A Thought on Suffering

I've been listening to the testimony of someone who has suffered a great deal. She has made a something beautiful out of her suffering. We might be tempted to say that God planned for this beauty. God caused the suffering because he know what she would make of it. But this is wrong. The beauty that has come from her suffering is a tribute to how God can take suffering and make it into something beautiful. God can do wonderful things in our lives if we let him. He doesn't cause the suffering, but if we allow him, he can take manure and grow something beautiful.

Behold! The Antichrist is Here!

Christians have been looking for the Antichrist for a long time, but he has actually been here for about 20 years. See him for yourself here. And by the way, Antichrist doesn't refer to one who is against Christ or opposed to Christ, but rather to the next christ.

Actually, I find this man somewhat frightening! At least his message seems to be of tolerance... wow! I for one won't be getting three sixes tattooed on me and time soon!

More on Ellen White

Some of you may have had the opportunity to browse my very long post called, "What Do We Do with Ellen White?" These conversations about Ellen White have been happening more frequently this winter. The Red Books was his play that premiered recently at PUC has sparked quite a bit of debate. Several of my favorite discussions have come form Julius Nam's blog, progressiveadventism.com. Especially provocative recent post called Red Books and the Mosaic of Adventism. What Julius Nam has to say struck a cord in me. How can we as Adventists chart a way forward that doesn't require firing squads or church inquisitors? How can we learn to accept Ellen White for who she was, "messy and enigmatic," completely human and thus imperfect and sinful, as well as called and inspired by God to do ministry in her time and place? I am reminded of one of George Knight's favorite sayings: "Thou Shalt Not Do Theology Against Thy Brother!" This also fits with how we are to treat dear old Ellen. If she has become primarily an implement of war, animosity, and strife within our church, then we are all responsible for creating this monster. And who is responsible for slaying or taming the monster?

What Do We Do with Ellen White?

On a Monday morning, four friends engaged in an online chat session. The discussion had its roots in a play on Ellen White, called Redbooks, that has been written and preformed by students at Pacific Union College. A provocative play, Redbooks raises many questions about Ellen G. White and how contemporary Adventists should deal with her. The comments here are incomplete in their scope and have not been actively researched. We hope you find them thought provoking and helpful; and and we hope that you actively engage in this timely debate on Ellen White.

Matt: I just went to the first dress rehearsal of the Ellen White play PUC is doing. Lots of conversation fodder.

Mark: Ok. So Matt is stuck on the EGW stuff.

Luke: Tell us, what's the issue?

Matt: The play last night made me really think about it. About all of our experience with her, our parents and our grandparents, our friends… Seriously, its a question for everyone. What do you seriously feel about Ellen White?

Mark: I don't remember the last time I read something she wrote. Well, I did glance at her for prayer meeting just in case someone attacked but I haven't read for personal edification or anything. I don't feel the need to.

Matt: Exactly, Mark. Me either. Julia didn't get three/fourths of the stuff in the play because she just has never cared.

John: Matt, is that the play that you were talking about in SF, that your friends were writing?

Matt: Yeah. I saw them do the dress rehearsal last night. It was amazing. They premier in a week. Julius Nam is coming up from Loma Linda, Spectrum is coming and George Knight is coming down from Oregon for the premier.

Luke: Let me throw out my opinion about EGW so that you can shoot me down: She was a very balanced and godly inspired prophet who did mission in the 1800s. Most of her stuff is out dated, but her core work is still good.

Matt: Ok. That is Luke’s. Mark and John, you are still up…

Mark: I’ll accept Luke’s. Really it’s a non-issue for me. I don't really think about it much.

Matt: Dude, the play is insane, because it is my friend who says he is an atheist who wrote and directed it and he has nailed Adventism and our issues with Ellen. Is Luke's position a dodge? Can a prophet be outdated?

Luke: Yes Matt, a prophet can be outdated because of the principle of the Incarnational Gospel. The gospel reaches people, society, where it is. Thus her message was for that time and place.

Mark: The point of a prophet is to give voice to a message that is needed in a particular time and space. It might be universal but maybe not

John: I don't have a problem with her being inspired, but as we have talked, Matt, I think she was needed in a time to push the church out of infancy. I don't think that everything she wrote was meant for publication. That said, I've only read Steps to Christ, Desire of Ages, and of course Evangelism and Gospel workers. So you can see how important she is to me.

Matt: Is she central to the Adventist sociology?

Luke: She is central to our sociology, unfortunately. But not required to our theology.

John: But the principles and lessons can still be drawn upon today, that's why the OT prophets still work.

Luke: Exactly, John. At face value, she is outdated… she isn’t relevant. If we learn to read her through the eyes of principle, what she says is still truth. Just like the stories from the prophets aren't relevant unless we interpret and apply them to our time.

Matt: So what do we do with someone who is central to our collective experience together - our sociology - who is not relevant?

Luke: We try to look out, not in. We focus our attention and our theology on mission. Focusing on EGW is like me trying to update my dad's clothing style, instead of me just trying to live my own life and style. EGW isn't central to the four of us, to our relationship, to our society.

Matt: So she isn't central to our sociology?

Luke: Not us. Our tradition, yes. Other journeyers, yes.

Matt: What about Adventism, the people we work with?

John: But she is central to our church, especially the conservative sections. One of my fears going back to Texas, is dealing with EGW pounders.

Matt: I think that is the point. There is this mythic figure who is central to our collective experience - whether we are for her or against her - and we don’t know how to relate to the people who are different from us about her. I think it contributes to our dysfunction in a big way.

Mark: I think she's one of the greatest barriers to our growth as a church.

Luke: I can see how that it could be, but it isn't a barrier for me. EGW is a non issue in my context.

Matt: EGW is an issue in your context Luke, because you will have someone bring it up to the new person at church after the Brazilians bring in the sheaves

John: I feel that our church is built on the traditions that she is a huge part of. My fear is that our church will break down after the generation of EGWers die.

Matt: And is the break down of our church bad?

Luke: Here is the problem: for generations we have looked to EGW to be our guide to contextualize the Bible and preach the Gospel. Her methodologies are out dated and no longer works.

Matt: So even the principles of Ellen White no longer work? Then she is irrelevant?

Luke: The operative term is contextualization. She contextualized principles. We are the ones who don't operate on principles; we operate on her 1800s application of those principles. We need to do the hard work of contextualizing Biblical truth to our time and place. And I have no idea about how to do that effectively.

John: I don't think you can say that her principles are irrelevant; I think we have to take her own advice and study the bible more.

Matt: What were her principles? What about her statements that say she is completely inspired in everything she writes, including personal letters?

Luke: We need to read her statements and understand her methods in context. Why did she say what she said? And what principle was she operating on?

Matt: What principle was she operating on when she wrote her first book about masturbation and how it will cause people to become retarded?

Mark: How about we study the bible and make decisions? Do we need her though? I mean, we're spending more time debating her statements than reading the Bible and making decisions based on it!

Luke: I agree, study the bible. Apply the Bible, not some EGW quote. But if you have to read EGW, do it right!

Matt: Is the real question whether or not we need her or what in the world to do with her? We have her, so what do we do?

Mark: Matt, you don't really need to worry about her with your ministry right?

John: I think that's the point we have her, and whatever we or others think, we have to deal with her. It would be easier if we had living prophets like the Mormons, then they could just come out and say what was right and what was wrong....according, of course, to what God told them.

Luke: I agree with that. So it is our task of educating ourselves and others on how to appropriately encounter the Incarnational Gospel in our time and space. And we are forced to account for EGW also.

John: I think she does more harm today than good.

Matt: There is this scene in the play that is called “dodgeball” in which four people—a professor, a pastor, a librarian, and a college president—are all given straightforward questions from a non-Adventist game show host and all they do is dodge the questions. It is hilarious, but also really telling. We don't know what to do. We all want to say yes! or no! but we don't. We dodge the issue of what do we do with a woman most relate to as an OT prophet who has nothing relevant to say to us today.

Luke: As Christians, we must do biblical theology first. As Adventists, we have to account for EGW, at least as a footnote.

John: But will our church every see her as a footnote?

Luke: John, you and I already do. We are part of the church. Those kids at PUC are part of the church, at least some of them.

Mark: True Luke, I’m not going to allow others to define Adventism, we're Adventism too!

Luke: Exactly! Lots of smart Adventists out there don't know what to do with EGW in the contemporary world and they don't do much. Like us.

John: Yeah, but we are only a minute part of a church steeped in tradition

Luke: I'm not sure how minute.

John: My old church revolted when we wanted to move the children story and offering, trying to do something with EGW is different.

Mark: Being in Mid-America was much different than MD Adventism. MD is ready to move on, for the most part. Michigan… we're back in 1888.

Luke: See John, back to the contextualization issues. My church, form the most part, has moved on.

John: But we still have the huge structure of the church to deal with.

Luke: In Adventist Academies I’ve been at, many of the students don't believe in EGW. There is a whole new generation out there that doesn’t believe in her. When I say "believe" I mean "care" or “pay much attention to.” Most kids don’t read her anymore.

John: Most churches that branch out and move on have to break away from the church.

Mark: We can't worry about that. It begins on the local level. In church policy class Burrill basically told us that if we want changes in the church manual, just start doing stuff and if it works people will catch on. EGW is a huge deal and is different from other issues, but I think it is true on a certain level. We can change how we see EGW from the local level up.

Luke: As a pastor, you don't have to preach about, with, or use EGW if your members don't demand it. And if she is an issue... then you do have to educate people about her. For me the biggest rub comes when the Conference takes what she says and pushes bad policy down. I think that is happening less though. There is a strong and positive trend among my dad's generation of pastors. Many of them have it right.

Mark: Example?

Luke: Our insistence on public evangelism and colporteur ministry comes largely from EGW. It is outdated. But the Conferences won't move on.

John: It's a bigger deal to me than just not using her, because I think she still creates this “us against the world” mentality.

Luke: I don't believe that our “us against the world” mentality is an EGW thing. That is a mentality that every denomination used to have. Baptists and Methodists used to never even pray together. Now they almost feel like one big happy family.

John: Yeah, but EGW makes us different and we always have to explain it, and to some it makes us superior

Matt: Ellen does substantiate many peoples’ “us against the world” mentality. And our eschatology is “us against the world.”

Luke: Sure, but she is part of that type of thinking, not the originator. We just haven't given it up.

Matt: She originated that thinking, or at least propagated it. Don't let her off the hook!

Luke: The problem is, Jesus also made comments like that. "The world is against you,"

Mark: But Jesus didn't tell them to hide from the world. Ellen told us to move out of the cities because they are bad. Any group has to justify its existence and how do you do that? Share how special you are and try to discredit others.

Luke: My point is that every other leader in almost every other church did the same thing at that time. It wasn’t till the early 1900s that the World Council of Churches started to break down those barriers.

Matt: But it was much sooner than that for most churches. Billy Graham broke them down in the 50s.

Luke: Sure, but not that quick. And SDAs are always at least 20-30 years behind other Christian denominations.

Matt: But we still have this Prophet's words telling us with authority that we should be set a part from Babylon.

Luke: That is a Theology issue. And, of course, she believed in that theology. We have to contextualize that theology, specifically, the Bible, to our time and place.

Matt: How do you contextualize an exclusive theology in a postmodern globalized culture?

Luke: I have said this over and over, EGW was a prophet to a specific time and place. We are the ones with the problem. We are the ones who won't move on and do good incarnational theology and mission. We have to figure out what exclusive theology accomplished in its original context. Can we learn form that? And Jesus was also exclusive at times. How do we in our postmodern world deal with Him, let alone EGW!

Matt: Because we can't move on until we adequately deal with her, give a firm “yes” or “no” and do not doge it every time it comes up like our parents did. What if the result of her particular theology at that time is not helpful now? How is an exclusive theology for then, good now? Yes, Jesus was, at times, exclusive for him. But never for a particular way of following him.

Luke: Take it back to the principle level. What did the theology do in her time? Was it good then? Was it bad then? What was the principle behind it? Is it really a biblical principle? And how does that principle speak to us now?

Matt: I am trying to ask that what if the principles are no longer applicable? Or were bad ideas to begin with? We always assume that if we really look at it correctly, she'll be proven right. And I am beginning to think that is a bit of a cop out.

Mark: Good point Matt!

Luke: That is a big assumption. It is a presupposition that we have to deal with. If we accept her as inspired, then we have to accept that what she said and did was right in her context.

Matt: We give her a pass by saying "Oh, we just didn't find the context." Ok. Where do we get the presuppositions - and what is our reason behind that presupposition - that she was inspired? Because she said so? Because Uriah Smith said so? Because her husband said so? Because George Knight said so?

Luke: That is a faith assumption. Want to throw the Bible into the mix? Maybe it isn't inspired either. Where do we start with our authority?

Matt: I think that Luther was inspired. But he was wrong when he said that Galileo was wrong and a demon. I think Tony Campolo is inspired, but I don' think he was right when he said that someone in a BMW isn't - on their face - a Christian. The authority of the bible is a cop out as well. The authority of the bible is a tool we use to get people to fall in line. We don't know what we mean when we say “authority of the bible.”

Luke: If the issue is Inspiration, then we have a lot to talk about before we ever get to EGW. I make the assumption that the Bible and EGW are inspired.

Matt: I disagree. We have to deal with Ellen because it is the major issue regarding inspiration that we deal with. I simply think that we have to start actually giving full answers to the Ellen White thing, not cop outs, not half answers that push her aside and make us not deal with it. What happens to Adventism if we conclude that Ellen White was never inspired the way we said? I think the cop out answers are what we are giving because we are afraid

Mark: Well, we’ve got to run! Matt, is the play going to make big waves on the larger scene? Is it controversial?

Matt: I think the play is more positive than Julia and I expected. It is done very well and is very artsy so it might get waves because someone has finally done something about us and Ellen White. Spectrum has done an interview on Eryck already and they are going to come to the premier. Julius Nam is coming and will blog about it. So I think it will get some attention, but not a lot. It does bring up how she was part of this sexually funky Christian group in Portland Maine before she became a prophet. Good stuff!

Sorry about the length of this post. If anybody knows how to extend a long post to a second page in blogger, please let me know.

The Heart of Worship

The Incarnational Gospel

My dad and I were talking this morning about what it means to be a Christian in the 21^st Century. More precisely, what does it mean to be an Adventist in North America in the contemporary setting?

1) From a missiological perspective, Christ came to this world and met people where they are. In theological terms this is the incarnation of Christ into 1^st century Jewish Palestine. As Christians we believe, largely on the basis of Pauline thought, that the Gospel, the good news about Christ, is incarnational. Just as Jesus Christ came and met people where they are, the story about Christ (Gospel) goes to where every culture and every individual is.

2) The Incarnational Gospel, as we will call it, represents both a blessing and a critic for every culture it comes into contact with. Because of the human state of sin, the Gospel a) offers salvation to every person, b) critics and pulls every culture toward biblical mores, and c) empowers each culture to realize their cultural ideals.

3) Though the differences between cultures are drastic, more drastic than most people realize, cultural ideals of morality tend to be similar on the principle level. According to Paul in Romans 1:18-20:

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Humans everywhere have very similar concepts of what is good and what is bad. The theological explanation for this is that God is actively works on the consciousnesses of all people everywhere. “God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

4) Seventh-day Adventist theology was developed, incarnated, into mid-19^th century North American culture. Based on the sola scriptura principles and a Modernist worldview, the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist church developed a biblical theological that was a powerful, new, and challenging critic of other forms of Christianity.

5) Now, at the beginning of the 21^st century, Seventh-day Adventists have failed to fully update and bring Seventh-day Adventist theology into the 21^st century. Because of the 150 years of tradition we have built, we are more concerned about maintaining and fortifying our beliefs then we are about returning to the Bible with fresh contemporary eyes.

6) What should a contemporary incarnation of the Gospel look like? If it were possible to transcend our religious tradition and heritage and then to re-embrace the sola scriptura principle and reformulate a biblical theology for 21^st century, contemporary North American, what would we have? To what extent is if fair to hold on to the 19^th century formulation of Adventist theology? How does the Gospel need to be reincarnated for contemporary society? Which critics of contemporary society are most helpful, most demanded by the Gospel, and which critics are outdated, modernistic cultural baggage? As an Adventist with a traditional Adventist lifestyle and relatively modernistic worldview, what cultural mores should I be willing to give up for the sake of ministry to contemporary society? Which aspects of Adventist society should I hold on to and which should I revise?

It is my goal to be deeply spiritual and deeply devoted to my Lord, Jesus Christ. In my devotion I know that I have to maintain relevance within contemporary society, as well as allow the Holy Spirit to critic me and contemporary society.