even when their views are so problematic.

So I am therefore left in the position of saying that God reaches us where we are and while I am sure like any good parent He wants us to grow and mature our retardation does not stop His relationship with us. We are crippled, sick and defective; the kind of people God came to save. But very clearly His salvation has not been by way of excellent theology. The better our theology the more likely we are to see the love that God has for us and the more likely we are going to be to share that love with others. My old internet friend Elaine said in her comment at the above Progressive Adventism blog this:

"Rabbi Hillel was more than correct when he answered the young seminarian who asked if he could recite the whole Torah while standing on one foot, and he said "Do not do to others what you would not wish done to you. All the rest is commentary." But, oh, how the rabbis, both Jewish and Christian, love to argue the fine points of Scripture as if they were of life-saving importance. They ignore the simple to argue the 'finer' points'?"

I enjoy arguing the finer points it is how I get to know people and they get to know me. It is how I sharpen my thinking and how I rethink my positions. It is a fellowship I enjoy but it is not salvation it is only part, a small part of what it means to be a Christian. As Fritz Guy said in his article:

"We can listen to each other even—no, especially—when we disagree, remembering that no one in the conversation is wholly wrong, and that if we are willing we can learn from anyone. We can encourage theological experiments. We can consider new understandings, new ways of thinking that just might turn out to be "present truth" for Adventists in the 21st century."

We grow in the conversation, unless we discount those with different views, unless we accuse them of being of the devil. We live in a world where so many people are in need of someone to talk to about their lives and what is important to them. The Christian church is the ideal place to bring together these people with Christians, Christians who need the interpersonal relations with other people just as much as the person living outside of Christianity. We can fill the void with so many things, entertainments that don't need another person TV, movies, video games, music, drinking or drugs, often we try and fix the symptom but never bother with the disease. We are not offering our fellow human beings the comfort that our God asks us to give them. Christianity is dying because we don't offer a God the loves and we don't love, often we don't even try to show interest.

Someday I hope to find a church family who is interesting in being innovative in putting the simple idea of talking to people, really talking, not saying "how are you today" or "welcome to our church". A church that does not stress passive listening to some Pastor no matter how well intentioned he is drag them through a sermon. A church that leads to people talking and getting to know and love each other whether they agree on theology or not.

That is my dream…or maybe that is my curse I don't know yet.

[In my next few blog articles I will go over the new book entitled UnChristian. I have only read the first chapter but I can tell that the major problem it will reveal is that Christians are losing to the world because we are not showing the love and care that is so needed in this world.]

Kees Kraayenoord’s Broken Review

Recently I was contacted by Kees Kraayenoord which got me thinking that I have not reviewed any of his Albums here. When I wrote back to him I mentioned that other than his song God of the Moon and Stars I really could not name any of his songs. So I decided to listen to his album Broken more carefully and write my impressions.

Kees Kraayenoord's music is very worshipful but not the kind that lends itself to worship choruses. It is not as upbeat as much of the modern worship genre, more in line with the slower material of Matt Redman or Tim Hughes. His music is not in the main as soft as the above linked song "God of the Moon and Stars". I like the more upbeat songs such as" Your Amazing Love", "Offering" and "All That I Want" on Broken but there is something emotionally appealing with his mix of material. If you just listen to this album as background music it will likely not catch your attention with any specially catchy material except for "Your Amazing Love" which starts out the CD nicely. As I often listen to music while I am writing or researching, it affects me most when I pause from what I am doing. No doubt that is true of many Christian artists they would want you to give their music and lyrics full attention. Of course that is not often the reality. Which is why music that has some hook to it becomes the most memorable and sometimes that is to the detriment of the lyrics; where lyrics become repetitious and less meaningful but objects of musical manipulation. An example might be "The Father's Place" on this album which is a gospel inspired song which I could easily forget.

Looking around the internet I see there are not many sites giving reviews of Kees Kraayenoord, and I am not sure why as he does have a few English language albums and the music is interesting and the poetry is quite good. It could be they have trouble spelling his name, I know I do, but I doubt that is the reason. Most likely it is because for American's he is still an outsider even his website is in another language. It starts out as if it is in English but quickly changes into something that only someone who reads Dutch could understand. He might want to look into that because Dutch is not a popular second language in this part of the world. As it turns out Kraayenoord has spent time In Olympia Washington where he worked as a music minister for an Assemblies of God church about 14 years ago. A portal into his website in English would be welcome if for no other reason than to keep his American friends up to date.

As with all my music reviews they are subjectively based upon my musical preferences, I don't review anything I don't like, I give Broken 3 ½ stars. If the material was more in the line of the first 4 songs I would easily give it a 4. As Christianity Today's music reviewer might say there is nothing new here just good worship music. I never like their expectation of something new and different all the time but I realize it is something we always look for. Sometimes we just need good solid mentally and emotionally stimulating music and Kees Kraayenoord's CD "Broken" offers a pleasant dose of that.

Valuegenesis What To Do Next

The Pacific Northwest Adventist Forum is holding a meeting on
March 8 ( Update: sorry earlier I had it as Feb 8) with the featured speaker V. Bailey Gillespie Professor
of Theology and Personality, Director of the John Hancock
Center for Youth and Family Ministry School of Religion at
La Sierra University on the topic:
Valuegenesis: What We Know For Sure...

That is a provocative title at least if you expect to know something for sure… not something that the field of psychology is known for. As a preparation for the event which will be held Auburn Adventist Academy Church I thought I would check on some of the available information on the internet. One interesting item from the Adventist News Network in 2006 is: Europe: Survey Questions Young Adventists on Family, Church, Society Here are some excerpts (in blue) with a few comments (in red): What do young people in the Seventh-day Adventist church need to grow and maintain a close relationship with Christ? Adventists in Europe are hoping to find the answer through an extensive study that will mine the thoughts of young Adventists living in European countries. The study, Valuegenesis Europe, is based on a similar study done in the United States in 1990 and again in 2000. "Because there isn't a large network of Adventist schools in Europe, this study will be focusing on the impact of family, church and society among young Adventists in Europe," says Manuela Casti, director of the José Figols Centre for Youth Ministry based at Saleve Adventist University in Collonges-sous-Saleve, France. Casti is also a lecturer at the school's theological seminary and is primary organizer of the Valuegenesis Europe research. "Our young people are so exposed to society," Casti says. "Eighty percent of their lives have influences other than church. The questionnaire hopes to discover how young people are receiving Adventist teachings and practices, if they are involved in church life and the church's relevance to young people. We hope to see if we can do better and find new ways to reach them." This interesting part of this statement about eighty percent of influence is how Adventism has for far too long depended upon the education system to indoctrinate the Adventist young. It is something that anyone who sends their children to a public school is well aware of. Our churches offer very little for our young people if they are not affiliated with an SDA school. We have some fairly large churches which have tiny youth departments because the tradition has been to send their children to boarding schools. Now that more American students are not going away to boarding schools our churches need to adjust their youth programs accordingly. However as a denomination we offer very little leadership or ideas to the local youth leaders. Some Youth leaders simply try to indoctrinate the young people as they would if they were being taught in an Adventist school. But that does not work in the real world where the students don’t have to simply accept what the teacher says and they can ask questions. The relevance of a teaching to the high school student becomes more importance when they are not surrounded by others who already believe something. In other words the student has to think about what they are being taught has relevance to their lives as well as to the lives of the people they know at school. This idea that eighty percent of the influence is separate from the Adventist church is important to realize. Some of the differences could result from living in a postmodern society. Casti expects that postmodernism will play a significant part in the results. However, Gillespie thinks that based on similar studies done in Australia and Northern Europe, the differences between the impact of postmodernism on young Adventists in America and in Europe will be minor. "We are impacted by postmodernism here just as well," he says. Casti does not agree: "The U.S. is still very much more involved and sensitive to church life in general. Look at the percentage of church attendance in U.S. It is much higher than Europe. While here churches are becoming more and more empty. In the Northern countries [of Europe] the percentage of people that regularly attend church is below 10 percent." "Churches are not perceived as a necessary part of individual life anymore," she continues. Casti calls the situation analphabet. "Not knowing religion," she explains, "is like not knowing how to read or write. Religiously speaking, many [in Europe] don't know the grammar of religion." One thing that we should learn from the decline of Christianity is that we must not be offering what people need in our churches. Our religion has become distant from the needs of the people and our language become trite both inside and outside our Christian churches. This goes for more than the Adventist church it is a larger problem that Christianity has to deal with. For too long Christianity has been a club with its own language and now people are searching for more than the language of Christianity but the relevance of Christianity. Too often we Christians are afraid to teach the philosophy of Christianity preferring to preach blind faith. When asked what she believes is responsible for declining church attendance in Europe, Casti shares one theory: "One of the weaknesses of the church is the family transmission of faith. It is not just the Adventist church but everywhere. Religion is now private. Families have not transmitted religion as connected to an institutional choice. In many cases, families delay choice of religion to when young people are big enough to make the choice themselves." But she says religion is not completely out of the question for European Adventists today because "young people are deeply interested in spiritual things." European youth leaders are hoping that Valuegenesis research will show youth leaders how to reach young people and keep them in the church. "There isn't just a fear of losing our young people--it's [already] happening," says Paul Tompkins, youth ministries in the Adventist church's Trans-European region. The critical point here is transmission of our faith. But our faith is not transferred by osmosis. It requires a reasoned and appropriate application of the Christian philosophy with our lives and the lives of those around us. In the Western world our knowledge bases is becoming so large that we can’t hide in the parochial way that was practiced by through the majority of the 20th century. Hopefully Valuegenesis studies will be aids in our knowledge base but what we need now is the freedom to experiment with new and different methods of relating to the world around us and within our own churches. Unfortunately that seems to be a stumbling block that is proving insurmountable to many churches. We are afraid of trying new things we are afraid that if we acknowledge alternative views we will be seen as compromising with the “world”. We are afraid that we can’t be progressive because we must be traditional.

Connecting with Jesus or Ellen White?

There is a new program sponsored by the SDA church entitled Connecting With Jesus. More aptly it should be called connecting with Ellen White. As you can see by the artwork from the site the rays of the light are very specifically shining upon Ellen White. The Website proposes to get 10 Ellen White books to church members around the world. Of course this would be the way that the effort is connecting to Jesus because Ellen White writes about Religious subjects. Of course by this logic you could say the D.L. Moody, Charles Wesley or any number of authors were connecting to Jesus by reading their material. That this is limited to Ellen White shows that the real intent is to connect the church members with Ellen White who they incorrectly label as the Spirit of Prophecy.

Here is an example of the extra Biblical nature of Ellen White from Patriarchs and Prophets. Here is the material from Chapter 1 study guide.

Quote:

PATRIARCHS AND PROPHETS Chapter 1: Why Was Sin Permitted? 1. In heaven, Lucifer began to insinuate doubts concerning God’s law that governed the angels. How does he continue to attack God’s law? 2. What steps did Lucifer take that caused a spirit of dissatisfaction to grow among the angels? How did the loyal angels respond during this time? 3. The counsel and entreaties of the loyal angels opened a door of hope to the angels blinded by Satan’s deceptions; had they heeded, they might have broken away from his snares. How does this encourage you to witness to those who seem to have fallen beyond hope? 4. Why did God not destroy Satan, but see fit to allow sin to run its course? https://connectingwithjesus.netadven...Prophets-1.pdf

Notice these are questions, however it is their feeling that these questions will be answered from the material in Chapter one of Patriarchs and Prophets. And if you believe Ellen White they would be correct as she does answer those questions which the Bible does not address. Specifically for people who probably don't realize the difference between what the Bible says and what EGW says. Here are the problems.

1. In heaven, Lucifer began to insinuate doubts concerning God’s law that governed the angels. How does he continue to attack God’s law?

The Bible first of course does not equate Satan with Lucifer that is church tradition. Neither does the Bible say that Satan insinuated doubts concerning God's law that governed the angels. Even though many people do not realize the historical developments that equated Lucifer of Isaiah 14 to Satan it is none the less an historical fact that most Bible Commentaries note today. For more see Who is Lucifer (Satan Misidentified) After my article is a list of quotes from several commentaries, dictionaries and encyclopedias. Of course many more could be added, so be sure to read the evidence before merely discounting the idea because it is not consistent with the tradition one may have grown up with.

2. What steps did Lucifer take that caused a spirit of dissatisfaction to grow among the angels? How did the loyal angels respond during this time?

Again the Bible records nothing of steps of this supposed Lucifer to cause dissatisfaction, nor does it say how loyal angels responded. A lot of this is taken from the verse in Revelation "there was war in heaven" however that is only one interpretation of that verse e.g. that there really was a war in heaven. The rest is taken from the Lucifer myth as put forth in the early church fathers.

3. The counsel and entreaties of the loyal angels opened a door of hope to the angels blinded by Satan’s deceptions; had they heeded, they might have broken away from his snares. How does this encourage you to witness to those who seem to have fallen beyond hope?
4. Why did God not destroy Satan, but see fit to allow sin to run its course?

Again nothing in the Bible about this.

A fictional version of things as if they are presented in the Bible is a cause for concern. Many may say that Isaiah 14 is allegorical for Satan. However to be an allegory the information must be presented somewhere in the Bible as an unequivocal statement. Otherwise as an allegory it would have to be defined by the speculation that Satan did all those things in heaven. In which case it becomes nothing more then a speculation. Ellen White does not however say that this material is in the Bible hence the need for her input as a prophet and the use of the term Spirit of Prophecy. This gives authority and allows for non Biblical material to be accepted as if it was from the Bible.

Not that much of this is new to Adventism it is not, she is merely taking traditions and codifying it for Adventism. with the imprimatur of the truth backed by the prophet whose writing are viewed as the Spirit of Prophecy. Which leads to the problem of Connecting with Jesus program. It is simply a veiled attempt to promote Ellen White as a spiritual authority. Most likely an attempt to build up Ellen White in the world, increasing her impact in the third world and trying to recapture the authority of Ellen White as a prophet in the Adventist population of the first world.

Theology Student Book to Confuse Your Teen

In a new book published by Pacific Press a theology student and author Seth J. Pierce writes about the 28 Fundamental SDA beliefs for teens. It is entitled What We Believe. My daughter’s Youth class is going over sections of it in their class. Next week they are covering chapter 24 Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary. I take it since this is a denominationally produced book that not only does it represent what the author thinks but what the denomination is teaching their Theology students. As such this article is not only to help my daughter communicate her concerns in the Youth class but it will aid the rest of us in examining the theology that appears to be making up our new generation of Ministers.

The chapter starts out explaining how terrible it is to kill an animal. Something that we in modern times, where we just go to the store and buy our food is quite different from the past several thousand years when people butchered and prepared their own food. To the modern Theo student’s mind killing an animal is about the same level as cleaning out the barn of manure. That is something icky because he never has to do it. So he runs over an animal in his car and is traumatized and suggests that such a trauma is involved with people offering sacrifices in the Old Testament. As those sacrifices were eaten by the people and the priests and it was probably a very special time and meal it is unlikely that they were overly concerned with the death of the animals involved. Thank of the names of those offerings, Fellowship, thanksgiving, peace, yet what strikes the popular mind is the sin offering though they all were made of the same thing that is usually an animal died and it fed the Priest and the people who offered the offering.

The author then after quoting Lev. 1:3-4 says: “So why would you need to kill something, and what’s with the laying-on-of-hands business? It’s all about transferring.” Page 147

He then writes on page 148:

“We are stuck with the worst customer of all—sin. According to the Bible, it will kill us unless we find a way to transfer it out of our lives and give it to something or someone else. This was the big idea behind the sacrificial/sanctuary system. When you laid your hands on your sheep, bull, or bird sacrifice, it symbolized your sins being transferred to them. Then things got ugly.”

So apparently our next generation of Ministers are really big on gratuitous assertions. Why would not the laying on of hands upon the sacrifice indicate that it was your sacrifice, that you were personally making the offering? Apparently because it is all about transferring because well the Bible says so…even if he can’t find any verses in the Bible that says it is all about transferring sin just take his word for it. Pay no attention to Jewish history and their own understanding of what the sacrifices meant. But we are not Andrew’s University Theology students so we can examine what the Jewish beliefs were. As the Jewish Encyclopedia states:

As originally the sacrifice was a meal offered to the Deity at which He was to meet His own family (see Sacrifice, Critical View), only such as were in the proper state of holiness might take part in this "communion service" (see Passover). On the other hand, the Deity Himself would not accept the gift if the taboo was not respected. Contact with persons or things in an "unclean" state violated the taboo. Sin originally connoted a condition which rendered approach to the Deity impossible, and conversely made it impossible for the Deity to approach, to attend the family communion meal. To correct this the sacrifice was offered, i.e., brought near to ("ḳorban," "hiḳrib") the Deity, more especially the blood, which preeminently belonged to God, and that by the priest only. In this connection it must be remembered that slaughtering was primitively a sacrificial rite. Meat was not to be eaten unless the Deity had received His share, viz., the blood. This insistence is the motive of the otherwise strange prohibition to slaughter anywhere save at the door of the tent of meeting (Lev. xvii. 3). The presumption was that all belonged to the Deity. Later literature expresses this idea as a spiritual verity (Ps. 1. 10-12; I Chron. xxix. 14).

Judaism 101 offers this statement:

Were sacrifices a symbol of the savior to come?

Not according to Judaism. Jews don't believe that people need supernatural salvation from sin (sincere repentance and good deeds are sufficient to obtain forgiveness; see above), and don't believe that sacrifice has anything to do with a savior or messiah.

Quite the contrary, some would say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism's past than with its future. Rambam suggested that the entire sacrificial cult in Judaism was ordained as an accommodation of man's primitive desires.

Sacrifice is an ancient and universal human expression of religion. Sacrifice existed among the Hebrews long before the giving of the Torah. Cain and Abel offered sacrifices; Noah and his sons offered sacrifices, and so forth. When the laws of sacrifice were given to the Children of Israel in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully circumscribes and limits the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes. Rambam suggests that these limitations are designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors.

The Jewish view consists of three main things involved with sacrifices (qorbanot) They are (also from the Judaism 101 site):

There are three basic concepts underlying qorbanot: giving, substitution and coming closer.

The first the aspect of giving. A qorban requires the renunciation of something that belongs to the person making the offering. Thus, sacrifices are made from domestic animals, not wild animals (because wild animals do not belong to anyone). Likewise, offerings of food are ordinarily in the form of flour or meal, which requires substantial work to prepare.

Another important concept is the element of substitution. The idea is that the thing being offered is a substitute for the person making the offering, and the things that are done to the offering are things that should have been done to the person offering. The offering is in some sense "punished" in place of the offerer. It is interesting to note that whenever the subject of qorbanot is addressed in the Torah, the name of G-d used is the four-letter name indicating G-d's mercy.

The third important concept is the idea coming closer. The essence of sacrifice is to bring a person closer to G-d.

No doubt the writer of the book What We Believe would like the one on substitution because that is the basis of the popular Penal/Substitutionary atonement theory. Though there would be no reason to transfer sins in such a view and in fact it is based upon a rather primitive view of God who demands punishment upon sinners rather than being able to forgive the sinner. But those three are the most likely reasons for sacrifices by all of the ancient religions. The substitution idea particularly, was seen as a way to appease the anger of the god by offering the god the life of some animal so that the god would not punish the person or the god would bless the person.

This Fun Fact is offered on page 149 in a special little box:

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

Makes you feel warm all over doesn’t it. It is however a myth. A nice little site called Christian Answers offers us this information:

Dr. W.E. Nunnally, a professor of Hebrew and early Judaism, has reported:

“The rope on the high priest legend is just that: a legend. It has obscure beginnings in the Middle Ages and keeps getting repeated. It cannot be found anywhere in the Bible, the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, the Pseudepigrapha, the Talmud, Mishna, or any other Jewish source. It just is not there.” [2]

The Biblical Studies Foundation (loosely associated with Dallas Theological Seminary), similarly reports that their research has put the “the rope around the ankle-or-waist-or-maybe-the-leg” legend “to rest.”

It is a short article but worth your time to visit, here it is just an aside, I point it out so that the reader of his book will not accept what the author claims to be fact.

Now let us continue with the chapter with a little more understanding then our future minister wanted to impart. Continuing on page 149 is an account of the scapegoat ceremony. See the article Could the Scapegoat be Christ for a more in depth look at the meaning of this ceremony. Concluding this section Pierce writes:

“Finally, the high priest would lay his hands on the head of the still-living Azazel goat, symbolizing the transference of all the sins of the people of Israel.”

Here finally Pierce is correct. This is also the only place in the sacrificial system where the idea of sin as transference occurs. It is clearly used to indicate the removal of sin from the community; it is symbolic for forgiveness where sins are remembered no more. I wanted to point this out before we go back to a statement Pierce makes on the preceding page because it is important to remember where this one occurrence of transference occurs. On page 148 Pierce writes:

The Priests had two very important jobs. First they would “bring the blood and throw the blood against the sides of the altar that is the entrance of the tent of meeting [sanctuary]” (Leviticus 1:5). Once again the concept of transferring comes up. First your sin would be transferred to the animal, and then the sin of the animal would be transferred to the sanctuary. Now this begs the question, where did the sin that was transferred to the sanctuary run off to? This brings up the second job which was mainly for the high priest.

To Pierce and the person who gave the sermon today at my church sin is transferred by blood. However sin is not ever referred to as being something that carries sin in the Bible. Blood is a symbol of life not sin. It is the life that is brought into the presence of God in the temple not transferred sin. It is a big difference and an even bigger difference when we move to the idea of Christ. On page 150 the author moves to Christ:

“In Jesus Christ, God offered a better system and a better sacrifice. Jesus was to shed His divine blood—once—and it would be so power­ful that it could cover any human being, in any time, in any condition, if they would only accept it. Jesus was willing to have us transfer our sins to Him and be sacrificed so we could be free. And if that wasn't enough, He—not another sinful human being—was to become our High Priest…

Now we have a serious problem what is sin that it can be transferred from place to place, all persons to one person or from one time to another time? How is the sin which we have not even committed or thought about today placed upon Christ nearly 2000 years ago? No doubt that would be the ultimate in mysticism but an answer from someone would be nice. Since those who believe in this transfer have so far refused to answer that question let us deal with it in a real world way. Sin is the attitude of selfishness and rebellion against God. It does not exist except in thinking individual’s minds and as the result of their actions. It is not something that mystically has to be taken away from us it is an attitude adjustment that we the instigators of sin must realize. It is the adjustment that comes when we become reconciled with God and place our trust in the promise of life and forgiveness that God offers us. As Hebrews 9:14 says “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!” (NIV)

The blood of Christ is symbolic of His life and death and life again the life that demonstrated love that even forgave those who killed and tortured Him, the life that He demonstrated by raising Himself from the dead. When we see what our God is like it cleanses our consciences from the rebellion and selfishness that predominated our life before, those acts which only lead to death. This should be elementary knowledge to Christians but unfortunately it is not because we have embraced traditions and convoluted explanations that make the simple complex and the plain confused.

Pierce continues on page 150:

“After Jesus rose from the dead, He ascended to heaven, where He was made our heavenly High Priest. There He applies His sacrifice/ blood that was shed on our behalf to the heavenly sanctuary to atone for our sins. This makes us ask one more question: If the high priest in the Old Testament had a two-phase ministry, where is Christ's second phase? Thankfully, we have some insight via the book of Daniel.”

What does he mean He applies His blood to atone for our sins? Who knows it certainly sounds holy though. The blood clearly has to be a reference to his death here on earth but what does it have to do with a heavenly sanctuary, He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven He is alive and certainly not still bleeding. As occurred above the traditional Penal theorist has convoluted even the Intercession of Christ. On the next page Pierce seems to try to explain himself:

“Look around you—are you still on planet Earth? It's a shame, isn't it? And Will Miller was even more disappointed when Jesus didn't come. After restudying a bit and looking at some passages in Hebrews, some of Miller's followers, with the help of some scholars, determined that Christ entered His second phase of ministry in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844. This is His final phase, His judgment phase, before He returns to take His people home. It's a phase we call the investigative judgment.”

"Investigative judgment" simply means this: Jesus is in His last phase of ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, and He is looking over the heavenly record books to see who is and who isn't on His side. It makes sense. When Jesus comes back, the Bible says, "the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive ... will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord" (I Thessalonians 4:16, 17). And then "since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, . . when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flam­ing fire, [he will inflict] vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thessalo­nians 1:6-8).”

Well you knew it had to be coming, the Investigative Judgment is what this whole chapter was trying to get to. Somehow it is connected to Jesus as high priest applying His blood only now it appears to be through judging who are His and who are not. Best not to mention that God has known who are His and not from before the foundation of the world. (1 Peter 1:20, Rev 13:8, 17:8)

The Omnipotent, all knowing God has been doing this Investigative judgment since 1844 which according to Pierce’s book was determined: “After restudying a bit and looking at some passages in Hebrews, some of Miller’s followers, with the help of some scholars, determined that Christ entered His second phase of the ministry in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844.” Apparently one of those scholars must have been Hiram Edson who had a vision walking through a cornfield but for the life of me I can’t think of any Bible scholars from that period of time. Interestingly the Lesson quarterly for Hebrews did say that when they asked SDA scholars they could not say that the book of Hebrews teaches a two apartment ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. The Friday August 29,2004 Lesson study guide Sanctuary Themes The book of Hebrews says:

2. After much study by some of our best scholars, a report was given on Hebrews. Two questions were asked. Does Hebrews teach Christ's two-phased priestly ministry? Does Hebrews deny Christ's two-phased priestly ministry? The committee answered No to both questions.

This seems long enough already so I won’t get into where Pierce writes:

Judged—graded—according to what we’ve done. Page 153

Adventists, Martin Luther and Quotations

There is an interesting phenomenon one can see on the internet among Adventist websites. As most of us know the Adventist church feels a special affinity for the Ten commandments because as the Seventh-day Adventist name indicates we hold to the Seventh day Sabbath as a continuing part of the law. In order to bolster this idea many Adventists have taken to using an article written by Steve Wohlberg entitled Protestants Testify about the Ten Commandments. The article begins with a “quote” from Martin Luther and follows with some other famous Protestant quotes. I am only going to deal with the first quote because I think it demonstrates all that is needed in regard to this type of Adventist use of sources. While you will find this quote used on many Adventist sites I am using Steve Wohlberg’s Whitehorsemedia.com website. The quote is as follows:

I wonder exceedingly how it came to be imputed to me that I should reject the law of Ten Commandments....Can anyone think that sin exists where there is no law?...Whosoever abrogates the law must of necessity, abrogate sin also. Martin Luther, Luther's Works (trans., Weimer ed.), Vol. 50, pp. 470-471; originally printed in his Spiritual Antichrist, pp.71, 72.

The implication for Adventist use is that the Law specifically the ten commandments are to be continually kept by Christians and even the Protestants agree with that idea. For those who know anything about Martin Luther they know that Luther had a lot to say about the law and this simplistic quote seems contrived. In fact when you look at the ellipses you immediately should become suspicious. One website which offers Ten Martin Luther Myths presents Luther’s view of the law very succinctly:

7. Luther Was an Antinomian and Hated the Law of God
Recently a friend wrote me and said charges about Luther being an antinomian were circulating in his church. Luther's theology indeed has a place for the law of God and its use in the life of a Christian. The law for Luther was dual purposed: it first drives one to see their sin and need for a savior; secondly it functions in the life of a Christian to lead one to a correct understanding of the good one ought to do. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Luther knows how important Moses and the law was in his theology. In Luther's Small Catechism the Ten Commandments were placed first because he wanted people to understand that God is wrathful against sin. The negative prohibitions in the Ten Commandments clearly showed our need for a savior. Also in his Small Catechism, Luther suggests a daily regiment of prayer and includes a verbal reading of the Ten Commandments.

The quote that Steve Wohlberg used is in fact in the context of this Antinomian charge and actually represents a very small fraction of the paragraph that Luther wrote. After we look at the full statement of Luther we will see what he had to say about the law with reference to the Sabbath as that is the reason these various websites have posted Wohlberg’s list of “quotes”. I keep putting the word quotes in parenthesis because I am not convinced what Wohlberg does in the list with Luther’s words is really a quote. Fortunately for us there is an website which has given us the article Luther wrote. A Treatise against Antinomians written in an Epistolary way, by D. Martin Luther, translated out of the high Dutch original; containing the mind of Luther against Antinomians and a recantation of John Agricola Eislebius their first father.

As the first footnote indicates this is the same material that Wohlberg is referencing.

1. This edition of Luther's treatise "Against the Antinomians," is excerpted from Samuel Rutherford's "Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist," (1648), part II, chapter XI, pages 69-80, where it is translated from the High Dutch in its entirety. The reader may wish to compare the text to a more recent translation available in Luther's Works (American Edition), volume 47, pages 107-119, the text of which he will find to be in agreement with that which is provided here.

The paragraph in question reads as follows, I have highlighted in red those portions that Wohlberg excerpted as the quote above:

And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. Add hereunto the custom we have to sing the Commandments in two different tunes;³ besides the painting, printing, carving, and rehearsing them by children, both morning, noon, and evening; So that I know no other way than what we have used, but that we do not (alas!) as we ought, really express and delineate them in our lives and conversations. And I myself as old as I am, use to [have it for my custom to] recite them daily, as a child, Word for Word; so that if any should have mistaken, what I had written, he might (seeing and feeling as it were, how vehemently I use to urge these Catechetical exercises) in reason have been persuaded to call upon me, and demand these or the like questions. What? Good Doctor Luther, dost thou press so eagerly the ten Commandments, and yet teachest withal, that they must be rejected? Thus they ought to have dealt with me; and not secretly undermine me behind my back, and then to wait for my death, that so they might afterwards make of me what themselves pleased. Well, I forgive them, if they leave these courses. Verily, I have taught and still teach, that sinners must be moved to Repentance by the preaching & pondering of the sufferings of Christ, that they may see how great the wrath of God is against sin: and that it cannot be otherwise expiated but by the death of the son of God: Which is not mine, but Bernard's doctrine. But why doe I mention Bernard? It is the doctrine of the whole Christian world, and which all the Prophets and Apostles have delivered. But how doth it hence follow,⁴ that therefore the law must be taken away? I find no such inference in my Logick; and I would gladly see or hear that Logician, that would demonstrate the truth of this conclusion. When Isaias saith, chapter 53, I have smitten him for the sins of my people; I pray tell me; here Christ's sufferings are preached, that he was smitten for our sins: Is the Law hereby rejected? what is the meaning of these words: For the sins of my people? Is not this the sense of them: Because my people have sinned against my law, and not kept the same? Or can it be imaginable, that there should be any sin, where there is no law? Whosoever abrogates the law, must of necessity abrogate sin also.⁵ If he must suffer sin to be, he must much more suffer the being of the law. For the Apostle saith: Rom. 5: Where no law is, there is no sin. If there be no sin, then Christ is nothing. For why died he, if there were no law nor sin, for which he ought to die? Hence you may see, that the Devil intends, by this Ghostly Gambold to take away, not so much the law, as Christ, the fulfiller of the law.

That is a Word count of 557 words in this paragraph of which Wohlberg’s quote of 39 words, which makes it about 7% of Luther’s actual statement.

Now let us look at more a more specific statement of Luther.

This calls for a wise and faithful father who can moderate the Law in such a way that it stays within its limits. For if I were to teach men the Law in such a way that they suppose themselves to be justified by it before God, I would be going beyond the limit of the Law, confusing these two righteousnesses, the active and the passive, and would be a bad dialectician who does not properly distinguish. But when I go beyond the old man, I also go beyond the Law. For the flesh or the old man, the Law and works, are all joined together. In the same way the spirit or the new man is joined to the promise and to grace. Therefore when I see that a man is sufficiently contrite, oppressed by the Law, terrified by sin, and thirsting for comfort, then it is time for me to take the Law and active righteousness from his sight and to set forth before him, through the Gospel, the passive righteousness which excludes Moses and the Law and shows the promise of Christ, who came for the afflicted and for sinners. Here a man is raised up again and gains hope. Nor is he any longer under the Law; he is under grace, as the apostle says (Rom. 6:14): “You are not under law but under grace.” How not under law? According to the new man, to whom the Law does not apply. For the Law had its limits until Christ, as Paul says below (Gal. 3:24): “The Law, until Christ.” When He came, Moses and the Law stopped. So did circumcision, sacrifices, and the Sabbath. So did all the prophets. (Lectures on Galatians, Works Vol. 26 page 6-7 Edited Pelikan, translated Caemneyer, Concordia Pub. House St. Louis 1960)

Speaking of images in his Deuteronomy Commentary Luther writes:

Therefore let us avoid these men of blood and not allow them to draw us into Judaism. Paul says to us (1 Cor. 8:4): “We know that an idol is nothing in the world,” and all those external things are free, even if they are images assigned to some divine worship. Let us remove such external things through the Word or do away with them with the common consent of the government and of those under whose power they are. Those things, however, which we have only for as sign and memorial, let us have freely, so that we ourselves do not finally also succumb to the spirit of bloodshed and sedition might somehow be tolerable if they only destroyed images and did not also bind conscience by calling this a necessary work, put us under the wrath of the Law, and robbed us of freedom. But since one must now affirm the liberty given by God, let us tell them that Moses in no wise pertains to us in all his laws, but only to the Jews, except where he agrees with the natural law, which, as Paul teaches, is written in the hearts of the Gentiles (Rom. 2:15). Whatever is not written there we should include among the ceremonies that were necessary for the people of Moses but free for us, as also the Sabbath is, as Paul (Col. 2:16) and the last chapter of Isaiah (66:23) bear witness. ( Lectures on Deuteronomy, Works Vol. 9 pages 81-82 Edited Pelikan, translated Caemneyer, Concordia Pub. House St. Louis 1960)

I have many differences with Martin Luther, the above does not endorse his positions it is only to correct the inaccurate material that is being spread by certain Adventists.

I am Emergent

What is the Emergent Church movement?

It is a loosely drawn organization of churches that are attempting to reach the postmodern culture in the Western World. You can listen to some Dallas Theological Seminary material on the subject of The Emerging Church Movement in a series of discussion by Mark L. Bailey, Mark H. Heinemann, Glenn R. Kreider and Andrew B. Seidel, The discussion is labeled as: “This is an introductory exploration into a movement hopeful of meeting the complexities of ministering to an emergent culture.”

The first main point in discussion one is that there is diversity in the emerging church movement. So we know that we are beginning with something that is not going to be easily labeled. One Website which deals with the subject is called Emergent Village:

Members of Emergent Village hold in common four values and several practices that flow from them. In the language of a religious order, we call these four values our “order and rule”:

I will pick a few of their sentences to explain their position without the surrounding commentary.

1. Commitment to God in the Way of Jesus:

We are committed to doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly with God. In the words of Jesus, we seek to live by the Great Commandment: loving God and loving our neighbors

We are committed to a “generous orthodoxy” in faith and practice – affirming the historic Christian faith and the biblical injunction to love one another even when we disagree. We embrace many historic spiritual practices, including prayer, meditation, contemplation, study, solitude, silence, service, and fellowship, believing that healthy theology cannot be separated from healthy spirituality.

2. Commitment to the Church in all its Forms:

We are committed to honor and serve the church in all its forms – Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, Anabaptist. We practice “deep ecclesiology” – rather than favoring some forms of the church and critiquing or rejecting others, we see that every form of the church has both weaknesses and strengths, both liabilities and potential.

We believe the rampant injustice and sin in our world requires the sincere, collaborative, and whole-hearted response of all Christians in all denominations, from the most historic and hierarchical, through the mid-range of local and congregational churches, to the most spontaneous and informal expressions. We affirm both the value of strengthening, renewing, and transitioning existing churches and organizations, and the need for planting, resourcing, and coaching new ones of many kinds.

We own the many failures of the church as our failures, which humbles us and calls us to repentance, and we also celebrate the many heroes and virtues of the church, which inspires us and gives us hope.

3. Commitment to God’s World:

We practice our faith missionally – that is, we do not isolate ourselves from this world, but rather, we follow Christ into the world.

We seek to fulfill the mission of God in our generations, and then to pass the baton faithfully to the next generations as well.

We believe the church exists for the benefit and blessing of the world at large; we seek therefore not to be blessed to the exclusion of everyone else, but rather for the benefit of everyone else.

We see the earth and all it contains as God’s beloved creation, and so we join God in seeking its good, its healing, and its blessing.

4. Commitment to One Another

In order to strengthen our shared faith and resolve, and in order to encourage and learn from one another in our diversity through respectful, sacred conversation, we value time and interaction with other friends who share this rule and its practices.

We identify ourselves as members of this growing, global, generative, and non-exclusive friendship.
We welcome others into this friendship as well.
We bring whatever resources we can to enrich this shared faith and resolve.

ACTION

We live out the four values of our rule through four lines of action:

• We explore and develop ideas, theology, practices, and connections … through conversations, conferences, think-tanks, gatherings, retreats, publications, learning cohorts, online resources, and other means.
• We resource individuals, leaders, and organizations – funding their imagination, stimulating their thinking, providing examples, events, literature and other resources to assist them in their lives and mission.
• We communicate our calling, vision, learning, and activities to the growing Emergent Village community, and to other interested people around the world.
• We provide ways for people to belong, identify with, and participate in this community, conversation, and mission at varying levels. We encourage the development of generative friendships, collaborations, and partnerships.

• 
  

The Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the Emerging church movement as well as information on the critics of the movement. Their article begins:

The emerging church (also known as the emerging church movement) is a controversial 21st-century Protestant Christian movement whose participants seek to engage postmodern people, especially the unchurched and post-churched. To accomplish this, "emerging Christians" (also known as "emergents") deconstruct and reconstruct Christian beliefs, standards, and methods in ways which will accommodate postmodern culture. This accommodation is found largely in this movement's embrace of postmodernism's postfoundational epistemology, and pluralistic approach to religion and spirituality. Proponents of this movement call it a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature as well as its emphasis on interfaith dialog rather than verbal evangelism. The predominantly young participants in this movement prefer narrative presentations drawn from their own experiences and biblical narratives over propositional, biblicist exposition. Emergents echo the postmodern rejection of absolutes and metanarratives. They emphasize the subjective over the objective since postmodern epistemology is ultimately destructive of certainty in objective propositions such as those historically found in Christian creeds, confessions, and statements of faith.

No doubt to some people this all sounds like psychobabble. In certain ways it probably is. Yet there is one clear thought through all this. That is that the Christian church has to change, it has to reach the people in our culture with the message of love of God and love for mankind. We are not just strangers passing through this world on our way to some sweet by and by. This is our home the earth God has given us and those people are a part of the same family as we are. We may be looked at as foreigners and strangers to the ways of a world separated from God but our message is still one of reconciliation and that happens in more ways than simply getting people into our churches. We don't have perfection to offer people here and now but that does not mean we don't have worthwhile things to offer, here and now.

As I was listening to my music on shuffle play it so happened that I was just listening to the following song when I got back to this article. As it seems to apply here it is:

Kees Kraayenoord : God Of The Moon And Stars

God of the moon and stars
God of the gay- and singles bars
God of the fragile hearts we are, I come to you
God of our history, god of the future that will be
What will you make of me, I come to you

God of the meek and mild,
God of the reckless and the wild
God of the unreconciled, I come to you
God of our life and death
God of our secrets unconfessed
God of our every breath, I come to you

God of the rich and poor
God of the princess and the whore
God of the ever open door, I come to you
God of the unborn child
God of the pure and undefiled
God of the pimp and paedophile, I come to you

God of the war and peace
God of the junkie and the priest
God of the greatest and the least, I come to you
God of the refugee
God of the prisoner and the free
God of our doubt and certainty, I come to you

God of our joy and grieve
God of the lawyer and the thief
God of our faith and unbelief, I come to you
God of the wounds we bear
God of the deepest dreams we share
God of our unspoken prayer, I come to you

God of a world that's lost
God of the lonely cross
God who has come to us, I come to you

Provided by lyrics.net

I Am Legend Book Vs. Movie, Changes

I just read the blog article I Am Legend, Advent, and Light at Epicenter Conversations Blog (spoiler alerts for both my post and the Epicenter Blog post). It is interesting to see his take on the movie and how it relates to God. It is possibly as interesting to think about how the movie compares to the book (I Am Legend by Richard Matheson) and what it says about our American culture. As most of our movies work upon the idea of good versus evil, with a good deal of self sacrifice thrown in and usually a happy ending. In this case the happy ending is Robert Neville's self sacrifice and gift of his blood which the others take to the Vermont outpost of other survivors. Who it would seem may also be immune but that it another subject. The end is the happy Hollywood salvation of mankind even though our hero died. In the voice over at the end the woman who saved Robert from his suicidal rage against the sub-humans gives us the epilogue where Robert is remembered as legend who gave his life for humanity “we are his legacy this is his legend”.

There are in fact few things in common between the book and the movie. In the book the plague is caused by the effects of a war which destroyed large areas and subjected the country around Los Angeles with weekly dust storms. The movie is set in New York and the plague is caused by scientists who were working on a cure for cancer and they thought they found it. It is kind of a fear of science mentality there, similar to those afraid of bioengineered crops. We know little about the infected sub-humans in the movie. They are violent and can’t go in the sunlight and they are pretty unconvincing computer animations. However in the book we learn that the disease does cause them to be vampires, it is a bacteria which also reanimates the dead.

But of all the differences it is the ending that is most different. In the end through some deception he finds that there are people who have learned to live with the disease because the disease has mutated. They form a new society, a by no means peaceful society but none the less a new society. Right before he dies in view of this new society he says “I am Legend”, apparently because he is the last of the pre-plague humanity, but a memory of what humanity was once like, now relegated to the realm of myth and legend.

It is not the satisfying OK we will all survive and go on like we are now that the movie portrays but a look at a changed humanity. Not because humanity wanted to change but because it was forced to change and maybe not for the better.

It is after all just a story and like any stories one can draw comparisons between what one believes about God whether God is mentioned or not. But Christianity is more than just about God it is about people. And people don’t like to change and they don’t change if they can help it, the movies play to that idea. Our churches play to that idea as well. We teach the same things we have for years even when we often have no good reason to teach them let alone believe them. But we have the comfort of having them and that is often enough for people who don’t want to change.

But Christianity is about change!