The President of the Michigan conference has posted an article entitled Evolution in Education. Jay Gallimore begins his President’s Perspective found at http://www.misda.org/article.php?id=642 by saying:
“Adventists have always shown a keen interest in science. After all, the God of the Bible is the God of creation. Unlike some other denominations, we have not promoted a separation between faith and science. In our view God uses true science and true faith to work together to reveal Himself to His children. From the revelation of Scripture we know that the world and nature have been heavily damaged by sin. Therefore, empirical evidence alone is not able to give us a clear picture of truth. So when there is a seeming contradiction between Scripture and science we have chosen to trust Scripture.”
When I read this article I was struck by the rather contradictory statements made throughout the article. As in the first paragraph the author says that we Adventists have not promoted a separation between faith and science and then saying since the world and nature are heavily damaged by sin empirical evidence can’t give a clear picture of truth. Instead of accepting the evidence we have chosen to trust Scripture. That is pretty much the definition of separation between faith and science, at least the way he is using it. It is certainly possible to trust Scripture as a revelation about God and man without the insistence that every story is literally true. But that is certainly not the author’s intention.
One has to wonder what the author thinks sin is that it so heavily damaged the world and nature. It almost sounds like it is some sort of physical presence that goes around stocking the plants, animals and minerals of the world. As if when I see a dike intrusion into Granite I can say, “sin did that!” If I see a dinosaur bone I can say “sin did that” it originally was an animal as cute as a bunny rabbit but sin made it huge and vicious.
The scary thing about this is that many in the Adventist church are allowing scientifically semi-illiterate church administrators to define what education should be. Because he uses undefined terms like “true science” and “true faith” some people believe that he knows what he is talking about. Of course if he can show that his science is true than the battle is over, but since he cannot. His truth is not literally truth it is his interpretation of truth. We see this a bit later in the article when he writes:
“No one is against academic freedom. Yet all academic freedom has a context. In secular universities it is “human reasoning.” In confessional universities it is “divine reasoning.” For the secular, “human reasoning” is the final court of appeal because that is what they trust. For confessional universities, “divine reasoning” is the last word because that is what we trust. This means academic freedom in a confessional university is viewed in the context of our faith in God and His divine revelation in Scripture. If we do not understand and support this criterion, then it is only a matter of time before our confessional schools of higher education will become secular like other universities that started out as institutions of other denominations.”
Gallimore here sets up a false dichotomy “human reasoning” versus “divine reasoning”. We all have a pretty good idea of what human reasoning is because we all do it, some of us more than others, but what is “divine reasoning”? It appears from his usage it means his interpretation of what the Bible says. But would not that be human reasoning? If divine reasoning is simply what the Genesis account says than it is hopelessly in conflict with itself as Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not agree with each other. In that case the divine reasoning seems to actually be traditional human interpretations used to combine the two accounts into one that seems reasonable. The fact is he can’t get away from “human reasoning” it is all we humans have after all. Faith in God is a far different subject than faith in some traditional Genesis interpretation but if one falsely calls their tradition “divine reasoning” they are intentionally fooling themselves and then placing themselves as the authority in all faith matters.
Gallimore continues his fictions by writing the following:
“It is my belief that, by and large, most of our science teachers are creationists, not evolutionists. Many are doing a great job of helping young adults understand arguments on both sides. Where there are appearances of contradictions between science and inspiration they are teaching students to trust divine revelation. This is wise because history is full of examples of how science ends up confirming facts of faith that it once denied. It is also reasonable in a world where science keeps changing its theories. Waiting on God has always brought large rewards. Unlike human reasoning in connection with science, God and Scripture never change.”
One has to wonder what all these examples of faith confirming facts that science once denied. What would those histories full of examples show us? The flood, no, science sees no evidence for a world wide flood. The pillars of the earth or maybe stars created after the earth…no. The necessity of a woman to be unclean for twice as long after having a girl instead of a boy baby? (Lev. 12:1-5)? About the only think I can think of would be that at one time there may have been people who because they did not have any evidence of Hittites did not believe there were Hittites, back in the infancy of the archeological science in the 1800’s. Do God and scripture never change? Well, when was the last time you attended the stoning of someone who broke the Sabbath? Does God still ask you to bring a sheep or dove or flour to be sacrificed, that once was the God proscribed way of worship. The whole progressive of the Old to New Testament is filled with changes in what Scripture is teaching about God and man. The written words certainly don’t change but the concepts continue to grow and expand at least if one allows their human reasoning to investigate things.
One final quote:
“Let me say again that I believe most of our colleges and universities are supportive of our fundamental beliefs. There are many blessings for our youth at these institutions. Nevertheless, parents and students should remain vigilant. I have been assured by Dr. Keith Mattingly, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, that AndrewsUniversity, while making students aware of the evolutionary arguments, is committed to teaching that creation, as revealed in Genesis, is the true understanding of origins.”
Why does AndrewsUniversity even bother with making students aware of evolutionary arguments? If Genesis is the true understanding of origins what use is it to know anything else? We don’t teach the old theory of germ development from spontaneous generation we don’t teach them how witches cause thunderstorms or moles or insanity. What is the point of teaching in a science class things that you know can’t possibly be true because your faith says they are not true? If they aren’t true then they could have not practical application whether science used them or not after all faith has won so many victories over science, history is filled with examples…I and Mr. Gallimore just can’t think of any right now.
Recently I got an email asking about my stance on Substitutionary Atonement Theory. While I have an extensive article on the subject entitled: What is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement? There still seems to be a lot of confusion when people think about the alternative I have often used called the Moral Influence Theory. Some of this was brought to my attention by some comments I read on Heavenlysanctuary.com and even from the website ReligiousTolerance.com, which in its article on the Moral Influence quotes from one of my previous articles. First, here is Anita’s question:
I read your stance on "substitution theory." I have accepted this as biblical for many, many years both in my Catholic upbringing and as a Protestant. I am not rejecting your thoughts, I am just curious what you are saying. I am a bit confused, so a summary of what your meaning is would be so helpful.
Atonement Theory
The Moral Influence Theory is a theological term; it is like many theological terms not proposed and given the name Moral Influence Theory that is simply something that got attached to the view by later theologians. It is a very simple theory, but first let me say that atonement theories are not meant to deal with all aspects of Christianity. In theological terms, an atonement theory is meant to explain the reason why Christ died. As Encyclopedia.com says: “In Christian theology, atonement is the reconciliation (‘at-one-ment’) of men and women to God through the death of Christ. The word was introduced by W. Tyndale (in 1526) to translate reconciliatio.”
Through history there have been a number of theories to attempt to explain how this reconciliation to God is brought about by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In simple terms…because, in fact, the moral influence theory is pretty simple, the atonement is God’s showing His love and desire for reconciliation with humanity. In fact, you could find that idea in most every other atonement theory. It is very clearly established in the Bible, probably most memorably by Paul when he asks the rhetorical question:
(Rom 2:4 NIV) Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? Repentance being the first step in human response to the actions of God leading to reconciliation.
What is the Moral Influence Theory
A couple of quotes from some easily accessible books online are helpful here, as most reference works will attribute the teaching of the moral influence theory or at least the popularity of it to Peter Abelard:
“It is only in his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (c. 1135?) that Abelard develops the thesis that the redeeming action of Christ does not consist in freeing man from servitude to the devil, but in inspiring in him the true love of God through the example of his life and his death…”Encylopedia of Christian Theology By Jean-Yves Lacoste
“Concerning the doctrine of Christ’s atonement, Abelard set forth in his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans a distinctive teaching, often called a “subjective” theory. Abelard argued that the effect of Christ’s death was not an “objective” change in the relation of God and humanity (in light of human sin) as presented in Anselm of Bec’s Cur Deus homo. Rather, Christ’s death reveals self-sacrifice and absolute self-giving love, which evokes in the believer a response of total sacrifice and love and effects not a cosmic transaction involving divine justice but a personal and individual transformation of love and intention.”Medieval France by William W. Kibler, Grover A. Zinn
Subjective versus objective atonement
The idea of subjective versus objective is actually very interesting because most of the other theories have Jesus doing the sacrifice to change God. In the Satisfaction theory, God has been infinitely offended by man’s sin and demands satisfaction. Man, who is finite, cannot provide any infinite satisfaction, so Christ, the God-man, provides it. This theory, for all practical purposes, morphed into the Substitutionary theory where God demands that someone pay the penalty for man’s sin and Jesus becomes man’s substitute. The Ransom theory from early Christianity is similar to an objective theory as it seeks to have Jesus pay a ransom to Satan to free people from Satan’s grip.
The difference- the effect of the atonement upon man versus the effect of the atonement on God (or the devil) makes a huge difference from my perspective. God is God, and He does not need to change; He is the one who offers the love and reconciliation and the ultimate salvation we look for. Of course, the Substitutionary atonement proponent will readily agree to the idea that the Substitutionary atonement reveals the love of God because God is sending His own Son as the Substitutionary sacrifice. However, to them the love of God is not enough; God has to punish someone for the sin, so God pours out His wrath upon Jesus Christ. The problem is; does love demand that someone has to be punished to forgive someone else? It produces a confused view of God, someone who loves supremely yet can’t manage to simply forgive. That frankly is not the picture of God given in much of the Bible, and it is not a very reasonable view of God either.
Quotes from the confused about Moral Influence Theory
Let me give my own $0.02 on the Moral Influence Theory. There is nothing wrong with it.... as far as it goes. No one anywhere would deny that Jesus' life and death influenced us morally. That was certainly part of his mission
But if Jesus' only mission was to show us how to live more moral lives, or even to show us how far love would go, there would have been no necessity for his death. It was just a stronger statement that way.
What the MIT leaves out is the whole Great Controversy, the charges against God, the reason that God had to let sin play out and his solution to the dilemma that the results of sin presented. In my opinion it was this larger context that required that Jesus suffer the consequences of sin to demonstrate the truth of God's diagnosis and the full nature of sin. I see no other way in which that could have been addressed that would not have left some crack of doubt about God and his government. Jesus' death was absolutely necessary for the whole problem of evil to be resolved. The MIT does not include that broad a scope.
Mark
This person has made the classic mistake of not understanding what an Atonement theory is meant to address. That is how does the death of Christ bring reconciliation? He is partially right in that all Christian doctrine relates to some other part of Christian doctrine. But there is no Atonement theory that includes all the broad scope of everything in Christianity. There is not even agreement on what the broad scope would be, and just saying the code words “Great Controversy” does little to establish any understanding. Though the term is used and misused in Adventism a lot. Practically no one really knows what it means because the term seems to try and cover everything that a particular person thinks is important. The same person continues in another post:
That God would choose to do this rather than "start over" is proof of his love. But to me (and I do NOT NOT NOT claim to speak for all Larger View folk in this) the primary reason for the necessity of Jesus' death was that there was no other way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that sin pays its wages, death rather than sin results in God killing you.
To me this explanation takes our understanding of the atonement out of the realm of the "Moral Influence Theory" because the MIT has no "necessity" for his death. He could have done it without the death but it was simply a stronger statement that way. In this understanding the death of Jesus was necessary. There is no other way in which this "double bind" could have been answered. Jesus had to die to deal with the claims of evil.
This continues the previous misunderstanding of what an Atonement theory is, but it also adds a new component which you find in many of those who claim to be students of Dr. Graham Maxwell (people who often say they follow the “Larger View” or the “Great Controversy” view of atonement). That is, for some reason, no one would know what death was unless Jesus died. It is an attempt to get back to the objective idea that God had to change something (here it would be humanity's view of death). Instead of God having to punish someone for sin, they move it to God having to prove that separation from God really is death. That the death we see all around us is not really death at all; only seeing the sin caused the death of Christ as someone who never sinned do we realize the separation from God really kills. I know it sounds silly, and it is, and it contradicts the New Testament, which indicates at least 5 times that people killed Christ, not once saying that God caused the death of Christ. It is a view predicated on Ellen White; for those trying to incorporate her into their theology, it takes on major importance, with the idea that Christ suffered the Second death, the death that the wicked will suffer after the second coming.
Another regular member at Heavenlysanctuary, Scott wrote:
If penal substitution (forensic model) is true then Christ could have been killed at two years old at the hand of Herod (acting for God) and accomplished being our substitute for God's wrath.
If the Moral Influence theory is true then God needed not become human at all. He could have come down as God or even sent an angel to accomplish telling men how to live. This would not require his death or resurrection.
Here we see another of the misrepresentations of the moral influence theory; the idea that the reason for the moral influence theory of the atonement was simply to show us humans, how to live. First, as with Mark, Scott doesn’t understand what an Atonement theory is trying to explain, and second, the idea that moral influence is meant as telling us how to be moral. So no, his assertion that the moral influence theory would be just as acceptable if an angel came and died is incorrect. At best, we would conclude that an angel had self-sacrificial love, but that does not tell us about God and thus does nothing to create reconciliation.
Kevin writes the following:
A second criticism I have of the Moral Influence Theory is that it is focused too much on works. Jesus died as a demonstration so that you change your life and that life chance is what saves you. It turns the cross into a coach and becomes a very beautiful way of phrasing traditional legalism.
Using the words of detractors to define a belief
This is one of the most popular distortions of the Moral Influence theory. It is like so many distortions is drawn not from what the believers in the Moral Influence theory say but from what the detractors say about the Moral Influence theory. We see an example of this on Religious Tolerance website, which says under the description, “Some brief descriptions of the Moral Theory are:
Phil Johnson of the conservative Protestant Grace to You ministry disagrees with the Moral Theory. He describes it as follows: "Christ’s death was an example for believers to follow, a radical expression of love that influences sinners morally and gives them a pattern to follow..." 6
People have to really be careful who they get their information from. If you want to know what certain people believe, you go to sources of people who believe that. You don’t go to the Adventists to find out what Roman Catholics believe or to Roman Catholics to find out what Adventists believe. There may be Adventists and Roman Catholics who know what the other believes, but they will be able to document the belief from people who actually hold the belief. This is why quotations are so important, and it protects us from making wrong assumptions and/or judgments based upon faulty information.
Christ as Christian Example
That Christ is an example to follow is nearly universal in Christianity, but that is not what the moral influence theory is. You may have noticed nobody said that the book In His Steps was based upon the Moral Influence Theory, but that is the premise to the first half of the book and the concept “what would Jesus do”. The moral influence theory is no more works oriented than the works oriented legalism of those who hold to Satisfaction or Penal theory. Atonement theory is not about works or the grace of people. Atonement theory is about the grace or work of Christ and how His death leads to reconciliation.
Definitions of Moral often ignored
There are other definitions of “Moral” which convey much better the idea of moral used in the term Moral Influence theory. Three of them found in the definition of moral at Dictionary.com are:
Founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
Atonement the center of Christianity
A person’s view of the Atonement will serve as the foundation, the center of their interpretation of all other aspects of Christianity. It defines the character of God, and that understanding of God defines the rest of our beliefs. This makes it very hard for someone who believes in the ultimately self-sacrificial love of God designed to bring us back to a relationship with God to live a legalistic life. In other words, to think that because God loved us so much that He came in the person of Jesus Christ to show us His love, and even when rejected and tortured by people He still loved and forgave the ones killing Him. Yet He requires the same self-sacrificial love and forgiveness from you, or He will not be reconciled with you makes no sense; it would not even be atonement. That God asks us to love and forgive is very true and a part of most all Christian thought. But that our love and forgiveness is what saves us is the difference between legalism and grace-oriented salvation. It explains why those who believe God is defined by His love and forgiveness cannot hope to live lives of sufficient love and forgiveness to merit salvation. We know that there are no works we can do to make up for our lack of love and forgiveness.
That God acts rightly, that love is the conduct of God, is the type of “moral” nature revealed in the atonement. That the character of God reaches to our mind, our feeling, and our character is equally moral. The fact that this love is convincingly given by the record of the life and death of Christ confirms still another definition of moral. We could even add more morals in that Christ conformed to the current laws or that Christ was obedient. But those moral elements don’t bring reconciliation; they are evidence of who Christ was. But we can’t ignore the elements of moral which influence us to follow God. Which is what many of the detractors of Moral Influence theory do because they really do like the moral influence theory; it just does not go far enough for them. It does not fulfill their view of a God that demands someone has to die because a law was broken…that satisfaction has to be made. If I speculated about their reason other than tradition for their insistence, I would have to say it is founded upon a misunderstanding of God and love. And that is why the theory of Atonement is so very important today.
The Adventist Review has weighed in on the idea that Theistic Evolution should be accepted in the Adventist church. The article by E. Edward Zinke is entitled Creation and the Certainty of the Second Coming asks numerous questions. Strangely though it quotes no one who believes in Theistic Evolution, it does not even seem to paraphrase any beliefs of Theistic Evolutionists. The questions therefore are meant as rhetorical devices to assert that Theistic Evolution has no reason for their beliefs, that it destroys the Gospel. In some cases the article simply makes absurd statements which have no merit at all. For example:
“Spirituality matured through the process of evolution, they say, and finally reached an evolutionary peak in Jesus.”
Who are the “they” apparently not important enough for the author to identify, after all there are thousands or millions of beliefs out there if someone believes it then I guess that is all we need to know. Do you think that the Adventist Review will go out and ask a Christian who is a Theistic Evolutionist to contribute an article to the Review? I highly doubt it. If they publish a propaganda article like this they have no intention of actually dealing with what Theistic Evolutionists really believe. Even so the rest of us should realize that it is unwise to get the idea of what someone believes from people who don’t believe it. In other words you don’t go to Buddhist to find out what a Christian believes. The Buddhist may have a good idea if he has studied Christianity but when he tells you about Christians he will use statements by actual Christians. Objectivity is often not found in the ranks of the opposition to something. It is to those objective people that we should seek our knowledge not the people who simply say “they say”.
The author says:
“If we do not accept the biblical account of Creation, we are left with many, many questions, a few guesses, and no answers. We have an uncertain identity. The nature and even the existence of God are called into question. Our future is in limbo….”
This is a typical statement by traditional Adventists. By Biblical account they mean literal account. They ignore the possibility of the account being a myth used to teach people. If one believes the story is not meant in a literal way then that means that they don’t believe in the Biblical account of Creation. Because you don’t believe in the account the way they believe in the account. See my article Genesis in Symbol and Substance.
Included in the many questions the author asks is this:
“What implication does theistic evolution have for the way God acts in the world? If God either cannot or does not behave in the way that the Genesis Creation account describes, then what does that say for other reports of His activities in the rest of the Bible? Did God bring about a worldwide flood and guide Noah’s ark to safety?...”
What about the other questions about Noah’s flood, that God repented of making man, that God killed every living creature on the planet? There are whole hosts of questions there and that is before we even get to the scientific implications and evidence or better said lack of evidence of a worldwide flood. Clearly there is no shortage of questions regarding how God interacts with the world and they aren’t really answered any too clearly in the book of Genesis if you take the stories as literal. The article continues:
“Suppose God did bring about life on our planet by the process of theistic evolution, developing it through the survival of the fittest from simple life forms to the complexity of a moral and intelligent creature called Homo sapiens. What then would be the meaning of sin and salvation? Is sin simply a lack of progress? At what point could humans be considered to be created in the image of God and therefore morally responsible?”
Would it really matter? Would sin be anything different from what it is now if we did not simply suddenly come into existence. None of us living now or in the Bible times simply suddenly existed like the Adam and Eve in Genesis. Is sin different for someone who has never heard the Genesis story? Adam and Eve and their story do not define sin, selfishness and distrust define sin. But if you don’t know anything about God how can you be distrustful of Him? Sin then is still that virus that infects us with selfishness and hurts us and causes us to hurt others. Salvation would likewise be the healing of that situation. The God who heals would be the same God even if the method of creation was different from the presumed literal account of Genesis.
Sadly this is the kind of article that the Adventist church will produce and market to the membership. Where tradition is the method of understanding and any attempt to scientifically and rationally deal with the Bible and reality is decried as “Relying upon human ability to discover “truth,”… For some reason traditional Adventists don’t think that their interpretations are in any way based upon human reasoning, their default is that their interpretation is not their interpretation it is the literal word of God. Any other interpretation then is based upon human reasoning.
The other day I listened to one of the programs for the Walla Walla Camp meeting 2009. It was on Preaching presented by Dave Thomas. It was mainly about the ways to prepare and deliver sermons. I did think it was interesting that the reason he feels that Preaching sermons is still the best method is because it is Biblical. That is preaching is mentioned in the New Testament. I would argue the usefulness of sermons in the modern information age is not all that useful. I mean really the Bible mentions nothing about Christians writing books yet Christians have probably written millions of books. We don’t really say that books aren’t useful because they are not Biblical. Culture and times change the way we do things…so just because something is Biblical does not mean it should continue with the same emphasis as it had in Biblical times.
But for now we are all subject to sermons because we fear change and fear trying new things. So continuing on the subject of preparing sermons Dave Thomas talks about the amount of time it takes to create a good sermon. 20-40 hours is the amount of time he indicates is needed to prepare the sermon. I find that hard to believe that most any sermon I have heard in the last 20 years of my life has taken 20 hours of preparation let alone 40 but let us assume that 20 hours is the average amount of time a pastor spends preparing a sermon. That is a good deal of work.
So why don’t they publish their sermons? In the computer age most all sermons should be written on computers, even the people who go against Dave Thomas’ instructions and only make an outline and don’t write our their sermons should have the outline in electronic form. They go through all this work give a sermon and that’s it, maybe some will record it to tape and maybe a few will put them on mp3 for download but hardly any publish the written sermon. What may take an hour to listen to can be skimmed for the key points in 10 minutes in written form. If it seems interesting or useful one can read the whole thing or listen to a download. (I think tapes are really outdated but maybe a few older people still like them.) With blog technology it is so easy to publish I can see practically no reason for sermons not to be posted in written form. I think the local church would benefit from posting sermons and distant people would benefit also.
There is one reason in the preparation for preaching program that Dave Thomas mentioned that might explain why preachers are not posting their written sermons. That reason is that sermons are often very personal. The person who gives a sermon feels particularly vulnerable right after giving a sermon. So they may likely feel vulnerable publishing their sermon. I don’t think that would be a good excuse if they really put in the work to prepare a good sermon and if they feel that God had something for them to say. I also think it would be useful because then the criticism of a sermon which people would not likely give to a preacher can be given in a less personal way. In other words it would be a way to get feed back and to improve the preachers reasoning or facts. I think of one sermon I heard where the person said that in ancient days people built lamps into their sandals (thy word is a lamp unto my feet). It is pretty funny when you think about it and it did spur me to see if there was any evidence for such a thing. There is not but I would guess that person is still using it
So publishing might be a little scary that people will point out your errors but if we are really searching for truth let us point out the errors and let the preacher make the corrections and even correct himself in front of the congregation. Maybe that is the first part in changing the sermons, maybe moving from the emotional show, we can move to reasoned arguments and ultimately maybe even dialog with our pastors, who I think are sorely in need of continuing education.
What makes you respect someone; Honesty, thoughtfulness, compassion, wisdom, knowledge? Do your respect someone who gives a sermon which you know is factually incorrect? Perhaps you can always say he/she just did not know the facts. What happens when you talk to that person and point out the error and they say no, I stand by my statement completely? I can tell you what happens to me I lose all respect for their positions.
In life there are a vast array of opinions and feeling and speculations, more than enough to constantly stimulate our minds. Which is why when someone tells you something untrue and then when pointed out that it is untrue they refuse to acknowledge the error or change their position what does one have left to listen to in that person. They have taken the position that fact and truth are unimportant to them. There is no point in discussion with them because for whatever reason they have lost their objectivity. The strange thing is this so often happens in the area of religion and politics. It seems to not even matter what end of the spectrum one falls on either, liberal or conservative. Some of the most precious ideas are held without any regard for the truth, the facts or reality and reason.
This was brought home to me this last week on the Spectrum blog, which is frequently Progressive Adventist and liberal politically oriented. In a comment under the article entitled A Horrendous Betrayal of the Gospel By Charles Scriven. The article is titled rather like the National Enquirer as the article is really just a criticism of singing the National Anthem during a church service on the 4th of July. The reason being that Christianity is for everyone not any one country or people. He might have a point if he were referring to the singing of the The Star-Spangled Banner in Canada or China. But it does not make a lot of sense in a church where the majority if not all the people at the church are actually citizens of the United States or Permanent Residents. But that is not the problem.
The problem comes when Chris Blake who is apparently a minister someplace wrote this comment, here is the first two paragraphs:
Last year I preached a sermon in College View Church about the virtue of non-combatancy: our great need for creativity and imagination and resilience when fighting evil; our tendency to believe in the myth of redemptive violence; the penchant when you own the biggest hammer in the world to see everything as a nail; the odd presence of the American flag in front of the sanctuary; and the non-violent model of Jesus. Normally CVC sermons are televised the following week. Mine was not. (Smile.)
The myth of redemptive violence is easily swallowed in a culture that force-feeds the myth every second with every dollar. Thankfully, some still do not buy it, will never buy it.
To which I responded:
By myth I take it you mean fiction, what is the myth of redemptive violence?
To test your definition: If it is really a fiction (myth) then we should be able to demonstrate that no one has ever been saved from the hands of threatening or evil or violent people by the acts of violence by people trying to save the threatened people.
I won't ask you to support the statement about the culture that force feeds the myth every second with every dollar because I am sure even you realize that that statement is a gross exaggeration.
The funny thing is that even after pointing out that the statement is a gross exaggeration in the next comment he said he stood by the comment completely.
He writes:
Redemptive means deliverance or rescue from whatever ails or threatens us. So if we're threatened by violence, we should be able to redeem that threat by, for example:
Overthrowing the democratically elected head of Iran in 1951.
Forcing Ho Chi Minh to retreat from 1955-1975.
Arming Saddam Hussein in his fight against Iran.
Arming Osama bin Laden in his fight against the USSR.
Training Timothy McVeigh to kill.
Creating terms like "collateral damage" to minimize war horrors
Arming the world with military weapons; in fact, making more in weapon sales than we give in foreign aid.
Here I could list 500 more examples of how redemptive violence "pays off" ultimately in more violence and mayhem. (You could counter with Adolph Hitler and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but that's the exception.)
The first thing you will notice is that he puts World War II as an exception. Which means he is saying that Redemptive violence is a myth (a fiction that violence saves anyone except in certain exceptions) Which of course means it is not a myth, that at least some of time it is a reality. The second thing you note is that his list of examples does not include the Gulf war, fought to free Kuwait, The Grenada war etc. In other words ignoring the times when people were freed by violence. You would also note he references where the US is involved, ignoring where doing nothing has resulting in horrible consequences such as Darfur and Rwanda. In the case of Vietnam War where communist North Vietnam attacked South Vietnam when we ended our support of South Vietnam (“Forcing Ho Chi Minh to retreat from 1955-1975”) When we left millions were killed and nearly a million fled the country, hundreds of thousands in boats (boat people). Hopefully the best one can say is that if the US ever gets into a war it may not be best to end with a stalemate.
In the aboveChris Blake is just selectively choosing his examples, it is an example of subjective reasoning, choosing what is important and listing that while ignoring what goes against your theory. It is merely an attempt at being persuasive by hoping that others don’t know history enough to doubt your rendition of the facts. The real violation of logic comes when he acknowledges the exception to his thesis that redemptive violence is a myth. When someone acknowledges in their own words that their thesis is wrong because it has exceptions how can they continue to stand by that thesis. Something then is very wrong.
But there was still the very gross exaggeration comment made. Most people realize that words like all, and every are often indicators that a logical fallacy is being used. So when Chris Blake says: “every second with every dollar” most of us would think there is an exaggeration here. I would hope most of us would see through such statements but as you will see that is not the case. Chris Blake then tries to use some statistics from “Stockholm International Peace Research Institute” to back up his statement. I could go into the numbers statistics but even here Chris Blake in his own words shows that his assertion is false. He writes:
More than half of all discretionary spending of the U.S. government goes toward military expenditures.
He has falsified his own statement that every dollar is used to forced feed the myth of redemptive violence. (Again most should realize that our culture spends lots on other things also, healthcare, education, entertainment, food etc)
What bothers me most is that Charles Scriven commented on Chris Blake’s posts:
Chris Blake:
You are gift to us all. Thanks for the Sassoon and Owens poetry. Thanks for the history and numbers you cite. Your passion is seismic.
That sounds like it is meant as praise, praise for history and numbers which are inaccurate and used to defend a thesis of redemptive violence that Chris Blake’s own words show is untrue. But yet Chris Blake concluded:
And you think I'm exaggerating?
I stand sadly by every word of the previous post.
The question then becomes why do some lose all objectivity when certain of their cherished beliefs are shown to be incorrect; Going so far as ignoring their irrationality and the irrationality of others. Being wrong is understandable standing by your error when it is revealed is irrational. I don’t really know the reason but I am sure that it damages us all and is not something that we should ignore when it occurs.
Thanks to the Good News Tour some people may have been under the impression that Ty Gibson is like many Progressive Adventists against the Penal/Substitutionary Atonement Theory; instead holding to Christ’s revelation of His Character of love as the method of drawing us to God. Simply put God did not have to punish Christ, Christ did not suffer the wrath of God but God was through Christ demonstrating the love of God and His ability to forgive and reconcile no need to kill in order to forgive. Today I listened to Ty Gibson’s Auburn Camp meeting presentation from Tuesday June 23, 2009. The first 30 to 40 minutes seemed innocuous enough mainly dealing with the attractive nature of God’s love revealed by Jesus Christ. But then as so many Adventists do he began to intentionally misinterpret the Bible to make it appear that Christ could not see through the portals of the tomb, even though He clearly could from the New Testament stories and Jesus made it plan to the thief on the cross that the thief would be with Jesus in paradise. But the need to incorporate Ellen White’s extra biblical ideas into the Bible is very strong among traditional Adventists. Yes I would label Ty Gibson a traditional Adventist, not simply because of his history on 3ABN, but his theology is very much that of traditional Adventists who can’t seem to pull themselves away from Ellen White and Penal/Substitutionary Atonement. The Good News Tour often uses Ty Gibson in their presentations because he seems to have a willingness to speak on the influence of the love of God, but make no mistake he does not really depart from penal atonement theory as I will demonstrate here. In fact his opening text at the camp meeting sermon was not from the Bible but from Ellen White. I suppose that such things are appropriate at camp meetings since they are mainly attended by traditional Adventists who think that Ellen White is in total harmony with the Bible because they interpret the Bible by Ellen White.
After a highly questionable attempt to indicate that Christ is a separate person who no longer held to the attributes of God. Instead of recognizing Christ as still God but living as a human being because if God was Omnipresent, Omnipotent and all knowing Christ’s life would be like a charade.
Ty Gibson says:
“What would it mean for someone who is omniscient to say My God My God why have you forsaken me, what would it mean?
The answer is probably that Jesus was directing the listener’s attention to Psalm 22 which is a Psalm of tragedy to triumph. There is nothing in the New Testament to indicate that God abandoned Christ, nothing to indicate that God forsook Christ. But it is a founding tenant in Traditional Adventist’s Penal Atonement theory despite its lack of New Testament documentation other then reading into those words “My God My God why have you forsaken me”
He continues:
“What would it mean? Approximately nothing. It would be meaningless because if you were omniscient not to mention omnipresent you would be on the cross in that locale and you would simultaneously be where? In heaven with the Father.”…
“So Jesus was revealing love authentically so that we could look at the cross and believe that He did lay down His life for you and me. That there was a period of time when He couldn’t see through the portals of the tomb. When bright hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave as a conqurer. Jesus hung between heaven and earth my friends and He literally was submerged within the deep dense psychological darkness of your shame and mine. Our guilt our sin”…
He then quotes Isaiah 53 where the Lord laid the iniquity of all of us on him.
“The collective whole of all human sin as though He were the guilty party.Do you know what that means? Just to give a hint as to what it might mean imagine for a nanosecond what it would be like right now if you were made perfectly conscious of every sin you have ever committed. .. all the guilt of sin would come to an acute awareness in our consciousness that would crush us. Jesus goes to the cross and He experiences the full ramifications of our sin. Not as a charade, but as a literal actual sacrifice of Himself, and there hanging upon the cross, unbelievable.”
“Psalm 88 as a messianic prophecy pointing forward to Jesus probing into the inner workings of mind and heart hanging there upon the cross not to mention in Gethsemane he says [I am using the NIV I don’t know which version or paraphrase he is quoting but instead of transcribing I will use the NIV]“my soul is full of trouble and my life draws near the grave. I am counted among those who go down to the pit; I am like a man without strength. I am set apart with the dead, like the slain who lie in the grave, whom you remember no more,”
He then interjects: “This is second death language by the way”
You have put me in the lowest pit, in the darkest depths. “what kind of darkness, like the turn off the lights kind of darkness? This is a metaphor for what is going on in His mind in His heart as He bares our sins.” Your wrath lies heavily upon me; you have overwhelmed me with all your waves. Selah He said in chapter 26 of Matthew I am exceedingly sorrowful even to the point of death” Your wrath lies heavily upon me; you have overwhelmed me with all your waves. Selah
“Verse 8 is crucial”
You have taken from me my closest friends and have made me repulsive to them. I am confined and cannot escape; my eyes are dim with grief. I call to you, O LORD, every day; I spread out my hands to you. Do you show your wonders to the dead? Do those who are dead rise up and praise you? Selah Is your love declared in the grave, your faithfulness in Destruction?
“You hear what Jesus is going through here? Jesus is feeling a psychological and emotional chasm of separation from the Father that is so immense that He begins to feel that He is sinking into a depth from which there will be no resurrection. I am shut out and I can’t get out shall I arise even? Is there a resurrection Father from the death to which I am sinking? But here is the thing my friend. Jesus had earlier told His disciples no man takes my life from me I lay it down freely…”
Now is there some indication that Psalms 88 is a messianic prophecy let alone one that talks about Jesus Christ’s psychological and emotional state on the cross? Here is the whole Psalm.
Ps 88:1-18
CHAPTER 88
1O LORD, the God who saves me, day and night I cry out before you.
2May my prayer come before you; turn your ear to my cry.
3For my soul is full of trouble and my life draws near the grave.
4I am counted among those who go down to the pit; I am like a man without strength.
5I am set apart with the dead, like the slain who lie in the grave, whom you remember no more, who are cut off from your care.
6You have put me in the lowest pit, in the darkest depths.
7Your wrath lies heavily upon me; you have overwhelmed me with all your waves. Selah
8You have taken from me my closest friends and have made me repulsive to them. I am confined and cannot escape;
9my eyes are dim with grief. I call to you, O LORD, every day; I spread out my hands to you.
10Do you show your wonders to the dead? Do those who are dead rise up and praise you? Selah
11Is your love declared in the grave, your faithfulness in Destruction?
12Are your wonders known in the place of darkness, or your righteous deeds in the land of oblivion?
13But I cry to you for help, O LORD; in the morning my prayer comes before you.
14Why, O LORD, do you reject me and hide your face from me?
15From my youth I have been afflicted and close to death; I have suffered your terrors and am in despair.
16Your wrath has swept over me; your terrors have destroyed me.
17All day long they surround me like a flood; they have completely engulfed me.
18You have taken my companions and loved ones from me; the darkness is my closest friend. (NIV)
Take the time to read the surrounding chapters as well, you will see that there is nothing here to cause one to place this as a messianic prophecy other then a desire to find something in the Bible to back up Ellen White’s statements and the Penal idea that the wrath of God was poured out upon Christ, which we have to remember is another of those ideas missing from the New Testament. If one looks at the lists of presumed Messianic prophecies 88:8 is however listed. These lists are made primarily by comparing any phrase found in the Gospels that is close to a phrase found in the Psalms. For instance the website 365 Messianic prophecies states under number 127:
Psalms 88:8...They stood afar off and watched...Luke 23:49
A site called 324 Messianic prophecies uses the same thing. These type of messianic prophecies are all based upon a very loose comparisons of a few words based upon the King James Version of the Bible. For this Luke 23:49 says: And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things. Compared with the KJV version of Psalms 88:8Thou hast put away mine acquaintance far from me; thou hast made me an abomination unto them: I am shut up, and I cannot come forth. The similarity being the word “acquaintance” and “far” of course if you consider going from Hebrew to Greek even those limited words could be questionable.
Considering Psalm 88 does seem to begin naturally in verse 1 (remember verse numbers were not used in the original texts of the Bible and Psalms were referred to by how they began since they had no numbers or some other memorable refrain from the Psalm). This Psalm begins with “O LORD, the God who saves me”, to use this as some sort of evidence that Christ did not think He would be resurrected is to ignore the beginning sentiments. No, there is little evidence that this is a messianic Psalm. This is a good example of having an idea and reading meaning into a section of the Bible to make it appear that the Bible is saying something it is not. This is known as Eisegesis.
Eisegesis is a huge problem in Christianity. Remember above where Ty Gibson said “this is second death language”. Biblically the second death is mentioned only in the book of Revelation and it is described as a death to which there is no resurrection.In TyGibson’s sermon he uses eisegesis to arrive at a position very similar to the Word Faith teachers, such as Kenneth Copeland who once said:
"How did Jesus then on the cross say, ‘My God.’ Because God was not His Father any more. He took upon Himself the nature of Satan. And I’m telling you Jesus is in the middle of that pit. He’s suffering all that there is to suffer, there is no suffering left . . . apart from Him. His emaciated, little wormy spirit is down in the bottom of that thing and the devil thinks He’s got Him destroyed. But, all of a sudden God started talking." (Kenneth Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory (television program), TBN, 21 April 1991.)
The similarities here are interesting, first Ty Gibson set forth Jesus as not God because He did not have the 3 omni characteristics of God. They can then move to the next step which is that Jesus died Spiritually, as in Adventist terminology Jesus died the second death. There is an interesting article by Troy J. Edwards and Victory through the Word MinistriesI am going to use some of the sections from this article to point out the similarities between Ty Gibson, Word of Faith movement and earlier Penal Atonement theorists. The above link is to Part 1, most of my quotes will be from Part 2 of the article.
First here is a bit from the article about what the Word of Faith teaches using Psalm 88:
The Old Testament, according to the Lord Himself, gives us a picture of all that the Lord was to suffer. Though the disciples were focused on what the Messiah would suffer at the hands of the chief priests and rulers (Luke 24:20), the OT Scriptures focus on both His physical sufferings as well with His internal sufferings. One of the first passages we find in relation to His internal sufferings is in Psalm 71:20-21:
Thou, which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth. Thou shalt increase my greatness, and comfort me on every side.
Though this might be applied to David symbolically, it's literal meaning can only be applied to Jesus Christ Himself. David never died and had to be made alive again and David never went to the depths of the earth. On the other hand, God gave David a glimpse into the future concerning the coming Messiah that the Father would send in the fulness of time. It was He who died and was made alive again. It was He who went to the depths of the earth. The New Living Translation interprets the first part of verse 20 this way: "You allowed me to suffer much hardship..."
If read in the sequence in which this Psalm is written and applied to the Lord, it would seem that the Lord had suffered while still in the depths of the earth. However, I can understand if this passage from the 71st Psalm is not enough to convince the reader that perhaps Christ suffering in hell on behalf of His people may have been prophesied. I believe however, that Psalms 88 gives us much stronger evidence of this possibility. Although a sound exposition of this Psalm would do more justice in the presentation of our case, it would require us to make this series of essays longer than we desire. Instead, I will quote the first seven verses from two different translations:
I won’t deal with the eisegesis of Psalm 71:20-21 now, you can read it and see that it is simply another example of reading into a text the meaning you want just as is being done to Psalms 88. When you read into a text you can always make it refer to whatever you want, here we see that they apply Psalm 88 to Jesus in hell, whereas Ty Gibson makes it Jesus on the cross. What is so interesting about this article is how they relate the Word Faith movement beliefs with pervious Christian writers who taught Penal Atonement theory:
John Calvin seemed to believe wholeheartedly that Christ descended to hell and suffered there. In his well known works, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin says:
If Christ had dies[sic] only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No – it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God's vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgement. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and and the dread of everlasting death ... Christ was put in place of evildoers as surety and pledge – submitting himself even as the accused – to bear and suffer all the punishments that they ought to have sustained. All this with one exception: "He could not be held by the pangs of death."[19]
Now some critics of the Faith Movement would attempt to make us believe that Calvin's teaching is different from that which is advocated by the Faith Movement.[20] Yet we have Calvin saying that Christ had to "suffer all the punishments that they ought to have sustained." Is Calvin saying that men would only have suffered torments in their soul for the rest of eternity if Christ had not suffered them on their behalf? Furthermore, what does it [sic] Calvin mean by having to "grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and and the dread of everlasting death?" Calvin is very clear that Christ's suffering was not limited to the cross alone but He actually descended into hell itself and suffered there:
The article gives several other examples which I won’t list but they are interesting how so much of Christian history believed that Jesus (who is God) had to die spiritually, that God had to literally cease to be God, which indicates a real lack of understanding about the nature of God. Primarily that God is One. In the words of Ty Gibson it becomes a charade. For the Word of Faith movement that Jesus (who is God) suffered in Hell and for Ty Gibson that conservatively 10 Billion lives worth of human sins were placed upon Christ who felt the guilt for all of them though He was guiltless but this feeling of guilt was the second death and Jesus thought He would die forever for undertaking the charade.
While in the main I have not offered the alternative to Ty Gibson and the other Penal Theory proponents you can read more in my article What is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement? And Moral Influence Theory and the Adventist World Magazine This is probably the biggest problem in Christianity today as it says horrible things about God, God has to punish, pour out His wrath and place as a penalty on Jesus (who is God) so that God can forgive the guilty. It makes it appear that Christ is more loving than God, Christ loves and offers Himself as sacrifice while God demands that someone even if it is the innocent has to suffer before God will forgive. It is a terrible view of God and it is not the New Testament view of God but a relatively new view only popularized about 500 years ago with the Satisfaction theory of atonement which progressed into the penal/Substitutionary atonement. Still most people don’t think about what their tradition really says about God. But in the postmodern world we need to present a much more accurate view of God than this human based medieval traditions.
Ron, what is your purpose in even remaining a Seventh-day Adventist? You would probably find it much more agreeable to join the many other denominations whose beliefs are very similar to yours. What is your agenda in remaining in a church that you seem to have no affinity towards? The Seventh-day Adventist church has been raised up by God to give the last warning to the world, living in the hour of God's judgment. It is a church that keeps the commandments of God and has the Spirit of prophecy (which the church believes to be Ellen White). If you do not agree with this and the other beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church, then why remain in a church whose sole reason for existance is the proclaimation of the three angel's message? You could then spend your time differently then in attempting to show why the church you are a member of (I am assuming you are, otherwise, disregard this post) was wrong from the beginning. Please consider why you are a Seventh-day Adventist, and if the reason is enough that you would be willing to die for it. Grace be with you.
I was wondering how representative this person’s views are of Adventism. So after the questions he asks he makes the following claims, are these claims true of Seventh-day Adventism?
The Seventh-day Adventist church has been raised up by God to give the last warning to the world, living in the hour of God's judgment.
Is that a true statement? Did God raise up the Adventist church or is that an assumption. Most all churches feel that God in some way was involved in their origin, is that only really true for Adventism? Do you believe that Adventist church was raised for no other reason than to give the last warning to the world? Has the message of God so changed that there even has to be a last warning to the world? What kind of church would give up all the other Christians duties of a church just to offer a warning to the world? What is the hour of God’s judgment, the same God who knows the end from the beginning, who knows who are His and they will never be snatched from His hand. Is God somehow judging us differently then anyone else in history? You notice that single statement raises a lot of questions, most of which I doubt the author of the comment can answer adequately, but he continues.
It is a church that keeps the commandments of God and has the Spirit of prophecy (which the church believes to be Ellen White).
How does an organization keep the commandments of God? Does the organization have a mother and father to honor? We know very well that the organization has stolen from its members and misused their money at times so just how do they keep the commandments of God? I know very well that the people in the organization don’t keep the commandments of God, not the 10 and not even the simply love your neighbor as yourself. Even if you excluded the heretics like me the members or the church itself will not be found to keep the commandments of God. Does the Adventist church have the Spirit of prophecy? Most all churches claim to have the Spirit of prophecy as most all churches claim to hold to the Bible in some way, to the inspiration of the founders of Christianity and Judaism. Is Ellen White the Spirit of Prophecy? Not by a long shot, to say that is to totally rip the meaning out from the text which makes use of the term Spirit of Prophecy. It is rather like the claim that the church keeps the commandments, a big claim with no truth behind it.
If you do not agree with this and the other beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church, then why remain in a church whose sole reason for existance is the proclaimation of the three angel's message?
Probably because I reject your views and the views of those who because of their spiritual blindness think that the sole reason for the Adventist church is the proclamation of the three angel’s message. Because the church began by thinking it was soon to be taken to heaven and that the door to salvation was closed to anyone but a select few does not mean that the church has to remain thinking in that provincial way. The church actually did change unfortunately now there are people like the person who wrote the above comment who want to go back instead of forward. Do we cede the Adventist church to those people because they claim it is theirs or do we fight for truth?
You could then spend your time differently then in attempting to show why the church you are a member of (I am assuming you are, otherwise, disregard this post) was wrong from the beginning.
So if the church is wrong just don’t tell them…does that sound like a wise strategy? If someone was eating low grade poison should not one tell them to stop before they destroy themselves? Is not that the whole emphasis of Adventist evangelism, we claim we are giving them truth, we ask them to decide and change their beliefs, is it only acceptable if we tell others to change but we don’t dare internally look at our beliefs and consider if what we say is true or not. Has Adventism simply become the haunt of hypocrites unwilling to think differently from the traditions of some Adventists, saying you must change your beliefs, we can never change ours?
Please consider why you are a Seventh-day Adventist, and if the reason is enough that you would be willing to die for it.
How many Adventists are willing to die for the Seventh-day Adventist church? Is the Seventh-day Adventist church God that we should die for a denomination. Perish the thought…well probably very few Adventists would have ever produced that thought. To me it represents a misplaced allegiance. But maybe I am wrong maybe most of the Adventists out there agree with that comment. Because if my church has really become as myopic as the message of the comment above the question is very good…why would I or anyone remain in such a denomination?
