Alexei worked at the Hermitage (palace museum in St. Petersburg, Russia) for 37 years, much of it during the Communist era. During that time churches and religious art were often defaced or ignored. My wife’s favorite church in the whole world, the Church of the Resurrection of Christ (popularly known as Church on Spilled Blood, more on that later), was used to store vegetables during the Communist period. It seems not only blasphemous, it is an affront to any kind of culture and taste. But that is how far the atheistic revolution went. The atheistic theory goes that religion is the cause of war, strife and tyranny. Religion certainly needs to wear that reputation in many instances, but when atheism had its golden chance to show a better way, it became ideological to the point of insanity and destructiveness.

Alexei grew up not knowing about God or even that a book like the Bible existed. His first awareness of the Bible came from colleagues who told him of an entire hall that was covered with hundreds of paintings covering the entire story of the Bible. I saw the expulsion of Adam and Eve at one end and the sacrifice of Isaac about ten meters down from there. When Alexei heard that the entire hallway and many other major pieces of art in the museum were inspired by the Bible, he felt he needed to know the Bible in order to give good tours (through the years he gave tours to celebrities like Jackie Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton). So he went to the Hermitage Library to take out a Bible to learn the background to the art he was studying. But the librarian refused to lend him a copy, telling him the Bible was a dangerous book.

Around this time Christians from overseas would deliberately leave Bibles on window sills or in corners in the hope that someone would pick it up and read it. The administration of the Hermitage instructed all employees that if they found a Bible they had to bring it immediately to the central office, no stopping along the way, on pain of dismissal if they did otherwise. So as Alexei began finding Bibles that tourists left behind, he would read them as he carried them to the office (keep in mind how huge the Hermitage is). He was looking for the dangerous parts he was told about, but he didn’t find anything harmful in it. Little by little on these journeys he picked up bits and pieces, enough to become truly interested.

One day in a restaurant he was seated near a young man who was reading a book. When he realized it was a Bible, he asked the young man where he had gotten it. The young man was a Seventh-day Adventist and invited him to attend church. Alexei went with him the next Sabbath, but kept his interest a secret at work. Things were not much less secretive at the church. When he continued coming the pastor warned him not to give his name to other people in the church or to let them know he worked at the Hermitage. And the church members were equally secretive with him. In those days there was always the fear of informers who would plant themselves in churches to spy out who was attending and who might be a threat to the government (holding different ideas than communistic atheism). So Alexei eagerly read the English Bible he was given at the church and attended faithfully for fifteen years before being baptized and releasing his full identity to the church. Twenty years after the fall of Communism, the older generation of Russian Adventists will still not greet strangers at the church, uncertain as to their motives for being there. The younger generation is much more free to meet and greet. << MORE >>

I am in Saint Petersburg, Russia (known as Leningrad during the Soviet period). I write this in the afterglow of a visit to the Hermitage, former winter palace of the Tsars and world’s second largest art collection after the Louvre. There is a spiritual story in all this, so stay with me for a couple of blogs.

For those who have not seen the Hermitage I will try to post some photos on Facebook when I return to the US. I think it is safe to say that it is the single most spectacular “palace” in the world (though it has served as a museum for 250 years now). We had the privilege of touring the museum with the former director of storage and preservation of the art collections (now retired). So we got to see all the most famous pieces of art along with some detailed and even spiritual explanations of the people and scenes depicted. According to Alexei (our guide), there are 1054 rooms in the Hermitage, and he has counted 111 staircases (the traditional number that guides give is 117, but no one can find the other six!). To visit every room of the museum would require a walk of about 23 kilometers (about 14 miles). There are 150 curators and if I rightly understood Alexei, each is responsible for cataloguing and preserving 50-70,000 pieces of art, from paintings to sculpture to vases to dishware, furniture, weapons and more. At any one time, only three percent of the entire collection is available for visitors to view.

Yet in spite of this overwhelming embarrassment of riches (it was acquired by the tsars over the centuries at the expense of an impoverished nation), there are many rooms that are so spectacular architecturally that the artwork is almost invisible to the stunned gaze. There is a huge room with giant columns completely covered with gold. In another sizable room the entire walls are covered with gold that has intricate raised designs in it. In another room the detailed filigree combines with balconies, chandeliers, windows, mirrors and parquet floors to create a spectacle that, in my opinion, is unrivaled by anything at Versailles, Neuschwanstein or the cathedrals of Rome. That room was the original hermitage (where Catherine the Great could escape the constant pressure of civic duties and just hang out with her friends), a name that has since extended to the entire complex. What makes the Hermitage unlike all its rivals is that nearly each room is in a completely different style, so that it is not just more of the same, but one surprise after another, each greater than before.

Needless to say, my wife and I had an amazing experience there. We waited two and a half hours in line just to buy tickets and then spent three hours walking the museum. It was well worth the wait. But the best part of the whole visit may have been Alexei’s story, which I hope to get reasonably straight for you in a couple of days.
<< MORE >>

Yesterday was an interesting experience. I had spent significant time each week over three months building a powerpoint presentation that would allow me to cover many Bible texts and complex issues related to atonement in a 25 minute sermon and still have most people able to follow. Then I got up to speak at Loma Linda University Church and the powerpoint never appeared. So I plunged ahead with no visuals. Ten minutes in it became clear that reading a series of Bible texts without giving people time to look them up was losing the audience. So I tossed out the sermon half-way through (I was on a rigid 25-minute clock) and ad-libbed from there. I think it went better after that. If you saw or heard the first sermon, that explains how the style shifted suddenly in the middle!

I saw the head of technology with a desperate look on his face come by the office after the service and asked, “What happened to the powerpoint?” He quickly said he didn’t know but they would try to get it fixed between then and the second service an hour or so later. So I went out for a while pondering and praying what to do next. I came to the conviction that the sermon I had prepared would never work without the powerpoint (it used the visuals of the powerpoint to keep interest and words for the ear to bring content), so I decided to tell them to not even try to fix it and I would just go without it for the second service. (By the way, I don’t blame the crew, they are super competent and great to work with, things like this happen and the flaw may even have been from my computer for all I know.)

I took another walk and rewrote the whole sermon, creating verbal and gesture visuals such as the story of Martin Luther at the beginning and the golf story in the middle. I also had 5-10 extra minutes in the second sermon. It was a much more comfortable experience for me. There were a few things that happened in the last ten minutes of the first sermon that I failed to recapture in the second, but otherwise, the second version is the one I hope most will see (the first was 25 minutes, the second was about 33).

So now you have the rest of the story!

For those who have not yet had a chance to see one or more of those sermons, you will soon (April 13 is already available) be able to stream or order from the church video library at www.lluc.org. style="font-size:"> << MORE >>

This is the last of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? Watch the main page of the Armageddon web site for a posting of the original scholarly article which will include the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

We have seen that there are a wide variety of metaphors for the atonement in the New Testament. Not only are these metaphors diverse, but they tend to be intertwined with each other, making it difficult to impossible to separate them and to favor one over the others. The more we understand and respect these various metaphors, the more people can be reached with the message of the cross, as people of a variety of personalities tend to be drawn to one or the other of them. And as the gospel is present to a variety of cultures, we may be led to new biblical metaphors that we had overlooked before or even be led by the Spirit to express the cross in a way the New Testament writers had not thought of. Over time, and as a result of misuse or misunderstanding, some biblical models of atonement may need to be used with caution, if at all. But in all thinking regarding the atonement, we need to be guided by the inspired models placed for us in the Scriptures.

What conclusions can we draw from this brief survey of the relationship between the atonement and the cross?
    1) The English word for atonement is most closely related to the concept of reconciliation. Atonement provides the means and the incentive to reconcile human beings to God.
    2) In the New Testament atonement is clearly focused on the cross, but in Hebrews the principle of the atonement continues in the heavenly work of Jesus Christ.
    3) The human race is in great need of atonement, being unable to save itself. There are barriers between the human race and God on both sides of the equation. Because of sin, reconciliation is first of all very costly to God, He cannot set aside its implications lightly. Also because of sin, human beings need to be drawn away from rebellion and back to relationship with God.
    4) Although sin is a barrier between God and the human race, the purpose of sacrifice is not to change God’s mind with regard to the human race, instead He Himself lovingly provides the sacrifice/ransom/atonement needed to reconcile all to Himself.
    5) Human beings are called to respond to God’s reconciling action with an action of their own.
    6) Although God allows humans to reap the consequences of their own sinful actions, He continually desires fellowship with sinful humans. His love provides all that they cannot perform in order for atonement to take place.
    7) The atonement made at the cross is not limited to some humans or even all humans, but in some sense affects the entire universe.
    8) The New Testament offers a variety of models to explain the atonement. It does not set one view as normative over against the others, and various models could be mingled in a single sentence of paragraph.

In my daily experience and that of the people I know and love life often becomes overwhelming and even depressing. Were we left to ourselves, self-medication might seem the only way out. In the words of a young person I know, “life sucks.” It is filled with tragedy, pain, suffering, and rejection. Into this mess God Himself came down to us and tasted a depth of tragedy, pain, suffering and rejection that exceeds any we have known. And however we describe what happened on the cross, it makes all the difference. Because we have been saved, redeemed, expiated, acquitted, rescued, taught and brought into a new covenant with God, we can begin to see the good, the true, the beautiful, and the just that God has poured into this world. And in seeing the down payment of these things, we also hope in the greater glories to come.
<< MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

This model comes last for two reasons only. First, it has only received attention in the last few years as a model of the atonement, and, second, I realized in reading the work of others that I had written on this model years before but without connecting the idea to “the atonement.” This is probably my favorite model of the atonement because it is so solidly biblical and clearly goes back to Jesus Himself.

According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus offers His own interpretation of the cross in His comments at the last supper (Mark 14:24; Matt 26:28; Luke 22:20). In all three versions, the cup represents the blood of the covenant and Luke clearly adds the qualifier “new”: “the new covenant in my blood” (I am working with the evidence of the standard Greek text, various translations of Matthew, Mark and Luke privilege different manuscripts). Jesus’ (new) covenant blood is “poured out for many” (Mark 14:24), “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28), or simply “for you” (Luke 22:20).

When Jesus says “the covenant” He could only be talking about the one and only covenant of the Old Testament, grounded in the fundamental event of Israel’s history, the Exodus. After all, Jesus was presiding at a Passover meal as He spoke these words, and a review of the events of the Exodus was part of the Passover ritual. The covenant of the Exodus was the covenant with Abraham, which is grounded in the language of Eden. Clearly, Jesus saw His upcoming death as the decisive event in all of Israel’s history, and by extension, the history of the whole human race.

The language of Jesus’ comments over the cup at the last supper echoes the covenant-renewal blood in Exodus 24:6-8 in particular and the atoning sacrifices of Leviticus more generally. The connection with forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28) also connects the death of Jesus with the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 and the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Jesus’ death is the means by which the people of God are liberated, forgiven and brought into a new covenant relationship with God.

In the only New Testament account of the last supper outside the gospels (1 Cor 11:23-25), Paul passes on a similar tradition, “this cup is the new covenant in my blood” (verse 25). In the book of Hebrews, the word “covenant” appears 16 times, nearly half the 33 occurrences in the New Testament as a whole. Jesus is there described as the mediator of a new (Heb 9:15; 12:24), eternal (13:20) or better (8:6) covenant that is made effective by His blood or by His death (10:19; 12:24; 13:20, etc.). Not only that, the new covenant promise of Jeremiah is quoted twice in the book (Heb 8:8-13; 10:16-18).

What makes this line of interpretation exciting is that covenant is not only a major category throughout the New Testament, even where the word “covenant” is not used, but this model has the potential of drawing a common thread through nearly all of the previous models. In summary, the new covenant promised in the Old Testament (Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 11:17-20; 36:23-28) was to be a transforming, creative act of God that would generate a renewed covenant people of God. They would be liberated, restored, forgiven, empowered and permanent. The New Testament writers understood that transforming act of God to have occurred at the cross.
<< MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

While “What would Jesus do?” is a common enough phrase, we are not here addressing Jesus’ life as a model for human beings to imitate, but specifically His death on the cross. The New Testament frequently encourages believers to imitate the crucified Christ. The cross as a pattern or model for Christian behavior is explored by scholars in terms of “missional suffering” and “cruciformity.” This is a relatively new perspective although clearly grounded in the New Testament. There are multiple passages that call believers to self-sacrificial suffering after the pattern of Jesus’ suffering on the cross.

Perhaps the best-known call to “cruciformity” is found in the gospels. In Mark 8:34 (NA Jesus said, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me” (cf. 8:35-38, cf. Matt 16:24-27; Luke 9:23-26). It is in the context of the cross that Jesus invites the first to be last and to become servant of all (Mark 9:30-35, cf. Matt 17:22-23; 18:1-5; Luke 9:49-50; 17:1-2). The cross sets a new standard for leadership; servant leadership (Mark 10:42-45; Matt 20:25-28). Jesus invites His followers to follow him in the context of the cross (John 12:26, cf. 20-25), then sets the example by washing the disciples’ feet (13:12-17, cf. 34-35; 15:12-13). Hebrews 12:1-2 describes Christian life as a race looking ahead to the crucified Christ as a model. John exhorts the believers that if they know Jesus laid down His life for them, they should do the same for each other (1 John 3:16). And nowhere in the New Testament is this message clearer than in 1 Pet 2:21 (ESV): “For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.”

Paul delights in becoming one of Christ’s “fools” and urges the Corinthians to follow his steady and constant example of living the cross (1 Cor 4:8-17; 11:1). For Paul, this is not so much a doctrine as a “cruciform way of life.” This cruciform teaching becomes explicit in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 where he urges that one died for all so that we may be constrained to live no longer for ourselves, but for the one who died for us (cf. Gal 5:24; 6:14,17; Eph 5:1-2). This teaching reaches an exalted height when Paul counsels the married in Ephesians 5:25-28 (KJV): “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” So for Paul it is clear that the self-sacrificing love of cross provides the model for every aspect of life. << MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

While the previous New Testament models of atonement all focus on what God has done to pave the way for human beings to be reconciled to Him, this model of the atonement focuses on the human side of the equation, the effect the cross has on human beings. The human condition is portrayed in terms of ignorance or darkness. Jesus is the one who brings light and knowledge and reveals the true character of God. This perspective is particularly prevalent in the Gospel of John.

In the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel, the coming of Jesus reveals the knowledge of God (John 1:14). Jesus’ intimate relationship with God enables Him to rightly “exegete” (exêgêsato) God (1:18). Jesus is the “light of the world” (8:12; 9:5) who not only reveals God but exposes the true character of human beings as well (3:18-21; 13:1-17). Helping His disciples to know God is at the core of Jesus’ mission (17:3). And at the center of that “making known” is the cross, which in John is described as a “lifting up” which enables all to see the glory of God (17:1). The cross of Christ is, therefore, the supreme moment of revelation.

In the Gospel of Mark everyone, including the disciples of Jesus, struggles with who Jesus is from the beginning almost to the end of the story (Mark 1:27; 2:6-7; 3:21; 4:10-13; 8:13-21). It is only at the moment Jesus dies that the centurion recognizes what the narrator and God have been saying all along; Jesus is the Son of God (Mark 1:1, 9-11; 9:2-8; 15:39). It is the cross that reveals who Jesus is.

This focus on knowledge is not gnostic in character, rather Jesus echos the Hebrew concept of knowledge as involving close personal relationships (Gen 4:1, 17, 25; Deut 34:10; 2 Chr 33:13; Isa 55:5; Hos 6:3; 13:5). Why the cross? To provide human beings with the kind of knowledge that will draw them back to God.

This model of the atonement seems most effective when combined with one or more of the objective models of atonement like sacrifice, ransom or victory. The cross best reveals the love of God if it was necessary, if it had a purpose other than revelation as well. As Ivan Blazen illustrates, a parent racing into a house to save a child demonstrates love for that child. Racing into an empty burning house to “demonstrate love” is not nearly as effective. At Loma Linda University Graham Maxwell powerfully combined the revelation model with the victory model. The issue of God’s character is bigger than just this earth. God’s demonstration of character impacts the entire universe, not just this earth. << MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

The idea of ransom/redemption recalls the Exodus, where God’s redemption of Israel proved also to be a victory over the evil powers under Pharaoh. In fact, Israel’s freedom could not have been obtained without such a prior victory. The language of victory is widespread in the New Testament. It presupposes a somewhat dualistic view of the universe in which spiritual powers and sin hold sway over the human race. Sin, for example, is described as a malignant power in Romans 7:7-11.

Perhaps the clearest text asserting victory over the evil powers is Colossians 2:14-15. While parts of this passage are truly difficult to understand, the main message of these two verses is clear: The cross of Jesus Christ has “disarmed the powers and authorities” (Col 2:15, NIV) through the cross, resulting in forgiveness of sins for the human race (2:13). The language of powers (archas) and authorities (exousias) translates Greek words that have consistent reference to the demonic realm (see Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 3:10; Col 2:10). A further clear victory passage is Revelation 12:9-11, where Satan is cast down from heaven as the accuser of the brethren, and is overcome on earth by “the blood of the Lamb” (see also John 12:31; 16:11; Rom 8:35-38; 1 Cor 15:24-25; Phil 2:9-11; Heb 2:14; 1 John 3:8; Rev 5:5-10). The ultimate victory, of course, is the victory over death won by Christ at His resurrection (1 Cor 15:57) and culminating in the resurrection of those who believe in Christ (1 Cor 15:20-22). This theme often puts more emphasis on the cosmic significance of Christ’s death than on its role in human salvation.

Why the cross? Because it was needed to defeat the powers of sin and Satan, freeing human beings to return to God. Jesus is our champion (substitute again?) who defeats Satan for us (cf. 1 Sam 17:8-11). Exactly how the cross defeats Satan is less clearly worked out, but may be hinted at in the next metaphor for how the cross effects the atonement.
<< MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

Why the cross? If the problem of sin is described in terms of a broken law that results in a state of guilt, the solution is acquittal in God’s court of judgment. The Greek word for justification (dikaiosunê) means essentially the same thing as righteousness and/or acquittal. It can mean actions in harmony with God’s law or covenant (righteousness) and a declaration of innocence in the judgment (acquittal) that is determining whether or not these laws have been kept (Psa 72:1-4; 143:2; Prov 17:15; Isa 5:22-23; 43:9). In the New Testament this acquittal is provided by two things, 1) the cross of Christ exhausting the penalty for breaking the law and 2) the perfect law-keeping of Jesus in our place providing the “righteousness” that is needed before the final judgment (Rom 3:21-26; 5:12-21; 8:3-4). To put it in other terms, Christ redeemed the human race from the curse of the law, having become that curse for us (Gal 3:13). The concept is used in a similar fashion outside of Paul in Luke 18:9-14.

Today, “legalism” is often seen as a dirty word, putting a negative spin on the Bible’s concern for covenant, law, righteousness and judgment. But legal systems do not need to be seen in impersonal terms as harsh, cold and unfeeling. Rightly handled, constitutional law enables people with differing goals and interests to live together in peace. And the application of even-handed justice comes very close to mercy in the experience of those whose wrongs have been set right.

Paul argues that God is completely just, when He condemns and punishes sin as much as when He pardons and accepts sinners (Rom 3:23-26). Jesus Christ, acting on the sinner’s behalf has both put away human sin by His death (3:25; 5:9) and fulfilled the just requirement of the law by His perfect thirty-three and a half years on this earth (8:4). So according to this model, God not only saves sinners, but He saves them justly, in a way that accords with what is right. Christ’s sacrifice is not a compromise of justice, but actually demonstrates it (3:26). Because of justification, relationship can be restored, which is what the atonement is all about.

Of all the metaphors for the atonement, I find this one attracts the most anger and rejection. I have seen a visceral rage come over people when the subject comes up. Yet in full disclosure I must confess that if it were not for this metaphor, I might be living a life of hopeless legalism to this day. I grew up in a German-speaking, God-fearing home. I was taught the virtues of hard work and self-discipline. I learned that I deserve nothings that I haven’t earned. At the same time I also learned that my best will never be good enough. This dilemma led to an almost hopeless despair in the quiet of the night, even as a young pastor. I could not accept the love, mercy and grace of God because I hadn’t earned them. And so I redoubled my efforts to prove that my best could be good enough even though Paul explicitly rules that option out (Rom 3:23b). The metaphor of justification reached out and opened my heart to a deeper mercy than anything a German could imagine. I came to see that God could overlook my sin and failure to measure up and that He could do so legally, so it was OK! Something inside of my German heart would have refused God’s grace were it not legal. So I am grateful for a challenging metaphor that causes others grief. But as with the previous metaphor of hilastêrion, use with caution around others. It will be just right for some and poison for others.

It is important to note at this point that all of these first four metaphors of atonement have an element of substitution in them. God in Christ does for the sinner what the sinner is incapable of doing. It is clear in the Bible that at the cross Jesus took the place of both Adam and Israel (see my book Meet God Again for the First Time, 55-65). Many writings on atonement, therefore, highlight substitution as a metaphor of atonement in the New Testament. I have chosen not to do so, simply because there is no Greek equivalent for the English word “substitution” in the New Testament. I see substitution as a natural by-product of many other salvation metaphors rather than a central metaphor in its own right. It is assumed rather than proved and explained.

Some seek to soften the negative implications of substitution by replacing it with other English words, such as “representation” and “vicarious.” But this switch may not be as helpful as it appears. Packer notes that the three words are essentially synonyms, meaning putting a person or thing in place of others. They all mean to do something so that others don’t have to do it (Rom 5:8; Gal 3:13). So it is not clear what is gained by this linguistic form of “substitution.”

Is it ultimately necessary to see a contradiction between the full, loving engagement of the Father in the atonement and the concept of penal substitution? For J. I. Packer, at least, penal substitution heightens the love of God rather than diminishes it. The highest measure of divine love is seen in Jesus experiencing the full measure of the divine reaction against sin. What is offensive in this metaphor is the idea that God the Father somehow needs to be bought off or appeased before He can act in mercy toward his creatures. But this appeasement concept is not expressed in the New Testament, it was introduced in the Middle Ages through drawing out extended meanings of a couple of Greek terms. In the New Testament God and Jesus are always portrayed as the subject of the atonement, never as its object. If God were the object, Jesus would be giving up His life to appease God. If Jesus were the object, God would be punishing Jesus in His death. But atonement in the New Testament is never expressed in the latter two ways. The cross was necessary, but it was the gift of a loving Father, not the means of generating the Father’s love.

I know that we are wading in deep weeds here. The plans, purposes, and motivations of God are seen “through a glass darkly” at best. But in wrestling with these things our minds are stretched and made more aware of His mind. Even if we end up understanding only in part, that is still a valuable part of the journey. << MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

A third Greek word associated with Old Testament atonement language is hilastêrion, which was consistently applied in the LXX (Greek translation of the OT) for the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant (Lev 16:2ff., etc.). It is transliterated here because there is no settled English equivalent for it. In Hebrews 9:5 hilastêrion is used in common OT fashion to describe or name the mercy seat in the Most Holy place of the Hebrew sanctuary. But there is no direct theological meaning stated there.

The other usage of hilastêrion is in Romans 3:25 (related nouns and verbs are found in Hebrews 2:17 and 1 John 2:1-2 and 4:10.), and here it comes at the culmination of a process of reasoning that goes all the way back to the first chapter of Romans. After an introductory summary of the gospel (Rom 1:16-17), Paul speaks of the wrath of God being revealed against sin (1:18), but since sin has left the entire human race in a hopeless condition (1:18 - 3:20), a mighty intervention from God is needed. That intervention is described by means of multiple metaphors. It is the manifestation of the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ (3:21-22). It is justification by His grace through the redemption (apolutroseôs) which is in Christ Jesus (3:24). That redemption is further explained as a hilastêrion through His blood (3:25). So the word hilastêrion is a crucial part of the solution God offers on account of human sin.

Hilastêrion in Romans 3:25 is usually translated as “propitiation” (KJV, ESV, etc.) or as “expiation” (RSV, NAB, etc.). The NIV clarifies without clarifying by translating hilastêrion as “sacrifice of atonement.” In pagan Greek sources hilastêrion carries the idea of propitiation, to turn away someone’s anger, to conciliate, usually by the offer of a gift. In Jewish and Christian sources the word usually means expiation, to cancel guilt or pay the penalty for a crime, to nullify sin and its effects. The first meaning sees hilastêrion in personal terms, the second sees it in impersonal terms. You can propitiate a person, but you expiate a sin or a crime. So what do we do with this idea today?

For starters, pagan views of wrath and propitiation are absent from the Scriptural view of God, He is not a capricious and vindictive deity whose mind must be changed by an overwhelming sacrifice. But in the context of Romans 3:25, wrath and negative judgment are too central to ignore in relation to the solution that God provides, so there is an element of propitiation in Paul’s use of hilastêrion. Something is happening on God’s side of the equation. This raises questions. How does one reconcile the love of God with His wrath against sin? And does such a perspective in the Bible encourage violence in the name of God?

Let me try to address these from the perspective of hilastêrion. God’s holiness made the penalty for sin inescapable. But God’s love endured the penalty of sin in our place. God took upon Himself the penalty of sin. In the words of Raoul Dederen: “What the holiness of God required, His love provided.” At the cross both God’s wrath against sin is revealed and His love for the sinner. There justice and mercy kiss each other (Psalm 85:10). Love does not gloss over sin, but effectively grapples with it. Whatever we understand by the phrase “the wrath of God,” it is important to note that the wrath of God is not removed by human activity, its removal is due to none less than God Himself. He dealt with this while we were still sinners, so the way to reconciliation is completely open to us.

While it may be more comfortable for some to ignore this kind of language in the Bible, let’s take a brief look at how a few well-known writers wrestle with it. How do we reconcile this element of wrath and propitiation with the love and mercy of God? J. I. Packer argues that the wrath of God does not diminish the love of God, rightly understood it raises it to unimaginable heights. The divine withdrawal from Jesus on the cross was all the more intense because Jesus had experienced the full depth of the Father’s love. For Packer, penal substitution demonstrated the depth of the Father’s love, what He was willing to take on Himself to save humanity. Timothy Keller points out that when you love wounded or needy people, there is always a cost to yourself. God accepted that cost to reconcile Himself with wounded and needy people like ourselves. Philip Yancey points out that only someone who has been hurt can forgive. At Calvary, God chose to be hurt. So for these writers, the penalty of sin doesn’t diminish the love of God, but highlights it all the more.

The greater the challenge that sin presents, the greater the action of love that was needed to overcome it. The challenge of sin highlights the love of God all the more. While hilasterion as a metaphor is challenging in today’s world and easily misunderstood, for many it too provides a needed dimension for understanding atonement at the cross. But use with caution, especially in the sickroom. << MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

In an earlier blog we noted that in the LXX (Greek translation of the OT) the Hebrew words for atonement (kpr, kapporeth) were sometimes translated by the Greek word for ransom/redemption (lutron). So it should not be surprising if lutron and its derivatives (apolutrosis and antilutron) are used to explain the atonement in the New Testament. In any case, the language of ransom or redemption had a rich background in the First Century. In the Gentile world slaves and prisoners of war could be “redeemed” by paying a suitable ransom price. Among the Jews this language was grounded in the Israelite deliverance from Egyptian slavery at the time of the Exodus (Exod 6:6; 15:13; Deut 7:8).

In the New Testament, the cross of Christ is described in ransom/redemption language (Mark 10:45 and parallels; Rom 3:24; Heb 9:12, 15; Eph 1:7; 1 Pet 1:18-19). Paul can also write about having been “bought with a price” (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23). Scholars through the centuries have debated this theme. Did God’s redeeming of the human race at the cross require the payment of a price or did it not? Whatever we make of this concept, there is a strong sense of substitution or equivalence in the Greek form antilutron (“ransom in place of,” see 1 Tim 2:6) and the way ransom is expressed in Mark 10:45 (“ransom [lutron] in place of [anti] many”– my translation). Ransom in the NT, however, may be less about a transaction than about the value that God places upon us.

If one understands that the New Testament points to the payment of a price, there is no indication there to whom the price was paid, whether to God, Satan, the law or some other entity. What is clear from this language is that the atonement at the cross was costly to the godhead. The forgiveness that we receive is free to us through the cross, but it was not cheap to God. What Jesus endured on the cross was in behalf of, in place of, all of us. << MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

The Hebrew words for atonement (kpr, kapporeth) are heavily associated with the Old Testament sacrificial system (Exod 29:36; Lev 4:20; Num 15:25). While sacrifice was a widespread concept in the ancient world, there were significant differences between pagan and Hebrew sacrificial understandings. In the Hebrew understanding there was no magical power in the sacrifice, its value was solely in the blessing of God. Sacrifice was also a common model of salvation in the non-Jewish world at the time of the apostles.

Given the nature of Christ’s death and the above background, it is not surprising that the New Testament used sacrificial language to describe the cross. It is a major theme in Hebrews, where Jesus is described as the fulfillment and extension of that sacrificial system. Other explicit references to the death of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice include 1 Corinthians 5:7 (KJV: “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”) and Ephesians 5:2 (ESV: “a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God”).

The cross as a sacrifice is also implied in frequent references to the blood of Christ (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Rom 3:25; 5:9; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:20; 1 Pet 1:18-19, cf. Lev 17:11). The implication of sacrifice is also there in John 1:29,  where Jesus is described as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (NIV) For the writers of the New Testament, the great Old Testament text that led them to apply sacrificial language to the death of Christ was Isaiah 53, where the Suffering Servant was led as a Lamb to the slaughter (Isa 53:7), died as “an offering for sin” (Isa 53:10, KJV), and “bore the sins of many” (53:12).

Why the cross? The metaphor of sacrifice implies that death is the penalty for sin (Gen 2:16-17; Ezek 18:4, 20) and that the death of a sacrificial victim would substitute or be exchanged for the death of the sinner (2 Cor 5:14, 21). Since the book of Hebrews denies that the sacrifices in the OT sanctuary were the ultimate basis for remission of sin, the sacrifice of Christ is not one sacrifice among many, but the single sacrifice that was truly meaningful and put an end to all others (Heb 9:25-26; 10:1-14). Through the sacrifice of Christ, the sins of the world could be forgiven. Unfortunately, the biblical texts concerning sacrifice never fully reveal the inner logic behind such ritual acts. It is clear that sacrifice is effective in restoring right relations with God, how this is so is less clear. Jesus’ death was “for us” (1 Thess 5:10), “for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3), and “for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 14:24, NIV, ESV). Perhaps the meaning of sacrifice in biblical times was so self-evident to the ancients that it needed no explanation. That means this is one of those things we cannot fully explain today. << MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

Though Christians generally agree on the facts of Jesus’ death and resurrection, they differ widely on the “why” of the cross. Throughout Christian history churchmen and scholars have debated the meaning of the cross as atonement without coming to a settled conclusion. Most of these debates were grounded at one point or another on specific metaphors or models found in the New Testament. There was often the attempt to put forward a particular metaphor as if it were the only possible one. But, as we have seen, the full richness of the biblical testimony will be perceived to the degree that we take the entire witness of the New Testament to the meaning of the cross into account.

I will close this series of blogs on atonement, therefore, with a survey of the main metaphors by which the New Testament writers expressed their understanding of what the atonement was all about. When it comes to the main metaphors of the atonement, scholars differ even on their number. Generally scholarly lists run anywhere from five to ten. In the broadest sense, there are at least 20 different metaphors for salvation in the New Testament. But focusing specifically on the issue of atonement at the cross, I have chosen eight on the basis of the following criteria. All of the eight metaphors are used by at least two different authors in the New Testament (multiple attestation) and they are firmly grounded in multiple passages within at least one of those authors. They use analogy to explain the writer’s perception of who Jesus was and is. In most cases they are also based by NT writers on their usage in the Old Testament Scriptures (obviously the story of the cross as a model or pattern could only become relevant after the event happened).

You will note in the blogs which follow that “reconciliation” is not one of the eight metaphors discussed. One could argue that it should be, although it does not meet the criterion of multiple attestation (only Paul uses the metaphor). But since the goal of this series of blogs is an understanding of the “atonement” (an English word) and atonement is a translation of katalassô in Romans 5:11, it seemed appropriate to begin with reconciliation as expressing the fundamental meaning of what the translators of the King James Bible and the Adventist pioneers understood by atonement. Further aspects of the atonement at the cross will be discerned by looking at other metaphors of what God did on the cross, even though the word “atonement” isn’t used there. The eight metaphors for atonement will be explored in the eight blogs that follow this one. << MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

When it comes to explaining how the cross of Jesus Christ reconciles us to God, we move immediately into the realm of metaphor. Metaphor is based on a similarity between something that we cannot describe directly and something that we know from our everyday experience. The analogy between the two conceptual worlds expresses something that is real and true, but it rarely does so in a complete way. There is both commonality and difference. To press any single metaphor into doing the job of explaining everything is to distort our understanding of the whole.

This does not imply some sort of post-modern “anything goes” approach to Scripture. Even God speaks in analogies and models, but they are “revealed models” or “controlling models.” God’s models are revelation, not speculation. They are ways of thought that God Himself has taught us in Scripture. The biblical metaphors operate as controls for unrestrained theological modeling. While we know only in part, what the Bible teaches us is adequate for both salvation and a living relationship with God.

Throughout history, Christian theology has often focused on one or another New Testament model of the atonement and tried to absolutize that metaphor, as if it explained everything. But that is never the perspective of the New Testament writers, as I will lay out in future blogs. We will best do justice to atonement at the cross if we are open to the great variety of metaphors and figures of speech that the New Testament writers used to express how God used the cross to reconcile the world to Himself. As one pulls different clubs from a golf bag, depending on one’s location on the golf course, so different aspects of atonement are employed at different times as needed.

Coming back to Romans 5:8-11, which I discussed about six blogs ago, we note the wide variety of metaphors for the atonement that occur in that single passage. The language of sin and blood (verses 8 and 9) is drawn from the cultic context of the ancient tabernacle. The language of enmity and reconciliation comes from the realm of relationships. And the language of justification comes from the law court. Paul does not limit himself to a single metaphor to describe what happened at the cross and he can mix several metaphors into a single paragraph! When it comes to describing what God did for us in Christ, human language is exposed in all its weakness.

When it comes to atonement, the Word of God is expressed in human language! In the words of Ellen G. White (1 SM 21): “The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers.
    “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.” << MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

When it comes to spiritual matters it is very difficult to use direct speech. Knowing God is like gazing into the sun (Eph 3:19; Rom 11:33-36; 1 Cor 13:9, 12). According to J. I. Packer, “It is a unique kind of knowledge which, though real, is not full; it is knowledge of what is discernible within a circle of light against the background of a larger darkness; it is, in short, knowledge of a mystery, the mystery of the living God at work.” God is real, yet in our everyday experience we do not see, hear or touch God (in the Bible, Moses and Jesus were notable exceptions). All talk of God involves the stretching of human language. So when it comes to spiritual matters, we generally speak about God using metaphors, analogies or other figures of speech.

When it comes to getting right with God, for example, the Bible frequently makes use of law court metaphors. The human condition is described in terms of guilt and condemnation. We are legally out of synch with God. Salvation is then described in legal terms such as justification, acquittal and vindication. On the other hand, if the human condition is described in terms of debt (a banking or financial metaphor), the appropriate salvation word would be forgiveness or possibly redemption.

People often treat such language as if it were scientifically precise with reference to our salvation (which itself is a metaphor based either in the realm of rescue operations or healing), but it is actually metaphorical, speaking about something beyond the five senses in the language of concrete, everyday existence (“concrete” itself is here a figure of speech!). Other well-known biblical metaphors are “the body of Christ,” “the fruit of the Spirit,” and “the bread of life.”
<< MORE >>

Since this web site was named in honor of the biblical battle of Armageddon, it would be strange for me to blog on the pope’s resignation without addressing a popular speculation regarding the battle of Armageddon (Revelation 17) and recent popes. According to Revelation 17 the beast depicted in the chapter (Rev 17:3-6) has seven heads which appear in consecutive order and represent kings (17:9-10). The seventh of these “kings” reigns just a short while, followed by an “eighth” (17:11), after which the whole beast goes to destruction. While there are many creative ways to do it, a number of lay interpreters attempt to associate these seven heads with recent popes. They speculate that the prophecy begins in 1929, when the Lateran Treaty re-established the independent Papal States (although the actual bequest was only 111 acres– producing the smallest country in the world). According to Wikipedia (I didn’t have time to explore the more scholarly resources) the following popes have ruled since 1929:
Pius XI (1922-1939)
Pius XII (1939-1958)
John XXIII (1958-1963)
Paul VI (1963-1978)
John Paul I (1978-1978, 34 days)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005-2013)

Compared at least to Pius XII, Paul VI and John Paul II, Benedict XVI reigned for a relatively short time (cf. 17:10). The next pope would be the eighth since 1929, so interpreting Revelation 17 in terms of popes since 1929 suggests to such interpreters that the next pope will be the last, perhaps ushering in the end of the world. I have been hearing about such interpretations for at least 35 years and the interpretations change each time popes change.

There are numerous problems with this interpretation. It makes assumptions about the starting point of the seven heads (1929 AD) and implies that the gift of 111 acres from the Italian government to the Papacy is in itself an event of world-changing proportions. And if the text of Revelation 17 were talking about popes toward the end of history (which it is not), five would be past already in 1929. So calculations beginning with 1929 don’t work out. Combine those problems with the fact that Revelation 17:8-11 comes as part of an angelic explanation of the vision in 17:3-6. Such an explanation would only make sense to John if it is given in the context of his time and place. Whatever the seven heads/kings means, five of them were already in the past when Revelation was written. Revelation 17:8-11 is not about seven or eight popes in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. It covers a major sweep of history that was already well under way when the Book of Revelation was written.

I will say no more about this in blog form. I already wrote a detailed interpretation of the seven heads of Revelation 17 in the context of John Paul II’s death in 2005 (nothing new under the sun). Go to the home page of this web site and click on the button to the left entitled “7 Heads of Revelation 17.” There you will find a detailed exegesis of the text in light of the seven popes interpretation referenced above. Or you can go directly by opening the following pdf file: Click Here

Devotional readings of the Bible can be fun. But when they are used to interpret major events in history they can become dangerous. Sound biblical applications will be natural extensions of what the text meant in its original context. To read the text in a way that could only make sense today is to break the connection between the interpretation and Scripture. At that point the interpretation claims the authority of Scripture without demonstrating it. << MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

Our examination of the English word atonement and its biblical equivalent, reconciliation, has led to some significant conclusions. First, while atonement is not limited to the cross, it is clearly grounded there in the biblical sense. It is a one-time objective act that removes all barriers to reconciliation except the human response. Atonement is complete, and it is complete now. Second, there is also a not yet sense to the atonement. The cross is an established fact, a one-time event in the past. But atonement and reconciliation don’t end there, they continue in the work of Christ in heaven and in the ministry of reconciliation on earth. These continuing actions effect that human response that was not completed at the cross. So in one sense, atonement is complete at the cross, and in another sense it is not.

For the sake of Seventh-day Adventist readers it may be helpful to note that Ellen G. White offers a similar balance to that of Paul. While she can say “The intercession of Christ in man’s behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross” (EW 260), she is also very firm that “The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster” (SDABC 5: 1137) and “the cross. . . is the means of man’s atonement” (6T 236). In speaking about the cross she could say, “The conditions of the atonement had been fulfilled” (Ms 138, 1897).

Why is it so hard for human beings to maintain their balance on topics such as this? Because human beings are diverse. We respond to different metaphors of salvation, depending on our personalities and life experiences. And when it comes to atonement, the metaphors are many.
<< MORE >>

One small footnote to the previous blog on the Pope’s shocking resignation. I’m not sure that the resignation itself will affect the church any more than the death of a pope might. What could bring about substantive change will be the direction in which the appointment of a successor goes. The last two elections of a pope broke centuries of tradition to elect non-Italians as popes, the Polish John Paul II and the German Benedict XVI. The Church now stands at a fork in the road. The powers of the leadership bureaucracy may pull back the reins and put in one of their own, likely an Italian cardinal. But there is an intriguing alternative. Should the forces of change in the church be powerful enough, they may not only move beyond Italy in the search for a new pope, they may even move beyond Europe, selecting someone from America or even Africa! If history should last, such a development is inevitable, but it could come sooner rather than later. It seems to me the election of an Italian would signal an attempt by the church bureaucracy to get control of the church back from the papacy. The election of a surprising person, say from Africa, might signal a seismic shift in the direction of the Church.

Philip Jenkins, in his book The Next Christendom, describes how the church began as a Middle Eastern institution, in essence an eastern religion. But in the centuries that followed the New Testament the center of gravity of the church as a whole move to Europe, and in the process changed quite a bit in character, not all of it for the better. More recently the center of gravity of Christendom, particularly Protestantism, has moved to North America. But in the last couple of decades, the massive growth of Christianity in Africa and China, and the increasing protestantization of parts of South America is creating a new dynamic. The center of gravity of world Christianity is moving south and east. In essence, the church is returning to its roots. In fast-growing churches like the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the center of gravity is already in the southern and eastern hemispheres. More mainline churches like the Anglican and Catholic communions, are following rapidly behind. The majority of Christians, including Catholics, may reside in the south and the east by 2050. So it is only a matter of time before we have an African or Indian pope. The big question is whether that may happen already in 2013. And if it does, it would have seismic implications for the Roman Catholic Church and thus for the whole world.

Do you think it would be appropriate to pray that the spirit of Jesus and His cruciform style of leadership will somehow take over the leadership of the largest Christian communion? Such an event would truly shake the world! For an imaginary account of how such an occurrence could take place, see the classic book The Last Conclave, by Malachi Martin. We live in interesting times. << MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research. As part of the larger project, this is the last of four blogs on each of the four main texts on reconciliation (Rom 5:8-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Col 1:19-22; Eph 2:11-16) in the writings of Paul.

The final text that centers on the language of reconciliation is Ephesians 2:11-16. The focus there is not on God’s side in the atonement, but on its impact upon humanity. Before their conversion the Gentiles are described in verse 12 (ESV) as “separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” But “now” (2:13) in Christ, those who were afar “have been brought near” through the blood of Christ, a reference to the cross. In the flesh of Christ on the cross (2:14), He brought an end to the hostility (enmity) between God and humanity and also the “dividing wall” (2:14, ESV) between humans. Through Christ Gentile and Jew have become one. Christ acted on the cross as He did in order that He “might reconcile” both Jew and Gentile to God and to each other (16). The impact of the cross included “killing” (2:16, ESV) the enmity being God and human beings.

This passage in Ephesians reiterates the one-time act on the cross as the decisive event in the atonement, but focuses more than the previous passages on the outcome of the cross, the ongoing nature of the atonement in its effects on the Ephesian church. While there is no talk here of a heavenly sanctuary or Christ’s ongoing intercession in heavenly places, the atonement on the cross and the ongoing atonement in the sanctuary are not in conflict with each other. They are two parts of larger concept. Reconciliation and atonement involve both an indicative (past, completed action) and an imperative (something that still needs to happen). In the words of N. T. Wright: “The cross is not just an example to be followed, it is an achievement to be worked out, put into practice.”
<< MORE >>

I interrupt the series on atonement to reflect on some recent news and its implications for us all.

Ever since Pope Benedict XVI resigned (a very surprising development) I have been urged by many to comment on the matter. I have resisted doing so for one simple reason. I have no inside information or any special basis for commenting on the matter. I know basically what has been reported in the general media, which may or may not be largely accurate. The Pope’s story is that he is getting old and frail and not able to keep up with his duties, and I am inclined to accept that story out of respect for the man and the billion people he represents, at least until things are proven otherwise.

There is another story making the rounds, and it too may or may not be largely accurate. According to this story, the Pope was in essence forced out by an entrenched bureaucracy that resisted his every attempt to reform a system that had become awash in corruption and meddling in Italian politics. As with Cabinet officers in the United States government, the pope is often a relative outsider attempting to run a bureaucratic system that over the decades and centuries has learned how to perpetuate itself and resist outside influences. Since each of the last two popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, were non-italians, and therefore relative outsiders, the story has a certain inherent plausibility to it.

Let me reflect on religious systems in general for a moment, to give some perspective. Religion is what human beings do when confronted by the sense that God has broken into this world and done something remarkable. Human beings respond to such “acts of God” by creating mechanisms that promote the mission and values God introduced to them. And as such, religion is a beautiful thing. Religious institutions are human constructs designed in honor of the work that God did at a particular time and place. The problem with religious institutions is that over time they become more and more focused on self-preservation and less and less focused on the original mission and values of the institution. The DNA of top leadership is corrupted by power and money and the institution begins to lose its way, all the while proclaiming that it is more faithful than ever. In saying this I don’t want to be unfair to the Roman Catholic Church. The process I am describing has happened to some degree to every religious institution over time. The Catholic Church has just been at it longer than most, so it should not be surprising if there were some corruption and struggles for power lying behind the surface of the Pope’s resignation. Perhaps these things will become clearer in time.

The Catholic Church has come in for a great deal of criticism for the way it has preserved itself through the centuries (Crusades, Inquisition, ethnic cleansing, etc.) and much of this criticism is well-deserved. But there is a lesson here for all of us, Catholic or not. There but for the grace of God go you and I. Were we in Pope Benedict’s shoes or the shoes of his Secretary of State, who is rumored to have been the Pope’s primary and most-powerful opponent, would we truly act differently? Was not Luther in essence correct when he said that the pope he feared the most was Pope Self?

This may be a good time to review the leadership strategy of Jesus. “He who would be first among you should be least of all, and the greatest among you will be servant of all.” (My paraphrase) “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.” Matt 20:25-26, NIV. “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” Mark 8:34, ESV. These words challenge me every day to put the interests of those under me above my own. But how to do this in practice often eludes me. I can only imagine what it must be like to be pope. I pray that all who read these words of mine will commit themselves to a renewed study of the religion of Jesus and a willingness to follow it no matter what the cost. << MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research. As part of the larger project, this is the third of four blogs on each of the four main texts on reconciliation (Rom 5:8-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Col 1:19-22; Eph 2:11-16) in the writings of Paul.

In Colossians 1:19-22, the concept of reconciliation is expanded beyond the human race to the entire universe. Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15), pre-eminent (1:18), and one in whom all the fullness of God dwells (19). Through Him everything in heaven and earth is reconciled (aorist infinitive [apokatallaxai], a point rather than a process), making peace through the blood of the cross (20). What happened on the cross, therefore, provides atonement not just for the human race, but for the entire universe. In verse 21 Paul steps back and addresses the condition humanity was in before the cross. Human beings were alienated (estranged), hostile (enemies) in mind and doing evil deeds. These very same people were reconciled (aorist indicative [apokatêllaxen], a point in past time) in the body of His flesh through death (22). The end result is human beings who are holy, blameless and unreproachable in God’s sight.

The passage in Colossians 1 brings out a number of important things. The focus in this passage is not on the Father (as was the case in 2 Corinthians 5), but on Jesus Christ, who carries the fullness of God in Himself and thus is qualified to be the agent on God’s side of the reconciliation process. The one-time death of Jesus Christ on the cross has reconciled (made atonement) to God not only the human race, but in some sense the entire universe. While not denying the biblical teaching about continuing atonement in the heavenly sanctuary, Paul is clear in this passage that the decisive act of atonement occurred on the cross. And atonement does not end at the cross, but results in transformed lives.

<< MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research. As part of the larger project, this is the second of four blogs on each of the four main texts on reconciliation (Rom 5:8-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Col 1:19-22; Eph 2:11-16) in the writings of Paul.

In 2 Corinthians 5:14-21, Paul grounds reconciliation completely in the death of Christ. The crucial act is that “one died for all” and so there is a sense that all have somehow died in that action (2 Cor 5:14). Then Paul gives his classic statement about reconciliation in verses 18-20. Reconciliation comes from God and God here (verse 18) is clearly distinguished from Christ, so God the Father is in view. Through the actions of Jesus Christ at the cross, God is reconciled to us and gives us the ministry of reconciliation.

Paul elaborates in verse 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. J. I. Packer expressed this beautifully: “The two loves, love of Father and Son, are one.” That reconciliation is grounded in “not reckoning to them their sins” (my translation). The message regarding that reconciliation is then committed or entrusted to “us.” This last point is elaborated in verse 20. Paul and the apostles have become God’s ambassadors to invite others to participate in that reconciliation.

The passage in 2 Corinthians 5 makes several critical points. First, it clearly distinguishes the work of Christ on the cross from the prior purpose of the Father to provide the reconciliation. Christ does not change the heart of the Father by the action he does at the cross, the Father Himself was acting in our behalf through the work of Christ (see also John 3:16; 14:10). Second, God and Jesus are the subjects of the atonement, not its object. If God were the object, Jesus would be giving up His life to appease God. If Jesus were the object, God would be punishing Jesus in His death. But the atonement is never expressed in the latter two ways, here or anywhere else in the New Testament.

Third, there is a “now and not yet” aspect to reconciliation. It is a completed action at the cross, outside of us, once for all (indicative past in the Greek). On the other hand, reconciliation is also a task humans are to do (verses 18-19), it has not yet happened in the fullest sense. In verse 20 this is expressed with an aorist imperative (katallagête), which means it does no fully happen until humans respond to what God has done. So reconciliation is not only an established fact, it is an invitation to human response. It is only complete when humans beings respond to what God has already done. Fourth, there is a strong sense of exchange or substitution in the passage, although the Greek words for substitution is not used (as we have noted in an earlier blog, there is a strong sense of exchange in the word reconciliation itself [katallagê]). Through one death “all died” (5:14, NIV, NKJV), and the one who knew no sin was made sin so “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (5:21, KJV).
<< MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research. As part of the larger project, this is the first of four blogs on each of the four main texts on reconciliation (Rom 5:8-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Col 1:19-22; Eph 2:11-16) in the writings of Paul.

Paul declares in Romans 5:8 that the death of Christ, which occurred at a time when we were still sinners (before we turned to God), demonstrates God’s own love toward us. That reconciling love goes all the way to eternity past (John 17:6ff.; Eph 1:4; 2 Tim 1:9-10) but was made visible in a tangible way at the cross. At the time when the cross took place, we were not only sinners but enemies of God (verse 10), and the death of God’s Son reconciled us to God. Sin was the root cause of the enmity, since humans were unable to remove it, God put it out of the way at the cross. Paul’s use of “were reconciled” clearly places the reconciliation in the past rather than the present from the point of our experience. As a passive, the word also makes it clear that the reconciliation that took place on the cross was entirely God’s work, we had no part in it. It is objective, outside of us.

Paul reiterates his point in verse 11, but from the standpoint of the converted person rather than pre-conversion. Through our Lord Jesus Christ “we have now received the reconciliation (or atonement– KJV).” The “now” in verse 11 is in contrast with the time of the believer’s enmity and sinfulness. Paul moves from the time of the cross (in verses 8 and 9) to the moment when that past act of atonement is applied to the new believer (verse 11). Reconciliation is something to be “received” (elabômen), it exists objectively before we experience it, it is outside of and prior to our response.

A beautiful corollary of Paul’s doctrine of reconciliation in this passage is what it tells us about God the Father. In Paul there is no breach between the God of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New. If you have seen Jesus you have also seen the Father (John 14:9). Arising out of God’s love, the cross was God’s act of reconciliation and atonement which is applied to human beings through the preaching of the gospel. While Jesus Christ is the active agent of reconciliation, the Father is its author. According to Juergen Moltmann, “The grief of the Father is as important as the death of the Son.” The death of Christ, then, somehow made it possible for a holy God to do for sinners what otherwise He could not have done.
<< MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

The Bible begins with the assumption that humans from the beginning were designed to be in harmonious relationship with God (Gen 1:26-28). But a radical breach has broken this unity (Gen 3:22-24; Isa 59:1-2 Rom 5:12; Eph 2:1). So human beings are alienated from God (Eph 4:18), estranged and hostile to God and each other (Col 1:21; Rom 5:10; 8:7). This is not only true of Gentiles (Rom 1:23ff.), but also of Jews (Rom 3:9-20, 23). The cause of this estrangement is human disobedience toward God and His law (1 John 3:4) arising out of a lack of trust (faith) in who He is (Rom 14:23). This is where the concept of “reconciliation” comes in.

The concept of reconciliation is grounded in the realm of personal relationships, severed and restored. In contexts where there is enmity, distrust or broken relationships of all types, reconciliation is about the healing and restoration of those relationships. So atonement in the New Testament has primarily to do with how the cross of Jesus Christ heals the breach between God and the human race.

As is evident from the above, the theme of reconciliation in the New Testament centers particularly in the writings of Paul. In fact, Paul is the only writer of the New Testament who uses the terminology of reconciliation (Rom 5:8-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Eph 2:11-16; Col 1:20-23), and it is central to his understanding of the cross. But reconciliation is implied in many other parts of the NT, such as Luke 15:11-31 and Matthew 5:23-24. A related concept is the word “peace,” which describes the outcome of the reconciliation process. Those in Christ have peace with God and also with others (Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 8:6; Gal 5:22; Eph 2:14-17; Col 1:20).

To gain a clearer understanding of reconciliation we will look briefly at the main texts where this word group is used, beginning with Romans 5:8-11. Each of these main texts (Rom 5:8-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Col 1:19-22; Eph 2:11-16) will be subject of a separate blog.
<< MORE >>

Extended Meaning of The Greek Word katelassô (Reconciliation)

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

The root meaning of the verb form katelassô (“reconciliation”– see last paragraph of previous blog) is difficult to determine, but it has a basic idea of “change” or “exchange.” From there it isn’t far to the idea of  “reconcile,” as in “exchanging hostility for a friendly relationship.” When applied to God, the verb is always active, when applied to human beings it is always passive. So reconciliation is something that flows from God to us, not the other way around. The natural state for sinful human beings is hostility toward God (Rom 8:7-8). Reconciliation with God is only possible because God reaches out to us (see next blog for an expansion of these last two sentences).

The noun form katellagê corresponds to the meaning of the verb, with the sense of “exchange” or “reconciliation,” the reestablishment of an interrupted or broken relationship. Surprisingly, both the noun and verb forms of katelassô are extremely rare in the LXX (Septuagint, the best-known ancient Greek Old Testament). In fact, within the canonical books, katellagê is found only once in Isaiah 9:5, and in that one instance its meaning is obscure. So we need to understand the noun and verb forms of katelassô from their usage within the New Testament, which is what I plan to do in the next blog.
<< MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

In Romans 5:11 according to the King James Version of the New Testament atonement is clearly in the context of the cross: “ . . . We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” While the KJV wording (“we have now received”) can be read in terms of the ongoing process of intercession in the heavenly sanctuary, the aorist indicative form in the Greek (elabomen) points to a singular conclusive action in the past, at the cross of Christ, the benefits of which are now (nun) made available to those who are rejoicing (present continuous tense– kauchômenoi) in Him. So a full picture of the atonement language in Scripture should warn us against an either/or approach.

Romans 5:11 is at the heart and pivot of the whole chapter. Romans 5:11 defines atonement as follows: Through the death of Christ people have been restored from a state of hostility into a peaceful relationship with God. This builds on verse one of the same chapter (NIV), where believers, “having been justified by faith. . . have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The hostile state of alienation from God introduced by the first Adam is overcome by the death and resurrection of the last Adam (Rom 5:12-21).

It is interesting that the KJV translates only the noun form of the word for “atonement”  (katallagên) as “atonement.” Verbs forms of the same word occur in verse 10 (katallagên– “were reconciled,” katallagentes– “having been reconciled”) and are translated as “reconciled.” So the King James translation actually masks the fact that the “reconciled” in verse 10 is a different form of the same word as “atonement” in verse 11. The more modern translations, therefore, are correct in using the English term “reconciliation” instead of “atonement” in Romans 5:11. Furthermore, since the translators of the King James used “atonement” for the noun form but translated “reconciled” for the verb form, it is clear that they understood “atonement” as a synonym of “reconciliation.”
<< MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research. This post will be heavy sledding for many, but take your time, look up the texts, and I think you will be rewarded.

In the King James Version of the English Bible the word “atonement” occurs 81 times in the Old Testament (11x in Exodus, 49x in Leviticus, 17x in Numbers, 2 Sam 21:3, 1 Chr 6:49, 2 Chr 29:24, and Neh 10:33) and only one time in the New (Rom 5:11). Of the 81 occurrences in the Old Testament 77 are clustered in the section of the Pentateuch that focuses primarily on the regulations for the Hebrew tabernacle (from the second half of Exodus through the first half of the book of Numbers). All of them belong to the kpr Hebrew word group. Fifteen of the occurrences are in Leviticus 16, which describes the services on the Day of Atonement.

The root meaning of kpr in the Hebrew is to cover (as in cover one’s face) or cover up (trouble or sin). It has the extended meaning of making amends, and providing reconciliation, expiation, cleansing and atonement. An expanded noun form of kpr is kapporeth, which is used 23 times for the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark, of course, played a central role in the services on the Day of Atonement.

When you look at the context in which these words for atonement are found you find some interesting things. The passage that seems to most clearly define atonement is Leviticus 17:11, KJV: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” This passage could easily leave the impression that “atonement” in every case is focused solely on blood and its manipulation. And this is certainly true of the Day of Atonement, in which the blood of a bull (Lev 16:14) and a goat (Lev 16:15) is applied in front of the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies and also on the horns of the altar in the Holy Place (16:18-19), thus making atonement for the Most Holy Place (16:16) and the whole assembly of Israel (16:17). But the larger picture of the word group’s usage in the Old Testament requires us to qualify this impression.

Atonement in the Old Testament is not always made by sacrifice and application of blood, but can be granted on the basis of a number of other actions as well. Atonement can be granted on the basis of application of oil (Lev 14:29), burning flour (Lev 5:11-13), burning incense (Num 16:41-50), payment of money (Exod 30:11-16), execution (Num 25:1-13; 2 Sam 21:1-6), gifts of jewelry (Num 31:48-54), the release of a live animal (Lev 16:10) and simple appeals to God (Exod 32:30), through words. In the Psalms, sin is put right largely in the absence of sacrificial or atonement language. In the non-ritual texts of the Old Testament, the proper atonement for moral wrong doing is repentance and renewed obedience (Psa 40:6-8; 51:16-17; 141:2; Prov 21:3; Hos 6:6). Sacrifice can also be used for purposes other than atonement.

A number of Greek words are used to translate kpr in the Greek Old Testament (LXX). The most common translation is by the verb exilaskomai and the noun exilasmos. And the Hebrew word kapporeth (– mercy seat) is normally translated hilasterion. On occasion, the LXX translates kpr with the Greek word lutron, which means ransom or redemption. Since variations of these words are found in the New Testament, they will assist us in understanding how New Testament writers understood the atonement that occurred at the cross. << MORE >>

This is one of a series of blogs on the atonement. They seek to answer questions like What is atonement? Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross? What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? When the series is finished, I plan to post on the web site the many references and sources that were involved in this research.

In this blog I will address the English word “atonement” and how it has impacted people’s approach to this issue in the English-speaking world. The word “atonement” does not originate in ancient or biblical languages as many other theological words do. It is a compound word constructed from English components. It seems to have originated early in the 16th Century with the word “onement,” then came “at onement,” and by the end of the century appeared the full form as we know it, “atonement.”

The closest root meaning of the word atonement is “reconciliation.” Elaborations of the root meaning of atonement include “restoration of friendly relations,” “the state or act of bringing into concord,” “the condition of being at one with others,” “the action of setting at one after discord or strife,” and/or “amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong.” To “atone for” wrong is to take an action that cancels out the ill effects of alienation and restores harmonious relationship. In addition to reconciliation, however, the word atonement in the English has developed and extended meaning of “propitiation, expiation.” This extended meaning focuses on the basis or means by which reconciliation takes place.

Use of the word in English can reflect both a process and a state. Atonement can be the process of righting wrongs, making amends and bringing people into friendly relations with each other. On the other hand, atonement can mean a state of being in harmony, or at one with others. The English word “atonement” originally meant primarily the state of being at one, modern usage focuses almost entirely on the process by which the hindrances to reconciliation are removed. When it comes to atonement, as noted in the previous paragraph, the basic root meaning of reconciliation has tended to expand in the direction of propitiation and expiation.

It is clear from the major English dictionaries that linguists see a two-fold application of the word atonement in the arena of theology. On the one hand, atonement refers to the redeeming work of Christ achieved by His life, suffering and death. But the word atonement is also recognized to apply to what follows the cross in effecting reconciliation between God and the human race. So it is not an either/or situation in terms of the English word. Atonement occurs both at the cross and in the application of what the cross achieved. We must be very careful in doing theology that we do not unintentionally distort the biblical text on account of changes in the meaning of the English words that we use/have used to translate the biblical text.
<< MORE >>

What really happened at the cross? Was the cross absolutely necessary? Questions like these have been widely debated under the topic of the atonement. An additional issue has to do with the meaning of the word atonement. Does the term refer only to the cross or are there broader and more extensive meanings in relation to work of Christ both before and after the cross?

English dictionaries feature both meanings of the word, it is not an either/or situation among the major linguists. For example, Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language notes under theological meanings both “the saving or redeeming work of Christ wrought through his incarnation, sufferings and death,” and “reconciliation between God and men, especially. as effected by Christ.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language also gives two theological meanings: 1) the “redemptive life and death of Christ,” and 2) the “reconciliation of God and man as brought about by Christ.” NT scholar Joel Green agrees with this assessment of the biblical materials in saying, “In doctrinal statements in the Christian tradition, (atonement) typically denotes Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. . . In the biblical materials, however, the concept of “atonement” refers more broadly to various means by which particular persons (or humanity) are restored to right relationship with God.”

In a series of blogs I want to share some of my recent research on what the Bible has to say about atonement, particularly at the cross. To get a full picture we need to begin with the English word “atonement.” That will be the topic of my next blog.      
<< MORE >>

Going beyond spiritual formation and the review of Peth’s book, let me briefly address what I consider a significant and perhaps dangerous misunderstanding in Adventist (and much evangelical) thinking. There is, rightly, a great concern about and fear of ecumenism. What is widely thought of as ecumenism is a process of unifying religious institutions for political advantage. When religion and politics get together bad things happen, especially to faithful believers who have captured the deeper spiritual heart of faith and rejected the political agendas of so many religious institutions. But there is another type of “ecumenism” and that is recognizing God’s call to many individuals in every religious institution on the globe (Rev 18:4). Among the Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc. are many people who are genuinely seeking truth and have experienced some acquaintance with God. Through the Holy Spirit, God has been in every place before the missionaries ever got there. I have found kindred spirits of genuine faith in many places that I would not have expected.

Peth has focused on the dangers of learning from others, and rightly so. I would wish that he had done so in a more reasoned and academic fashion, but I fully agree that there is a huge danger in opening oneself freely to the ideas of others without a strong grounding in the biblical world view. One can enter a slippery slope in which one gradually morphs from a biblical Jesus-follower to a self-focused eclectic. But there is an equal and opposite danger that Peth’s book does not address. And that is to allow ourselves to be so consumed with the dangers of ecumenism that we close ourselves off spiritually from neighbors, friends and family who think and live differently. God’s end-time remnant will be drawn from every nation, tribe, language and people, and yes, also religion (Rev 14:6; 18:1-4). My fear is that books like the one by Peth may cause us to see demons behind every bush and inspire suspicion of others that closes ourselves off from others at just the time when God is seeking to draw His faithful ones together.

There is an often unwritten thread in Adventist (and evangelical) thought that suggests that our religion has the truth and others are messed up. At the end of time people will abandon the mess-up religions and join ours, making up the end-time remnant (or whatever evangelicals may call it). What this thread does not take seriously is evidence that all religious institutions are messed-up, including our own, whichever that may be. All religious institutions are human attempts to bear witness to a perception of God’s action in the world. This is a good thing. We should honor the acts of God in our midst and call them to the attention of the world. But over time, religious institutions become more and more focused on self-preservation and less and less focused on the original mission. This is why reformations are needed in every faith. At the end of time all religious institutions will be split between those who want to preserve a human shell and those who have maintained or recaptured the original spirit and mission of the faith. The faithful remnant of every religion will in the end prove to have more in common with each other than with colleagues in their own religion. The final proclamations of the gospel and its counterfeit (Rev 14:6-12; 16:13-16– see the Armageddon Trilogy on the main page of the web site) will expose the human (and often satanic) side to institutional religion. God’s faithful ones will find each other in strange and surprising places. The final outcome is drawn in broad strokes in Revelation, but the details will probably surprise us all.

What I have outlined here is messier and will for many be less satisfying than a black and white treatise. But truth is often a tension between two poles (two examples: the divine and the human in Jesus Christ, and the role of faith and works in Christian experience). Finding a balance between the ditch of ecumenism and the ditch of self-important exclusivism is rarely easy. To be open and accepting of people at the same time one is discerning truth and error is challenging in practice. I hope that readers can learn the latter from Peth’s book without developing the mind and attitude of a Pharisee toward those who are sincerely seeking God in the only way they know how to seek Him. One thing Howard Peth and I certainly have in common, although we haven’t met, we both have a lot to learn.

Another challenge I find in Howard Peth’s book on comtemplative prayer is either/or thinking, which is inadequate to the depth of a subject like this. On pages ix and x (see also pages 54 and 55) this is reflected in three either/or dilemmas. 1) Pastors can “try anything once” or they can uphold the Word of God. But can we not learn from experience at the same time we are learning from the Word? 2) You can have a “seeker-friendly” church or you can have a church built on biblical principles. Wouldn’t it be good to do both as far as possible? 3) You can give people what they want or you can follow the Bible. But are these always mutually exclusive? Doesn’t the gospel strike with the most power when it meets people at points of felt need and common associations (1 Cor 9:19-23)? Perhaps Professor Peth would agree with me on the above once I have worded things in this way, but the book itself often fails to nuance things like this in a helpful way. When a case is weak one tends to overstate it.

On page 17 and other places the author laments that eastern mysticism is “infiltrating” the western Christian church. I don’t doubt that this is the case, and some or much of that deserves concern. But I see little recognition of the fact that the Bible itself is an eastern book and that Western Christianity has often distorted the biblical message by reading it through the filter of western culture and philosophy. We don’t even notice that we are doing this, because that culture and philosophy is ingrained in who we are. To make this an “either/or” is not helpful. To read the Bible with western eyes inevitably distorts some things and some aspects of eastern thinking do bring us back a little closer to the biblical world view.

In discussing specific individuals a major method of Peth’s book is the ad hominem (“against the man”) argument. This involves the use of emotive words and pejorative language (such as “brainwash,” “proclamation of another gospel,” “liberal, loose and free-thinking pastors” “not Bible doctrine but babbling dialogue,” “watered-down gospel”) to create a sense in the reader that the people being described are not trustworthy or even dangerous. This is a tactic often used when a person realizes that an argument is weak. I once teased a friend that his arguments were 50% logic and 50% ridicule. The weaker the logic, the greater the tendency to use emotive and pejorative language to carry an audience that would not otherwise buy the argument. But such methods actually signal the weakness rather than the strength of an argument.

The key figure under attack in Peth’s book is Richard Foster. The arguments against Foster are as follows. First, the title and contents of his book Celebration of Discipline are modeled on Ignatius Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises. Second, Foster is a Quaker, Quakers believe such and such, therefore, Foster teaches such and such. Noting this connection can be academically useful. But when I see how Adventists are often viewed in the light of David Koresh, I am cautious in applying this insight with finality. What I missed in Peth’s book was much analysis of what Foster actually wrote in his book. The closest Peth comes to an analysis of Foster’s actual work is on page 75 where two short and very general quotes (one sentence each) are then expanded and interpreted to support Peth’s viewpoint. Third, Foster seldom quotes the Bible in his book, getting his teachings from non-Christian or non-protestant sources. This too is helpful to observe. But there is a reason for Foster’s approach. The Bible strongly encourages prayer, yet rarely says much about how to actually do it in practice. Thus a book like Foster’s inevitably will take a more scientific approach of seeing what various people have tried and evaluating what works or does not work. How well Foster does this is worthy of examination, but I don’t find it surprising that a book on the practics of spiritual life might range far afield in search of options that could be useful to Christians. Adventists, certainly, got interested in Foster’s book and others because of the sense that other Christian communities knew more about caring for spiritual life and growth than we did. Interestingly, Peth notes that Foster himself warns readers in a later book of the dangers of demonic activity (page 69), so one can wonder if Peth is drawing the distinctions between him and Foster a bit too fine.

Given the mystical sources of Foster’s book in the eastern and Catholic religions, it is well that we read with caution. But reading Peth’s book has actually encouraged me to pick up Foster’s book again and see what I may have missed the first time around. When I do that I will report what I find in this blog. << MORE >>

In the previous three blogs I have been setting the context for some concerns I have about Howard Peth’s book The Dangers of Contemplative Prayer (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association and Hart Research Center, 2012). The book has been used to justify attacks on the Theological Seminary at Andrews University for a program I described from personal experience in the first blog. As I noted in the second blog, Peth’s book has value for those unschooled in the intricacies of spiritual growth and development. It warns the novice against the danger of emptying one’s mind to either one’s interior voices or an external influence that can be diabolical as well as benign. This is a valid point and worth making. Nevertheless, I wonder if the book will not prove in the end to do as much harm as it does good. This is certainly not the author’s intention, nor that of those who published the book. But the possibility deserves at least brief consideration here.

There are two major concerns I have about the book. First, the positive points in the book could have been made even more powerfully in 3-5 pages than in the 90 pages offered. The length of the book leads to much repetition along with examples and illustrations that often weaken the point rather than strengthen it. There is material in the book for a very good article, but over 90 pages the point is lost in questionable assumptions and illustrations. I will go into those a bit more detail below.

Second, the main purpose of the book does not seem to be the positives I mention in the previous blog but more of an attack piece on Evangelical Protestantism and its supposed selling out to the Papacy, at least in matters related to prayer and meditation. The author does not name Seventh-day Adventist authors or institutions, so the reader is left to decide whether he feels that some such have already sold out as well or whether this is merely an early warning. But he certainly names some very popular writers and speakers who have influence among Seventh-day Adventists, so if there is guilt by association (and that is a major argument in the book), the book is a subtle indictment of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and many of its thought leaders (though this indictment is subtle enough that a church publishing house chose to put its name on the book). But maybe I am making too much of that point, so I’ll just leave it an open question. Perhaps the author will be willing to respond.

The primary argument in the author’s case appears to be guilt by association. If you are a Roman Catholic you practice negative forms of contemplative prayer (even though they have been condemned by the current pope). If you have quoted a Catholic or know a Quaker you are guilty. If you know or have read Richard Foster, you are guilty. If a spiritualist likes something you have said, you are guilty. Terms like spiritual formation and contemplative prayer are used by so and so, therefore anyone who has used these terms is guilty. In careful scholarship, associations and influence are important in establishing what a person could know or believe. But by itself association is a very weak argument, assuming that a person cannot associate with another and still disagree or maintain their own integrity (as we saw in the previous blog, that argument could be made about Peth’s relationship with Oakland and Yungen as well).

What the book lacks is clear documentation that most of the people mentioned in the book actually teach and practice what the author is opposing. I, for one, read books by Foster and Willard some 20-25 years ago and never picked up the “empty your mind” concept of meditation from them. One can, perhaps, read between the lines of their books and see such a concept, but Peth’s book does not demonstrate that it is clearly taught there. Arguing guilt by association introduces suspicion toward other believers. One begins with the assumption that there is something wrong with somebody and then searches for hints and turns of phrase to demonstrate what would not be obvious in a normal reading of the text.

A good example is the comment about Beth Moore on page 26. In a 2002 comment, Beth Moore says that practicing God’s presence in her life is a number one goal. And she finds God in the “stillness.” Does this “stillness” mean a removal of distractions, or something much more sinister? That is not demonstrated in Peth’s book, it is merely alleged on the basis of the word chosen. We all struggle with distractions as we pray, so it would seem strategies that can help focus the mind on Scripture and God would be important and helpful. My wife has taken a number of classes with Beth Moore’s material and was shocked to hear that she would be accused of a negative form of prayer. When I shared Peth’s description of negative forms of contemplative prayer, she said, “I never heard anything like that from her, she is always grounded in the Bible.” For what it’s worth.

In the next blog I will address another major challenge I have in appreciating Peth’s book. Then I will draw some general reflections on the larger context of this debate. << MORE >>

Since writing the previous blog I have been thinking. I have decided that before getting into Howard Peth’s book directly, it may be useful to set some background to the current controversy among Seventh-day Adventists. Peth quotes from time to time from the work of Roger Oakland and Ray Yungen. While he quotes from many sources and does not express direct dependance on these men, there is much similarity in tone and substance. Their influence on him seems at least as strong if not stronger than the Quaker and Catholic influences on Richard Foster.

I mention Oakland and Yungen because they have placed themselves at the crucial intersection between evangelical and Adventist thinking on spiritual formation. They both appear to be extreme dispensationalists, a perspective on prophecy radically at odds with Adventism at its very core (although they share a similar suspicion of the Papacy). So it is to be wondered why Adventists would take their work as seriously as many in Peth’s camp seem to. It is interesting to me that Peth and his colleagues seem to feel that they can pick and choose from the work of Oakland and Yungen and remain “undefiled.” But if that is the case, why cannot other Adventists take a similar approach to the works of Foster, Willard, Warren and MacLaren? Why is guilt by association somehow valid in the latter case but not in the former? It seems like a process of selective evidence to me. In reality we are learning from others and influenced by many sources. We all have to exercise spiritual discernment in this process and make sure our own selective use of Scripture is not as deeply flawed as those we criticize.

Oakland and Yungen have been studying and reporting on issues of spiritual formation and prayer for a dozen years, naming names and institutions in the evangelical world that they feel have sold out to eastern mysticism. Then in 2007 they came across an Adventist News Network article that mentioned (positively) how spiritual formation (in the sense of developing habits of Bible study and prayer) was getting increased attention at the Andrews Seminary and many local churches. Interpreting the phrase along the lines of their previously formed opinions about spiritual formation, they assumed that Adventists were buying into all the negatives that they had seen elsewhere. They posted material lumping Adventists as part of the whole Christian world that was falling away from God into spiritualistic apostasy.

Sometime after that a few Adventists here and there read Oakland’s work and began sounding the alarm within Adventism. The warnings of John Witcombe and Rick Howard fall into this category and also the book by Howard Peth that I am reviewing. For a full, fair and kind accounting of these developments I strongly suggest everyone get hold of a copy of the article by Dave Thomas (“The Great ‘Spiritual Formation’ Kerfuffle”) in Spectrum, volume 40, issue 1, Winter, 2012, 44-49. He documents in detail the journeys of Oakland and Yungen, their influence upon Adventism, and some of the more recent developments as a result. This is valuable background to the concerns I will address in the blog(s) that follow (don’t know how many yet). << MORE >>

In the previous blog I set the context for this review of the book The Dangers of Contemplative Prayer, by Howard Peth (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association and Hart Research Center, 2012). In this blog I want to share what I liked about the book and in the next one or maybe two some concerns I have about it. The book describes some dangerous types of prayer and the author’s belief that these forms of prayer are infiltrating the Seventh-day Adventist Church. His desire in this book, then, is to sound the alarm that no one might be deceived.

The book makes three powerful points that were very helpful to me. The central point of the book is summarized in a nutshell in the Author’s Preface (page viii). The key issue in prayer has to do with the purpose of meditation. In the eastern tradition the purpose of meditation is to empty the mind. Through the use of repetitive syllables, words or phrases (a so-called mantra), one banishes stray thoughts, feelings and images until one is at the “center of consciousness.” In the silence at the center one can begin to hear spirit voices that tell you things you have never heard before. You hear the voice of God within. In the biblical tradition, on the other hand, the purpose of meditation is not to empty the mind but to focus the mind on the words of truth from the Scriptures. In other words, the meditation is not directed inward toward a subjective truth but rather outward toward an objective truth. This is an extremely important distinction.

What’s wrong with the eastern approach? What if one replaces the meaningless mantras with Christian prayer words like “Jesus” or “Father?” The danger is that if one empties the mind, one has no control over which spirit voice speaks to that emptied mind. Apart from the safeguard of Scripture, it is possible to be deceived into thinking that satanic influences are truly the voice of God. The spirit world contains both angels and demons, so eastern forms of meditation can connect one with either source. It seems to me that this fundamental point is crucial. But for what it’s worth, I have never heard a Seventh-day Adventist preacher, liberal or conservative, tell people they need to empty their minds. The emphasis is always on ridding oneself of distractions so that the Bible or a devotional reading can be the full focus of one’s attention. That I think is a different thing than seeking a total emptying of the mind. While I think Peth could have made this point more effectively in 3-5 pages rather than a hundred, I do think this fundamental point is crucial and it is worth reading the book if one is not clear on this point.

Second, Peth makes a powerful point on page 62 where he says that God has arranged the “rules of the game” in such a way that the devil cannot force anyone to sin. Satan cannot take over a life  unless at some level that person consents to it. The danger Peth sees in contemplative prayer is that a person will consent to Satan influencing or taking over his or her life thinking they are opening themselves to God. Without that consent, Satan cannot control a person’s life. But once that consent is given, it can be very difficult to extricate oneself from Satan’s clutches. The key in meditation is to keep the process of meditation under the control of reason and subject to the Scriptures. I couldn’t agree more.

Third, and this point was worth the price of the book in my opinion, Peth has pointed out one of the great misreadings of the Bible, one that I have been guilty of all these years. He points out on pages 27-29 that the phrase “Be still and know that I am God” has been grossly misused in Christian society. Most people think, and so did I before reading this book, that the phrase is all about prayer and our attitude toward God in the inner life. But in context that couldn’t be further from the truth. When you read the context of Psalm 46:10 it is all about a military attack on the fortress of God’s people (Psa 46:1-5). When enemies attack the people of God, He steps in with the mighty power of His word (46:6). The end result is the enemies’ bows are broken, their spears are splintered and their chariots are burned with fire (46:7-9). In the context of a battlefield strewn with the detritus of a defeated army, the phrase spoken to defeated enemies actually means something like, “Shut up and know who you are dealing with!” To use such a phrase in support of meditation and prayer veers wide of the exegetical mark.

So in sum, there are reasons to read this book and I am glad I did. While I knew the first two points before reading the book, the third was worth the time I took to read it. Next time, let me share a few concerns about the book. << MORE >>

Over the last couple of years people have become aware of controversy over things like “spiritual formation,” “contemplative prayer” and “the emerging church.” Voices such as that of the General Conference President (Ted Wilson) have been raised in caution regarding the dangers to be found in these domains. What Wilson probably did not know, at the time he gave this sermon in July of 2010, is how frequently these terms were used at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, though not, I suspect, in the ways that he meant by these terms. As one who taught at the Seminary from 1982-2007, I am quite familiar with what was going on there during that time and I found it to be a place that was deeply grounded in Scripture and loyal to the church almost to a fault. So my initial reaction was like that of others. What is so bad about Spiritual Formation? What can be so bad about thoughtful prayer? What other kind of prayer is there? And while the authors promoting the Emerging Church were certainly offering challenging ideas, they had always struck me as rather prophetic in the Old Testament sense, challenging the comfortable ways in which many Christians have adopted western culture and practices without serious biblical critique. So what was going on here? Shouldn’t everyone spend “a thoughtful hour each day contemplating the life of Christ?” (Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages, page 83)

Did the Seminary teach Spiritual Formation while I was there? Yes, depending on what you mean by that term. I remember how in the mid-1980s our practics professors introduced us to the concept and asked all Seminary faculty to team up with local pastors to create “spiritual formation groups” of 10-12 seminary students each who would engage with local churches on weekends and then reflect on their experiences on Monday mornings. I have to confess I was never a huge enthusiast about this development. It sounded like a lot of work outside the areas of my interest and expertise. But I kept my lack of enthusiasm to myself. After all, what could be bad about helping young pastors find a closer walk with God? I certainly didn’t want to speak out against that!

And that is exactly what spiritual formation, in the forms that I encountered it at the Seminary, was all about. It was the process of encouraging young pastors at the Seminary to not simply exercise their minds, but also their hearts, while in school. It was seeking a balance between the intellectual and the spiritual. It was all about teaching young pastors to have a closer walk with God on a day to day basis. This has to be a good thing in principle. If there would be any dangers in such as process, it could be dealt with in the “multitude of counselors” that the group process required. On the whole I thought the process thinking and worshiping together each week had a positive impact on me and the students I served alongside a number of different pastors through the years.

The high point of such spiritual training, in my experience, occurred in the 1990s. I taught a first-quarter class called Salvation in which I plumbed the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, discovering the various ways people got right with God and how they also stayed right with God. As students confronted the claims of the biblical text there were many conversions (I would estimate 15-20) each year among pastors! This is not to imply that most pastors are not converted, but that the clarity of the Bible led these students into an entirely new walk with God, one that they themselves experienced as true conversion. I still have pastors contact me about their experience as students in that class and the profound effect it had on them.

What was specially exciting was that the first-quarter’s students were also taking a class in Spiritual Formation at the same time. In this class they explored how study, prayer and witness combines to develop a deeper and deeper relationship with God. Being deeply exposed to the biblical material (in my class) at the same time they were learning how to talk and listen to God at a deeper level provided both a stimulus and a safeguard to their walk with God. So when people started talking negatively about Spiritual Formation and by implication the Seminary, I was puzzled and quite defensive for my former colleagues. Over 25 years I had not detected one trace of spiritualism or demonic danger at the Seminary. Surely people were confused in their use of these terms.

So I was deeply interested when a book arrived on my desk entitled The Dangers of Contemplative Prayer, by Howard Peth. The book was published by Pacific Press and Hart Research Center, both entities that I trusted. It came to me without charge and a letter of endorsement from the president of Adventist-Laymen’s Services and Industries, an entity that encouraged Seventh-day Adventist lay people to integrate their faith and their professions, something that I could certainly endorse. The letter suggested that spiritual formation, contemplative prayer and the emerging church could be tools to bring satanic spiritualistic ideas into the church (quoting the prediction of Ellen White, The Great Controversy, page 588). So I took it the book projected these three elements as steps to the great end-time deception I had often written about in my books. So I determined to read the book at my first convenience. What I found there will be reviewed in future blogs. << MORE >>

Last time I discussed a quotation on the power of negative and positive thoughts and feelings. This time I’d like to discuss another quotation from Ministry of Healing, page 323, “Keep appetite under the control of reason.” This is easier said than done. For much of my life I have decided every day to be more temperate in eating, but when the food is actually in front of me, the moment takes over and I finish the day stuffed and ashamed. I have never been grossly overweight, but for much of my adult life I would have done well being 20-25 pounds (10 kilos) less than I was.

Ten years ago I began a walking program of 10,000 steps a day. (Most people walk 3-5000 steps a day just living, so that means 5-7000 extra steps each day [3-4 miles or 5-6 kilometers]). Since most of my adult life I have been too busy to either read or exercise, in October 2002 I began doing the two together! With good peripheral vision, I have been able to do this safely for more than ten years. I feel younger than when I started and my health has improved greatly. I highly recommend the program for those who can do it.

But after losing ten pounds in the first few months of the walking program I regained the weight and couldn’t break away from the rut. I knew that I needed portion control to get the weight down where it should be. But I couldn’t find the self-control to do portion control. Then a couple years ago I had a cold that killed my appetite. When the cold was over I had lost five pounds and my stomach had shrunk. I just didn’t feel like eating as much as I used to. So I decided to ride that trend and not stretch my stomach by overeating. Over a couple of years I gradually lost another 10-15 pounds (gradual is the healthiest way to do it, you don’t gain it overnight either) and have needed to shorten a number of belts. It feels good.

But lest anyone be discouraged by this, I have returned to some of my old habits and find myself eating too much too often. Thus far I haven’t gained any weight, but I’m not losing either and would like to drop about five more pounds. So I am no saint in this area and struggle as much as the next person. Hopefully my experience will be of some help and encouragement to others. Keeping the appetite under the control of reason is sure a challenge, which is why Ellen White emphasized it so much.

What are some strategies that helped me? An important one is deciding ahead of time what and how much I will eat. Buffets where you don’t know what you will encounter further down the line are usually disasters. So I’ll walk down the buffet, observe all the options and make my choices of items and quantities before I start collecting the food. If I pick things up sight unseen I always take too much and I hate throwing food away (be prepared to resist last minute suggestions/urgings from well-meaning friends/relatives/hosts).

Another strategy is to eat slowly and allow the appestat to kick in (the appestat is the feeling of fullness most people get when they have eaten enough or too much). Some people have more accurate appestats than others (exercise helps it kick in more accurately), so how long to wait in order to get this signal is an individual matter. I find when I eat a moderate amount and then stop for a few minutes, the feeling of satisfaction seeps in and I can quit more easily, before I have overdone.

Another strategy is to limit myself to one moderate-sized dessert a day. If I’ve had a dessert at lunch time, I don’t take one at supper. If I skip dessert at lunch, then I can look forward to that at supper time. If I don’t make choices like that ahead, I inevitably disappoint myself. This is an area where you have to beware the kind of social opportunities that can overturn your decision. Candy is offered in most offices these days (at least in North America) and sweets of various kinds are part of the social system in many places. So it is usually wise not to have a dessert too early in the day because you never know when a social emergency will occur!

Above all else, moderation in eating seems to go hand in hand with spiritual discipline. It is harder to connect with God when the organs of digestion are overtaxed. According to Paul, the body is God’s temple and moderation in all things can keep the spiritual channels open. Keep me in your prayers and I wish you success in your own health and spiritual goals. << MORE >>

I recently posted a quote on Facebook from one of my favorite authors saying, “It is a positive duty to resist melancholy, discontented thoughts and feelings—as much a duty as it is to pray.” Ellen G. White, Ministry of Healing, 251. Mike Hansen appreciated this quote a great deal and asked how I have applied this into my own life. I promised to share in a blog (I don’t feel Facebook lends itself well to comments of more than a paragraph).

In the mid 1970s I attended some meetings in Berrien Springs, Michigan by a pastor named Glenn Coon. He spoke about the importance of positive thinking and suggested that people who struggle with melancholy thoughts and feelings should make a list each day of ten things they are thankful for. This list should be extremely practical, including things like “air,” “water,” “the cat,” the color of the carpet, etc. When you run out of things to be thankful for (after a few days) you can pick up a dictionary and find things on every page you have never thanked God for: “Apes, Apples, Apricots, etc.” So the process can go on virtually your whole life as needed. Then you take each item and turn it into a prayer. “Thank you, Lord, for _____.” Go down the list of ten as a prayer each day or each hour as needed. It may sound silly, but it can have a profound affect on people. I know it did on my wife and I (yes, I’ve been married that long!), and we have continued practicing that off and on through the years. You can find Coon’s best book (Path to the Heart) at books.google.com/books/about/Path_to_the_Heart.html?id=3eNH88ou9ZEC Or just Google “Glenn Coon books.”

More recently a profound realization of the shortness of life has come upon me. Life is way too short to waste on non-essentials and definitely too short to waste on imagining what other people are thinking of me. I have determined to find something positive in every person and every experience. Whenever I slip from this I apologize to God (with whom I have covenanted to be a positive and uplifting influence in the world) and to the person I have mistreated if that is possible or sensible. Then get back on track.

Just yesterday I had crown preps (I was born with badly mis-shapen teeth that overbite 100% in places, meaning loads of unnatural wear) on both the upper and lower quadrant of the right side. That is about as frightful an experience as anything I could anticipate (in the negative thinking part of my mind). But instead I concentrated on the two people serving me, cracking jokes, seeking their welfare, tapping out the beat of the background music with my hand while the needle was ravaging my gums. Amazingly, it was almost a pleasant experience and I have no lingering pain this morning on the right side of my mouth. Life is too short to worry about the future, demand my way all the time, worry about what other people think (just take people at face value until they have proven they really hate you!). Comically, I was so numbed up after the procedure yesterday that I sounded drunk for a couple hours afterward!

My wife decided some months ago to write a letter of appreciation to a friend or relative every day. As a recipient of many of these letters, I can tell you that they feel real good, even though I know they are part of a project, not just the spur of the moment. But the transformation in her life has been amazing! She is more positive, more easy-going, more forgiving, more fun! (And I always liked her a whole lot
A couple of caveats. First, exercises such as the above operate at first at the cognitive (intellectual) level, controlling the way you allow yourself to think. And at that level they can have an immediate and powerful effect. But feelings are a lagging indicator. One may do positive exercises for months and longer before the feelings begin to change. So don’t get discouraged if the feelings don’t change right away, that is normal. Keep doing what you know to be right, even if it doesn’t feel different right away. Over time, the feelings will align with the words. To quote again from the same page in Ellen White: “It is a law of nature that our thoughts and feelings are encouraged and strengthened as we give them utterance. While words express thoughts, it is also true that thoughts follow words. If we would give more expression to our faith, rejoice more in the blessings that we know we have,—the great mercy and love of God,—we should have more faith and greater joy.”

Second, I realize that for many people melancholy thoughts and feelings are not simply bad habits but are rooted in chemical imbalances in the brain that require medical treatment. In such cases the above exercises by themselves will not be a cure even though they may help some. We are whole persons and when depression has a physical cause, the physical cause needs to be addressed. So while Coon’s exercises can be helpful to all, they are not the complete solution for all.

Thanks to Mike for pushing me to share this.
<< MORE >>

In addition to the massive study on ordination, the Seventh-day Adventist church is also undertaking to consider the wording of each of its 28 fundamental beliefs. With the exception of belief six (on creation) the outcome is not expected to be massive revision, omission or addition, but more an attempt to clarify language while the writers of the original list are still around to help guide the process (the Fundamental Beliefs were originally voted in the present form in 1980). The reason Fundamental Six is excepted is because the current statement does not express all the features of a second statement voted in 2004. So the task there is to reconcile the two statements, if possible, and reword the FB accordingly.

This process began a year ago with the “year of listening” in which scholars and lay people could send in suggestions for rewording any of the FBs they wished. 2012-2013 is the “year of formulation.” A committee headed by Artur Stele is considering the suggestions and working toward a first draft that is to be brought to Annual Council in the Fall of 2013. This will be followed by a “year of dialogue” with the Biblical Research Committees of the thirteen divisions and with the Biblical Research Institute Committee of the General Conference (of which I am a member). BRICOM will look at this draft in the Fall of 2013 (Andrews University) or the spring of 2014 (Loma Linda University). After the year of dialogue it is hoped that a final draft would be approved at the Annual Council in Fall of 2014, and then presented to the General Conference in session in the summer of 2015.

I have long pressed church leadership to do this. Language changes in meaning and over time the meaning of fundamental beliefs certainly changes if you don’t change them! Once fundamental beliefs become a fixed creed they can stifle learning and innovation and turn people’s eyes away from Scripture and the Holy Spirit to a dry and fixed formulation. So it is imperative that fundamentals be revisited in every generation while the individuals who wrote them are still around to explain the oral tradition behind every word that is present or absent from the formulation. Since the original formulation of the present Fundamental Beliefs was voted in 1980, we are at the far end of the generation that helped write them. If this process had waited another five years, it might have been too late. I truly hope that people who were at the heart of the process leading up to 1980 (at least three of them who are friends of mine are alive and quite sharp yet) will be involved and consulted in the course of this process.

We live in interesting times.
                    << MORE >>

Much of the information I have shared in the previous blogs was obtained at the meeting of the Biblical Research Institute Committee on October 22 and 23 at Andrews University. The chair of that committee, Artur Stele, is also chair of BRICOM. He has listened well and been extremely collaborative as chair of BRICOM; a similar performance as chair of the Theology of Ordination Study Committee will be well received, I am sure. Many questions arose from the group and his answers, and those of the four General Conference Vice-Presidents in the room, were very enlightening. I will share some of that dialogue in this blog.

One concern that was raised was whether the President of the General Conference would honor the outcome of these studies at the end. He is known to have a strong viewpoint of his own on the matter of women’s ordination. But it needs to be kept in mind that top GC leadership is as divided on this question as the divisions are from each other. The president needs to be president of all the people, not of one faction or another. Were he not to honor the outcome of all these committees he would lose all credibility with the leaders around him and could even be impeached. I personally have reason to believe the president is truly committed to the will of God working through this process, he may well prove in the end to have been the right man for this issue at this time, whatever the outcome.

The assignment to the various study committees is not simply to study the issue but to solve the issue, if that is humanly possible to do. Thus there is a broad representation of lay people, ministers and various viewpoints on the study committees. What is notably absent from the large committee is church administrators. Only the chair, secretary and one other person (out of 102) will be church administrators. So the process recognizes “the church” to be the consensus of the membership rather than a select group of leaders at the top of a hierarchy. If administrators end up ignoring this inclusive process, things will not go well.

Many local churches around the world are divided on this issue, it is not just a matter of regional differences. So church leaders need to listen to how the issue is playing out in local churches as well, not just regions. These are the kinds of things theologians and administrators normally don’t see. In the end, the matter will be “solved” only to the degree that a process and practice can be established that will truly work at the local level, maintaining unity there even in the face of diversity.

The majority of the Seventh-day Adventist membership around the world still feels that this is a biblical issue, even though the earlier studies seemed to conclude that it is not. So the current study is needed, not only to educate church leadership, but also to guide the membership as to what the Bible clearly teaches and what it does not. The outcome of all this study needs to be crafting an argument that can carry the day both worldwide and at the local church level. That argument needs to have a biblical foundation, but will likely move beyond that foundation to address the various cultures affected.

A big part of the ordination issue in the SDA Church is mistrust. People on all sides suspect that church leaders have a hidden agenda. So the process needs to be as transparent and open as possible to begin healing the lack of trust between members and the church. In the past, most of the research and study has been done in the West. People in the West are sick of study on the issue. But many or most parts of the world have not seriously studied the question, people have simply followed what they were taught or what seems right in their culture, without wrestling with the deeper issues. So the only way the world church can come together is with a worldwide study that is inclusive, transparent, biblically-based and collaborative. The post-modern mind, in both its Eastern and Western iterations, doesn’t respect hierarchy and structure. My sense is that church leadership has heard this loud and clear. They are convinced that the whole process needs to be open and transparent. They are conscious of post-modern trends and where the younger generation is going. But dissidents have proven to be much better communicators to the local church than official church leadership has. So this entire process needs to be communicated around the world in a way that engages all levels of the church.

One of the challenges, we were told, is that there are parts of the church where even if the Bible were proven to allow or even require women’s ordination, the culture would not allow it. In other words, while many parts of the church believe that it is a biblical issue, it is not simply a biblical issue. People don’t tend to change their minds on this issue on the basis of Bible study. So a final solution for the whole church will have to take culture into account. If the church cannot unify at the level of theology, it must find a way to unify at the level of policies and practices that unify rather than divide. Or so I hear.

Much of the information I have shared in the previous blogs was obtained at the meeting of the Biblical Research Institute Committee on October 22 and 23 at Andrews University. The chair of that committee, Artur Stele, is also chair of BRICOM. He has listened well and been extremely collaborative as chair of BRICOM; a similar performance as chair of the Theology of Ordination Study Committee will be well received, I am sure. Many questions arose from the group and his answers, and those of the four General Conference Vice-Presidents in the room, were very enlightening. I will share some of that dialogue in this blog.

One concern that was raised was whether the President of the General Conference would honor the outcome of these studies at the end. He is known to have a strong viewpoint of his own on the matter of women’s ordination. But it needs to be kept in mind that top GC leadership is as divided on this question as the divisions are from each other. The president needs to be president of all the people, not of one faction or another. Were he not to honor the outcome of all these committees he would lose all credibility with the leaders around him and could even be impeached. I personally have reason to believe the president is truly committed to the will of God working through this process, he may well prove in the end to have been the right man for this issue at this time, whatever the outcome.

The assignment to the various study committees is not simply to study the issue but to solve the issue, if that is humanly possible to do. Thus there is a broad representation of lay people, ministers and various viewpoints on the study committees. What is notably absent from the large committee is church administrators. Only the chair, secretary and one other person (out of 102) will be church administrators. So the process recognizes “the church” to be the consensus of the membership rather than a select group of leaders at the top of a hierarchy. If administrators end up ignoring this inclusive process, things will not go well.

Many local churches around the world are divided on this issue, it is not just a matter of regional differences. So church leaders need to listen to how the issue is playing out in local churches as well, not just regions. These are the kinds of things theologians and administrators normally don’t see. In the end, the matter will be “solved” only to the degree that a process and practice can be established that will truly work at the local level, maintaining unity there even in the face of diversity.

The majority of the Seventh-day Adventist membership around the world still feels that this is a biblical issue, even though the earlier studies seemed to conclude that it is not. So the current study is needed, not only to educate church leadership, but also to guide the membership as to what the Bible clearly teaches and what it does not. The outcome of all this study needs to be crafting an argument that can carry the day both worldwide and at the local church level. That argument needs to have a biblical foundation, but will likely move beyond that foundation to address the various cultures affected.

A big part of the ordination issue in the SDA Church is mistrust. People on all sides suspect that church leaders have a hidden agenda. So the process needs to be as transparent and open as possible to begin healing the lack of trust between members and the church. In the past, most of the research and study has been done in the West. People in the West are sick of study on the issue. But many or most parts of the world have not seriously studied the question, people have simply followed what they were taught or what seems right in their culture, without wrestling with the deeper issues. So the only way the world church can come together is with a worldwide study that is inclusive, transparent, biblically-based and collaborative. The post-modern mind, in both its Eastern and Western iterations, doesn’t respect hierarchy and structure. My sense is that church leadership has heard this loud and clear. They are convinced that the whole process needs to be open and transparent. They are conscious of post-modern trends and where the younger generation is going. But dissidents have proven to be much better communicators to the local church than official church leadership has. So this entire process needs to be communicated around the world in a way that engages all levels of the church.

One of the challenges, we were told, is that there are parts of the church where even if the Bible were proven to allow or even require women’s ordination, the culture would not allow it. In other words, while many parts of the church believe that it is a biblical issue, it is not simply a biblical issue. People don’t tend to change their minds on this issue on the basis of Bible study. So a final solution for the whole church will have to take culture into account. If the church cannot unify at the level of theology, it must find a way to unify at the level of policies and practices that unify rather than divide. Or so I hear. << MORE >>

Having looked into “the horse’s mouth,” I believe I have a clearer understanding of the current study process on ordination than I did from reading official explanations in the Adventist Review, Adventist World and other information outlets. Here’s what I learned from people at the very center of the process (although I am sure I have filtered some of that through my own perspective).

The purpose of the ordination study process is to take a decentralized approach. Not only will there be a Theology of Ordination Study Committee of 102 individuals at the world church level (General Conference), but each of the thirteen official divisions of the General Conference has been asked to form a Biblical Research Committee to study the issue more locally. At first I was concerned that these committees have relatively few biblical scholars and instead are filled will pastors, lay people, etc., many of which I had never heard of. But in the light of the previous blog, this approach makes sense. If you have drawn the conclusion that the Bible does not give a final word on women’s ordination, then you need to go worldwide and multi-disciplinary to bring in the full weight of evidence, both in and outside the Bible. Where the Bible is not clear, theology needs to take a wider base of evidence into account, including the movings of the Spirit, in weighing the will of God for today. Truth for today should be grounded in the biblical teachings but cannot be limited to them.  

Another reason for the localized biblical research committees is that there was the sense that division presidents did not always rightly represent the position of their fields in saying, “Our field is in favor of women’s ordination (or against it).” Having broad representation on the BRCs will clarify exactly where and why the church takes the position it does in each part of the world. The division committees can also address the issue in terms of the full range of biblical and non-biblical evidence that carries weight in that part of the world. So the study approach will be truly decentralized, thirteen committees that could well come to two, three or even thirteen different conclusions at the end of their study. Each committee is also to be multi-disciplinary in the sense that there will be subgroups who specialize in OT, NT, history and Ellen White, as a minimum. As the thirteen BRCs dialogue with the subgroups and the members in their parts of the world, the intent is that the larger group at the GC will dialogue back and forth with the smaller groups. This dialogue will allow cross-fertilization of understanding among regions of the world and multiple disciplines.

Furthermore, there was a specific intent that all points of view and interest groups would be fairly represented. Inclusion on the GC committee seems more grounded in prominence on the specific issue rather than stature as a theologian in general. So the GC committee has on it Dwight Nelson and Doug Batchelor, prominent pastor/evangelists who have aggressively taken the opposite positions on the issue. From the Seminary the GC drew both Gerard Damsteegt and Darius Jankiewicz, who have spoken aggressively and publically on opposite sides of the issue. Of the 102 members of the GC committee roughly 30 will be women, including women on both sides of the issue. While that may not be the 50/50 ratio that might be preferred, it is clear that women of all kinds will have a prominent voice in the outcome.

The intent of the study process is that these committees will draw conclusions not on the basis of majority vote, but will attempt to reach consensus on as many points as possible and report all points of agreement as such. Where they fail to attain consensus, there will be double or multiple reports. Where there are more than one report, it is requested that the report also offer solutions as to how church policy should navigate the issue in the face of such disagreement. So the goal of the study process is not simply a clearer theology of ordination and the role of women in the church, but actual policies and procedures that can implement that theology in the context of a complex world.

The goals of the study process are four:
1) Develop an Adventist theology of ordination. This theology is separate from the issue of women. What does the Bible actually teach in regard to ordination? What is it? What difference does it make? Is it ontological (creates a real change in the person) or functional (he or she speaks for us), or both?
2) It is hoped that a consensus could be reached on the general theology of ordination first. Before addressing the role of women it would be helpful to be clear on exactly what ordination is and why it is important (or not). If a consensus can be reached here, it will help the next steps greatly.
3) Develop a theology of the role of women in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. If a consensus can be reached on this, great, but more likely there will be two or more positions, each with its own arguments. Those positions and the arguments will all be reported. The intended outcome will not be a majority vote, but rather positions and the arguments for those positions will be assembled and weighed.
4) If there is no consensus on number 3, each committee is to provide solutions for how the church can work together in the face of disagreement. These solutions are to be practical, seeking consensus on policy and practice, even where it cannot be achieved on the basis of theology.

The goal is a report on the four conclusions to be made by June 2014 to be considered at the Annual Council in the Fall of 2014. To achieve this goal, the GC study committee is to meet in January and July of 2013 and in January and May of 2014. I understand that seven scholars are already working on the first task, the theology of ordination, to be considered in January of 2013, with the goal of consensus at the July 2013 meeting, if possible. Should consensus be obtained, the focus will move to women’s ordination in the latter half of 2013. << MORE >>

As mentioned in the previous blog, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has studied the issue of women’s ordination at least twice before. One time was in the 1970s and the other was in relation to the General Conferences of 1990 and 1995. These earlier studies were largely done by biblical scholars and theologians with representation from church administrators. The overall outcome of these studies is that the Bible neither requires nor forbids women being ordained. It simply does not address the issue directly. Nowhere in the Bible does the question appear, “Should women be ordained?” There is no, clear, single passage the clearly addresses the issue one way or the other. In fact, it is not at all clear that the concept of “ordination” itself as generally practiced has a biblical basis. So the arguments both for and against women’s ordination are exegetically defensible in that they do not contradict the plain exegetical meaning of the text. Protagonists string together chosen texts and give them extended meanings in order to make their points. So each side can criticize the weakness of the evidence on the other side, but neither side’s evidence is exegetically compelling, in other words, so clear that it cannot be reasonably refuted.

Given those realities the church went ahead and allowed women to be ordained as elders in the 1970s and more recently created a “commissioning” service for female pastors that is ordination in everything but the name. So the current reality is that in much of the world women in the Adventist Church function as elders and pastors without any clear distinction in roles, even though the terminology (ordination vs. commission) is different. In these parts of the world the younger generation in particular can make no sense out of the church’s position. Hence the drive in these areas to either “ordain” women formally or “de-commission” men so that all would be equal in status as well as role.

So unless further biblical study should conclusively prove one side (ordaining women to any headship role forbidden) or the other (ordaining men and women equally in all relevant roles) to be the clear teaching of the Bible, there are two further things that need to be done. Study needs to be done worldwide and it needs to be multi-disciplinary. In other words, if the biblical conclusion is not decisive, we need to explore how to handle the situation by other means. Worldwide mean to include in the study people from all over the world. We would seek to understand how ordaining or not ordaining women would impact the church in various cultures and legal systems. A multi-disciplinary study means including pastors, lay people, behavioral scientists, working women, housewives, historians as well as administrators and scholar. We need to include anyone whose life and education can help the church clarify the impact women’s ordination would have in any particular part of the world. And the ambiguity of the Bible on this question certainly leaves open the possibility or even likelihood that one size will not fit all. It may turn out that ordaining women would be damaging to the church in some parts of the world and not ordaining them would be equally damaging in other parts of the world.

As I understand the current study process (which I will outline in future blogs, based on direct contact with sources at the center of things), it is not simply a replication of earlier work. It truly takes a more comprehensive and decentralized approach than any previous study. Patience may be hard to come by right now on either side. Yet there is a real chance that the outcome of this process may be more conclusive than previous studies. And hopefully it will point the way to an understanding and practice that will meet local as well as universal needs.
<< MORE >>

These have been exciting times for the Seventh-day Adventist Church (if you are not an Adventist you can either skip this blog or see if anything in it sounds familiar where you live). Three regional church entities (called “unions”) felt compelled to move ahead of the rest of the church to ordain women to the gospel ministry. From what I can observe, these actions were not done with rebellious intentions, rather leaders and people felt driven by the Spirit to take a stand on an issue that is contentious for very different reasons in the global west (which includes Europe and Australia) and the global south. There was a desire to maintain unity in the church even in the midst of an action that could certainly appear rebellious. And the actions of leadership in at least two of the unions were endorsed by overwhelming popular support (roughly 80/20) from representatives of the full membership of those unions.

The world church, not surprisingly, was appalled at the independent action. Since more than 80% of the church’s membership lies outside the “west” church leaders cannot ignore actions that seem in defiance of the majority. So threats of disciplinary action were made toward the three unions, action that would be taken at the Annual Council of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, which met earlier this month. While I was not present, I do have a number of contacts that I trust and the things I am hearing are so remarkable that I could not resist sharing them with my blogsite friends.

As I hear it, there was a strong focus on prayer at the Annual Council and also much study of Acts 15. The passage was very relevant to the situation of the Annual Council. Let me explain. In Acts 15 a church council was called to study how to deal with the expanding gospel work among the Gentiles. Up until this point, the church was essentially a sect within Judaism. You had to be a Jew in order to follow Jesus. But Peter, one of the twelve disciples, had recently baptized Cornelius, a Roman officer, and his household without first converting them to Judaism. Then Paul and Barnabas made a tour of Asia Minor and didn’t just stop with synagogues, but converted many pagans to Jesus without circumcizing them or making them become Jewish in any way. So the great question faced by the council was: Does a Gentile have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian? After much debate and testimonies of the Spirit’s leading among the Gentiles, the council concluded that Gentiles could come to Jesus without becoming Jews first, but they should adopt certain Jewish practices that would enable them to fellowship with Jews in the same congregations. It was decided that the pre-emptive actions were in fact guided by the Spirit and that unity could allow some diversity in culture and practice.

The issue at this Annual Council essentially was: Does the unity of the church allow diversity in matters of policy as important as the ordination of women? Does unity in spirit require uniformity of action in relation to ordination? The study of the situation in Acts 15 had powerful effects, as I hear it. Leadership on all sides of the issue of women’s ordination were brought together in a sense of unity. They agreed that it was important to be of one mind, but that the one mind did not require uniformity of action in all things. Acts 15 suggested to them that decisions are best made by all coming together and deciding together, but those unified decisions would not necessarily require the same outcomes for every region or every culture. This conclusion was a major step for many representatives that were used to a single policy book for all regions. It is a marvelous thing when decision-making is driven by Scripture rather than the other way around. And the resulting action (which can be viewed in many places on the internet) was carefully crafted not to throw anyone under the bus, but to allow the process to continue and to seek reconciliation among all parties affected. To me it seems like a Solomon’s choice that was the best reasonable outcome at this stage of the “conflict.”

Perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, the world church had already decided in 2010 to engage in a five-year study of the issue of ordination as a whole and the related issue of women. Many have wondered why such a process was suggested when so much study has already been done in the past. Had there not been much previous study, the three unions would not have moved ahead in advance of this new study. But there are interesting reasons for such a study to be undertaken at this time and those reasons will be the substance of the following blog(s). << MORE >>

The other day I was reading chapter 17 (“The Use of Remedies”) of the book Ministry of Healing, by Ellen G. White. I came across the following bold statement and others like it. “Disease never comes without a cause. The way is prepared, and disease invited, by disregard of the laws of health. Many suffer in consequence of the transgression of their parents. While they are not responsible for what their parents have done, it is nevertheless their duty to ascertain what are and what are not violations of the laws of health. They should avoid the wrong habits of their parents and, by correct living, place themselves in better conditions.” (Ministry of Healing, 234)

If I could summarize the whole chapter, the message is: Disease never comes without a cause. Disease is invited by disregard of the laws of health, either by the individual, or through inheritance from the parents. Among the causes of disease are intemperate eating, overwork, inactivity, and excessive mental labor. Among the best remedies for disease are carefulness in diet, the proper use of water and physical exercise.

A very important principle needs to be reiterated here. Ellen White makes many strong, prophetic statements such as “If we carefully preserve the life force, . . . the result is health.” Yet we have all experienced what seems like the opposite in the lives of those we associate with. Some who live impeccable lives in relation to the laws of health die young and others who smoke, drink and carouse live to be a hundred. So statements like the above are best read along the lines of the Proverbs in the Bible. In Proverbs, “all other things being equal,” the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer. If all other things are equal, to be righteous will lead to better outcomes than to be wicked. But things are not always equal in this life. There are other factors in play beside obedience or disobedience to the laws of health. “All other things being equal,” the health counsels of Ellen White produce better health outcomes, but in a sinful world, things are not always equal. There is always the danger that we will pass judgment on others on the basis of their health outcomes. Such use of Ministry of Healing is really a misuse.

There is also the principle of individuality. General principles such as one finds in Ministry of Healing work in the majority of cases, but followers of Ellen White’s counsel are encouraged to study themselves and understand what things are beneficial and harmful to them personally, and that is a knowledge that usually does not come from direct inspiration, but rather from careful study and observation.

Ellen White herself points to these qualifiers in the very last sentence of the chapter: “In most cases (italics supplied) if they would eat temperately, and take cheerful, healthful exercise, they would recover health and would save time and money.” (240)

It needs to be understood that in inspiration God meets people where they are. That means that in communicating truth, God uses the language, cultural concepts and scientific limitations of the prophet’s time to articulate and explain that truth. Thus Ellen White’s explanations of health principles may at times express information that cannot be validated scientifically today or may even seem flat-out incorrect. But that is not surprising when one sees how God communicated with the biblical prophets. God does not always disabuse people of their scientific or philosophical oddities, but communicates the truth they need for salvation in terms they can understand. There is a similar process at work in Ellen White’s writings.
<< MORE >>

 A couple of weeks just before bedtime our 15 ½ year old cat Snooper dashed out the front door that had been unintentionally left ajar. Since we have many coyotes in the area, the situation was critical, he certainly could not run away or defend himself effectively. His way younger and more agile colleague Velvet (who had also dashed out the same door) mysterious appeared outside my daughter’s bedroom window around 1 AM meowing to get back in. The strange thing about it is that my daughter’s bedroom is on the second floor, so Velvet had somehow gotten up on the garage roof even though there are no trees near the house. The only reasonable access would have required her to perch on top of the fence dividing the side of the yard from the front and project herself about six feet (almost two meters) into the air and land on slanted, slippery ceramic tiles. Sounds Olympian! How she got up there remains a mystery.

Despite our efforts and posters around town no trace of Snooper was found for 48 hours. As we went to bed that night, we basically gave up hope for his survival unless some neighbor had taken him in and didn't notice the posters. My wife was sobbing in my arms as she came to grips with the likelihood that life would have to go on without Snooper. Around 11 PM my son was doing whatever he does on the computer when he began missing Snooper terribly. He went into prayer mode and pleaded with God for a miracle. Feeling impressed while still praying to check outside the front door he went out and Snooper ran up to him immediately, hardly the worse for wear, except a little slimmer. Shouts of joy rang all over the house and I have a twenty-six year old son who has a renewed faith in a gracious God.

How does such a story make you feel? Grateful to God like my son? Indifferent? Suspicious? Angry that the last time you prayed for something you really wanted or needed nothing happened? I work in a medical center environment. A couple hundred meters from my office people are dying every day and many heartfelt prayer requests are daily denied. Does God value Snooper more than any of them? Should I even have told this story or should I just have kept my mouth (keyboard?) shut? Was Snooper’s disappearance such a trivial matter that the timing wouldn't upset the space/time continuum of the universe, so God went ahead and intervened? (See my blog a couple years or so ago entitled “Does God Answer Only Trivial Prayers?”) Was my son's faith or lack of it just so precious to God that He couldn't help Himself? What about all the sick and dying people whose desperate cries seem to get no further than the ceiling?

It seems to me that the core of the issue is this: Some or most Christians have had one or more experiences of major disappointment with God. I know I have had at least two or three, depending on the definition of “major.” But some or most Christians have also experienced times in their lives when remarkable things seem to have happened or ordinary things happened with remarkable timing, as in the case of Snooper’s return. How does one hold both of these things together in one’s picture of God? How does one cope with horrendous evils in one’s own experience?

One option is to believe that God is real, but by and large does not intervene in the affairs of everyday life. God offers a healing presence in the midst of general non-intervention. Whatever the truth of this, as a coping mechanism it makes a lot of sense to me. And it has on its side the relative rarity of the stupendous miracle in the Bible (basically three short eras over some 1500 years: the time of the Exodus, the time of Elijah and Elisha and the time of Jesus and the apostles).

The other option is to believe that God is a heavenly parent who loves to give good gifts to her children whenever that would do them no harm, but often has to say No to their fondest desires for reasons the children could not even begin to understand. This has on its side the saying of Jesus in Matthew 7:7-11, among others.

It seems to me that each of these views can easily be carried to an extreme. If a person has tasted deeply of the disappointment side of relationship with God, there is the danger of refusing to see what everyone else can see. Where a person’s life has been fairly sheltered there is the danger of seeing things that are not there. But at their core I would see both of the above options as valid responses to the ambiguity resident in the way life confronts us with both pain and beauty.

The powerful takeaway of this discussion for me is a renewed awareness of how painful our recountings of God’s leading in our lives can be for those who have experienced different. In the ultimate sense, I really don’t know if God intervened to shelter Snooper from the wild animals, feed him like Elijah, and bring him home just as my son began to pray or if it all was a just blessed coincidence. I don’t want my words to take away the non-intervention of God that some need in order to manage reality, neither do I want to crush the spirit of anyone whose experience of God’s intervention is at the core of their faith. It is so easy in church for people to glibly talk about remarkable interventions of God in trivial matters, which a silent minority wonders at what seems an arbitrary and capricious God. I do know, however, that my son’s faith was strengthened by the remarkable timing, so I am grateful and await the time when all of our questions will be answered.

May even the kindest words of my mouth cause no unnecessary pain. May the wisdom of the Spirit be upon my mouth and my “pen.” << MORE >>

It is a huge privilege to write anything that will be published in 15 million copies and nearly 20 languages. The Sabbath School Adult Study Guides are examined all over the world on a weekly basis and provide an amazing opportunity for a worldwide community to hang together in a context that is trying to tear us all apart. So it is not surprising that the editorial process is as intense as it is, with a smaller editorial committee in Silver Spring, Maryland and a reading group of some 250, all of whom can influence the decisions an editor makes. The final product is intended for the maximum good of as many people as possible and to do the least amount of harm (no easy thing when you consider the hundreds of cultural and ethnic groups affected by the lesson. These goals are probably easier to achieve with an exegetical-style study such as mine and the Galatians quarterly of last year. Unity is easier to achieve when everyone is reading the same source text. But in a topical study the writer and the editor have a lot more freedom to bring their own knowledge, creativity, pride and prejudice into the content and thus bring unintentional distortion into the message God might be trying to bring to the same community at that very time. It is a task that comes with a great amount of stress and responsibility.

Analyzing the editorial changes in the Sabbath School Adult Study Guides has been a fascinating experience. It has at times provided a window into the current mindset and concerns of church leadership. The proliferation of many ideas in the church and the perceived disrespect toward the Scriptures on the part of "more liberal" members causes leaders to become defensive about the authority and the integrity of the Bible and up to a point this is good and necessary. But taken to an extreme it can breed the very reaction it seeks to counter. If people get the impression that a study is "whitewashed" and demands that one’s power of reason and choice needs to be shut off in order to follow God, many will begin looking at alternatives that seem more authentic and more in touch with reality.

I have gained an increasing respect for the challenges in the process and the quality of the work that the editor does. While there were a multitude of changes, most of them a few words here and there, a sentence or two here and there, the basic integrity of my initial draft was respected almost 100% and many of the changes either corrected errors I unintentionally introduced or greatly improved the final product. So while some writers have felt that their efforts were largely ignored in the process of editing, or that the outcome was "unrecognizable," that has not been the case with my quarterly. It’s still mine on the whole and I hope above all else that the letters of Paul were highlighted more than my scholarly or writing skills. I take my hat off to Cliff Goldstein, who is navigating treacherous waters and doing so with a sensitivity to many constituencies and conflicting pressures. If anyone complains that the lessons are terrible, he will say, "Write me a better one!" When I have visited him in his office, his hair is nearly always messed up, and that is largely on account of the frustration that working with many manuscripts causes him. On more than one occasion he and his staff have virtually started from scratch in spite of a manuscript someone worked long and hard to produce. On occasion they have had to toss a manuscript at a late stage as unredeemable and find an old one to edit and update or start over. It’s not an easy process.

What would I do if I were in Goldstein’s place? Here I will put my hand over my mouth and let you in on a dirty little secret. In 1998 I was invited by the then General Conference President to be the editor of the Sabbath School Study Guide. I wrestled long and hard with the opportunity and declined a month later. I still don’t know if that was the right thing to do, but my family and I could not bring ourselves to make the move at that time. Shortly after that Cliff’s name was announced, so I failed the "put up or shut up" moment of opportunity. So I believe I owe it to him to be as supportive as I can possibly be, knowing that he is dealing with dynamics and pressures that I can only begin to imagine from a distance. I had a chance to do what he is doing and declined. So now the right thing to do is to encourage him and from time to time send a manuscript that might make his life a little easier. I hope the final product was a blessing to you and made the Word of God a little plainer than it was before. I want to give a quick word of appreciation to Gayle Foster of Loma Linda, California, whose editorial skills helped make my original manuscript as clear and impactful as possible. No writing is entirely the product of one person and much of the good in my quarterly was shaped by her.

End of series.

<< MORE >>

Basic theme: Tradition

This week the titles are all mine. Sabbath Afternoon, however, contains major changes. The key thought, again, completely replaced mine, which was "At the Second Coming, God will rescue his saints in spectacular fashion from the affliction of those who have rejected the gospel." No big difference in principle. The content of that page was fairly heavily edited and shortened, but retained the basic flavor of the original. There is a major addition in the last two lines of paragraph one ("The Seventh-day. . . . never forget"). I suspect the first of those two sentences will be a little controversial, but I didn’t write them so the editor will have to explain himself.

The first paragraph on Sunday is mine and so is the question below it. The last sentence of the question was added by the editor. The content of that day is mine except for two things, the word "doctrines" replaces "traditions" and the last line of paragraph two was added. The questions at the bottom of the page replace mine and one paragraph of content was left out: "Those who have been saved have reason to stand by the teachings of the past, as they rightly fear the loss of what they already have. Openness to new truth is an important value but cannot be embraced if it means abandoning the salvation that has already been received."

On Monday my wording was largely retained, but some things were dropped an a number added. The editorial additions were the last two thirds of the last sentence of paragraph one, the last sentence of paragraph two and the last third of the last sentence in paragraph four. The things dropped do not affect things much. Both sets of questions in this page replace mine, but are fine.

On Tuesday the questions at the bottom replace mine, and the word "truth" replaces "tradition" at the end of the question in the middle. Otherwise the changes are minor.

On Wednesday everything is mine except a very small deletion in paragraph four, I added the words "church and state" after "efforts." The bolded questions at the bottom replace mine and are great, in my opinion. On Thursday the entire page is mine except some light editing in paragraph three. My question at the bottom were dropped for space reasons.

On Friday the Ellen White quotes are mine, the first question was reworded and questions two and three replaced mine, a great improvement in my opinion. The summary at the end largely replaced mine, which I share here: "Our passage for the week highlights two major challenges in keeping a church faithful to God. First, the church must learn how to preserve the best of its past while adapting to the changing requirements of the present and the future. Second, the church must be able to recognize when the behavior of members threatens its integrity. This week’s lesson brings us to the conclusion of this quarter. The two letters of Paul to the Thessalonians have taught us a great deal about how to be a church in a difficult urban environment. We can look forward to the day when we will meet up with Paul and the Thessalonian believers in the great Sabbath School of eternity." So this last week’s lesson is about as edit-free as any.

For those teaching the lesson this quarter, there are a number of extra helps I have prepared.

1) A 13-part TV series on Thessalonians with my pastor, Jon Ciccarelli, on 3ABN. The series is called "Books of the Book" and is shown about six times a week. I don’t know how many of the weekly showings will be on Thessalonians this quarter, but you can check the station’s web site or contact them directly.

2) I taught the lessons to a class of about 50 and they were recorded in advance of this quarter by the Pine Knoll organization. You can get them on CD or MP3 or download at pineknoll.org. You can also access them at thebattleofarmageddon.com. Great class, very active.

3) I recorded 13 audio lectures with The Ambassador Group. These are available at their web site and also can be accessed at thebattleofarmageddon.com. It can also be purchased at amazon.com.

4) I wrote a companion book to go along with the quarterly, Letters to the Thessalonians, published by Pacific Press. It is available at Adventist Book Centers and the corresponding web sites. It should be available on Amazon, but at last check did not yet seem to be.

For those who don’t have access to the printed edition of the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide for this quarter, you can access it online week by week at http://ssnet.org/study-guides/.

<< MORE >>

Basic theme: Knowledge (Prophetic)

This week I was in for a delightful surprise. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is by far the toughest passage in both letters to understand and interpret. I truly expected a lot of things to be changed, but it was instead the lesson that possibly had the fewest changes. So that was gratifying and will make this blog shorter than the previous one by quite a bit.

All titles are my own this week except Thursday’s. My title for Thursday was "It’s All About the Gospel." Either title works for that passage. On Sabbath Afternoon the key thought was heavily rewritten, mine was "Mistaken views of the End-time can do a great deal of damage. Paul the pastor tries to correct the Thessalonian picture of the End." In the content part of that page, the first paragraph was added by the editor, the second rewritten and the third was mine. My first and last paragraphs were cut. They had focused on the structure of the passage and its relationship to First Thessalonians.

In Sunday’s lesson I had written three exploration questions. The editor combined them into one. The rest of that day is mine. On Monday the editor added the last question in the middle of the page and replaced my question at the bottom. The content is all mine, but a couple of things were left out for space reasons. The most important sentence left out was at the bottom of paragraph two: "But our lack of understanding of what he left out in the letter (2:5) makes the following verses (2:6-12) very difficult for us to interpret." There seemed to be a reluctance to admit that 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is quite challenging to interpret.

On Tuesday the last sentence in the question at the top was added, the middle question was lightly edited and the question at the bottom was replaced. The content on the page is entirely mine, but a significant paragraph was left out. "Who is the restrainer/power of restraint? There are two main options that fit fairly well with this passage. First, the restrainer could be the Emperor/Roman Empire of Paul’s day. The empire was constantly restraining forces that would have hindered Paul’s ministry. When the empire collapsed it opened the way for the medieval papacy. But was the Roman Empire powerful enough to restrain Satan?" The Roman Empire interpretation of the Restrainer is quite popular among Protestant scholars and supports a papacy interpretation of the man of sin, so its complete omission was a bit puzzling.

On Wednesday the opening question was revised and improved, the middle question lightly edited and the bottom replaced. I kind of like mine, however: "Martin Luther once suggested that the pope he feared the most was ‘Pope Self.’ How relevant is this kind of application to the world in which we live today?" The content on the page was all mine with the exception of the helpful long parenthesis in the first paragraph. The following was left off at the bottom: "But there is good news. His desperate action will fail. His henchmen will be destroyed at Jesus’ return. And for a thousand years Satan will be left to ponder the mess that sin has made of this world."

On Thursday the opening question was mine and the stuff at the bottom replaced mine. The content was pretty much mine except for an omission related to the Roman Empire again: "Perhaps the two options offered in Tuesday’s lesson are both right. The Roman Empire interpretation of the restrainer/power of restraint follows the pattern of Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 in identifying the historical face of apostasy."

On Friday the Ellen White quotes are all mine and the summary is lightly edited and shortened. My Discussion Questions were all replaced, but I really like the ones the editor put in, so on the whole I feel the editor improved this lesson (a big admission from someone who doesn’t like changes in his writing).

For those teaching the lesson this quarter, there are a number of extra helps I have prepared.

1) A 13-part TV series on Thessalonians with my pastor, Jon Ciccarelli, on 3ABN. The series is called "Books of the Book" and is shown about six times a week. I don’t know how many of the weekly showings will be on Thessalonians this quarter, but you can check the station’s web site or contact them directly.

2) I taught the lessons to a class of about 50 and they were recorded in advance of this quarter by the Pine Knoll organization. You can get them on CD or MP3 or download at pineknoll.org. You can also access them at thebattleofarmageddon.com. Great class, very active.

3) I recorded 13 audio lectures with The Ambassador Group. These are available at their web site and also can be accessed at thebattleofarmageddon.com. It can also be purchased at amazon.com.

4) I wrote a companion book to go along with the quarterly, Letters to the Thessalonians, published by Pacific Press. It is available at Adventist Book Centers and the corresponding web sites. It should be available on Amazon, but at last check did not yet seem to be.

For those who don’t have access to the printed edition of the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide for this quarter, you can access it online week by week at http://ssnet.org/study-guides/.

<< MORE >>

Basic theme: Patience

This week’s analysis was an interesting experience. It included the day’s lesson with the most massive changes and a couple with just a trim or two to make it fit the space. Overall, the common theme was that I highlighted the human side of Scripture, things like variations in biblical manuscripts and the use of metaphors like "wrath" in relation to God. Church leadership is probably gun shy right now about things that were taken for granted fifty years ago because there is an increasing tendency in parts of the world to literalize the Bible. In a "sound-bite world" the pious are all too prone to accept superficial readings of selected proof texts as if they provided the full, accurate and complete message of Scripture. And it is an aggressive movement that can quickly try to sideline those who stand in the way. I have felt the potential of their sting. Yet I will not back down on this issue, because if we ignore any clear evidence of Scripture, even with the most pious of intentions, we have distorted the meaning of the biblical text. Even in the darkness of the Middle Ages, many who martyred the saints genuinely believed that they were safeguarding the reputation of God and the truth about Him. Jesus even predicted this trend: "The hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God" (John 16:2). I know that Cliff is fully aware of these things, but he has a large and vocal constituency that needs to be considered in every edit. In light of this, I think he is navigating those waters with amazing skill. But here you get tipped off on the changes that may occur as a result. If you want to go more deeply into these issues, see my book on biblical interpretation, The Deep Things of God, available as part of the book download at the web store on this site.

All titles are my own this week. On Sabbath Afternoon the key thought, again, completely replaced mine, which was "At the Second Coming, God will rescue his saints in spectacular fashion from the affliction of those who have rejected the gospel." No big difference in principle. The content of that page was fairly heavily edited and shortened, but retained the basic flavor of the original.

Sunday’s lesson involved the largest changes of any day’s lesson so far. It started right at the top where my question focused on the textual differences between the openings of First and Second Thessalonians, which highlighted the humanness of Scripture. I will simply include in the paragraph below the material that was replaced or left out.

"Compare 2 Thessalonians 1:1-2 with 1 Thessalonians 1:1. Note the similarity between these two letter openings and then list everything that is different. If possible, use a variety of translations as you make your comparison.

Paul had certain habitual ways of expressing things. Among them is the style with which he greeted people in his letters. The opening of Second Thessalonians is almost identical to the opening of First Thessalonians (see week four’s lesson).

There are literally thousands of hand-written copies of the New Testament available. These were produced from the Second Century on until the invention of printing in the Fifteenth Century. They come in two main types. In the first few centuries manuscripts were written in block capital letters. During the Middle Ages, on the other hand, they were generally written in a flowing (cursive) style of handwriting.

All of these manuscripts agree on the wording of 2 Thessalonians 1:1-2. But in First Thessalonians, the earlier manuscripts generally leave out the phrase at the end: "From God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Scholars of the Greek text of the New Testament, therefore, face a dilemma. Did Paul originally open both letters with the extra phrase (in which case some scribes dropped the phrase in First Thessalonians but not in Second Thessalonians)? Or did well-meaning scribes try to harmonize the two texts by adding the "missing" element to the opening of First Thessalonians?

Ancient copyists of Scripture had a high regard for the material they were copying. What errors they made, and they are generally quite few, were rarely malicious. They were normally a consequence of a well-intentioned regard for accuracy. So most New Testament scholars consider the short form of First Thessalonians original."

The first content paragraph on Sunday was inserted, to fit with the new question. The second question and second content paragraph are what is left of my original lesson for the day and is as I wrote it. The question at the bottom, not surprisingly, replaces mine.

On Monday things are quite different. The first paragraph is mine, and the first question is a helpful refocusing of my original question. The second through fourth paragraphs are mine with minimal reductions. The fifth content paragraph is mine, but with a significant reduction: "Either their persecution was more severe than most, or the way that they responded to it was unique among the churches Paul worked with. (see 1 Thess. 1:6-7)." The question at the bottom is a rewording of mine.

On Tuesday the first paragraph was mine but the question below it was a simplification of mine. The rest of the content paragraphs were mine with some shortening. The questions at the bottom are way better than my original, so I’m super pleased with how this day turned out. Wednesday’s revisions were also minimal and very helpful. The second question at the top was added and so were the last two sentences of the first content paragraph. The second full paragraph was heavily reworded but I liked the changes. The second question set was new but drawn from text of mine that was left out in the editing of the content. The two paragraphs at the bottom are considerably edited but fine, in my opinion.

On Thursday the two Scriptural questions and the first four paragraphs are completely mine. The fifth paragraph was heavily edited and somewhat shortened. The final questions replace mine. I can live with the whole. On Friday the Ellen White quotes are mine, but the editor left out the first paragraph of 1 SM 21: ""Some look to us gravely and say, ‘Don’t you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators [of the Bible]?’ This is all probable, and the mind that is so narrow that it will hesitate and stumble over this possibility or probability would be just as ready to stumble over the mysteries of the Inspired Word, because their feeble minds cannot see through the purposes of God. . . . All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth. . . ." This had to do with textual criticism and parallels the major omission in Sunday’s lesson. Good, consistent editorial practice. The last sentence of the summary was added to my words. The first question was mine and the second was mine but reworded. Questions three and four replaced mine, for what it’s worth: "Do you relate to God the Father and Jesus Christ differently? Why? How do the life and teachings of Jesus change the way we look at God?"

So what do you think of all these editorial changes? Improvement as compared to mine or an opportunity missed?

For those teaching the lesson this quarter, there are a number of extra helps I have prepared.

1) A 13-part TV series on Thessalonians with my pastor, Jon Ciccarelli, on 3ABN. The series is called "Books of the Book" and is shown about six times a week. I don’t know how many of the weekly showings will be on Thessalonians this quarter, but you can check the station’s web site or contact them directly.

2) I taught the lessons to a class of about 50 and they were recorded in advance of this quarter by the Pine Knoll organization. You can get them on CD or MP3 or download at pineknoll.org. You can also access them at thebattleofarmageddon.com. Great class, very active.

3) I recorded 13 audio lectures with The Ambassador Group. These are available at their web site and also can be accessed at thebattleofarmageddon.com. It can also be purchased at amazon.com.

4) I wrote a companion book to go along with the quarterly, Letters to the Thessalonians, published by Pacific Press. It is available at Adventist Book Centers and the corresponding web sites. It should be available on Amazon, but at last check did not yet seem to be.

For those who don’t have access to the printed edition of the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide for this quarter, you can access it online week by week at http://ssnet.org/study-guides/.

<< MORE >>

Basic theme: Balance

Oddly enough, this is the week that seems to have been the most controversial of all the lessons I wrote. You will note my theme above: balance. You won’t find a hint of that theme in the edited lesson, so this week there were significant conceptual changes, although adherence to the text means the final outcome is not that different from my original, but for the elimination of what I found to be the central theme. Having grumped a bit, let me give Cliff a high five for catching another error of mine. For some reason I concluded the book with verse 27. While verse 28 is a pro forma ending that would be easy to overlook, it does exist! So Cliff is up two to one in the creating/fixing errors contest. He has created one and fixed two, so he is one up on me (I created more errors than he did).

All titles are my own this week, except for the change from 27 to 28 in the text reference on Sabbath and Thursday. On Sabbath Afternoon the key thought, not surprisingly, completely replaced mine, which was "Ultimately, the Church of God in its universal form is no stronger than the chain of local churches around the world." No huge loss there. The rest of the day’s lesson was mine, but shortened somewhat so the editor could add the last two sentences at the bottom.

On Sunday the first paragraph is mine, but the question related to 1 Thess 5:12-13 was completely reworded. The first paragraph below the question was also mine except the last sentence, which was heavily reworded. The two paragraphs above the question at the bottom are mine, but a significant paragraph in my original was left out: "What Paul writes here applies to every Christian, including pastors that work in a church structure. Church life involves a constant tension between honoring those who lead you in love and a healthy resistance toward those who use positions of authority to abuse those under them. Paul here emphasizes the first (in 2 Cor 10-13 he emphasizes the second). This advice is particularly appropriate for members who are naturally confrontive or chronic complainers." It seems that resistance to abuse of authority is not a theme currently popular with church leadership. I suspect that would be even more so now than it was when this was edited (one to two years ago). The question at the end replaces mine, no huge loss.

On Monday the opening paragraph is mine, but the questions under the text replaced my straightforward invitation for the reader to list the key points of the passage. The rest of the page is completely mine, except for light editing in the last paragraph. But there are two very significant omissions. 1) In the first paragraph below the questions I had added after "confronted" the following: "They had an underlying attitude of flaunting community rules. (actions that showed deliberate disrespect to church leaders or the wider community)" 2) My question at the bottom was eliminated: "How can Paul’s counsels in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-15 improve the spiritual growth in your own local church? Which side of Paul’s advice is most appropriate to your personal situation?" Not sure why these items would be dropped, perhaps simply space considerations.

On Tuesday the first paragraph was mine but the last sentence of the question was added by the editor. The next paragraph is mine, but the first sentence was eliminated: "Since prayer is at the center of these three imperatives, it is quite likely that all three have something to do with prayer." The second paragraph was mine, but the last sentence was eliminated: "Here Paul invites readers of his letter to follow his example. One way to keep our minds focused on prayer is through Christ-filled music (see Friday’s lesson)." The third paragraph below the questions is mine, but the fourth was heavily edited. The exercise at the bottom was mine, but the last sentence was heavily reworded.

Wednesday continued the trend of heavy editing for this week. The opening text and question was reworded and expanded. The first and last paragraphs of the main content are mine, but the rest is heavily edited, with significant additions and subtractions. The second paragraph completely replaced the following: "When members of the church are setting dates for the Second Coming (1 Thess. 5:2-3) and justifying spiritual and economic laziness (4:10-12) it is understandable that a church might be skeptical of anything new. But if we have "many lessons to learn and many, many to unlearn" (see Friday’s lesson) it is spiritually dangerous for us to ignore everything that sounds new or different." Eliminating this was probably necessary since the Ellen White quote on Friday was also removed. (Remembering to do both, however, exhibits editorial skill.) But this a point I dearly wanted to make here. The last sentence of the third paragraph and the last two sentences of the fourth paragraph were added. They are certainly relevant to the text in an Adventist context.

On Thursday editing was lighter. The last sentence of the question sequence replaced mine, no big deal. The first three paragraphs are mine and the fourth was heavily reworded. The question at the bottom replaced my pair of questions. I’ll let you judged which to prefer: "Read 1 Thessalonians 5:26. What is the difference between a holy kiss and an unholy kiss?" "Have there been areas of struggle in your life that God has brought into deeper submission to him? What can you share that will be of encouragement to others who desire complete dedication to God?"

On Friday the two Ellen White quotes are mine, but the editor dropped my use of Review and Herald, July 26, 1892: "We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed." One of my favorite quotes, sorry to see it go. Question 3 was mine and 1 and 2 were heavily reworded. But one question was dropped: "Where is the balance between reason and revelation? How can the church stay open to the Spirit’s leading while remaining skeptical of human attempts to apply that revelation to specific situations?" The conclusion is mine.

So what do you think of all these editorial changes? Improvement as compared to mine or an opportunity missed?

For those teaching the lesson this quarter, there are a number of extra helps I have prepared.

1) A 13-part TV series on Thessalonians with my pastor, Jon Ciccarelli, on 3ABN. The series is called "Books of the Book" and is shown about six times a week. I don’t know how many of the weekly showings will be on Thessalonians this quarter, but you can check the station’s web site or contact them directly.

2) I taught the lessons to a class of about 50 and they were recorded in advance of this quarter by the Pine Knoll organization. You can get them on CD or MP3 or download at pineknoll.org. You can also access them at thebattleofarmageddon.com. Great class, very active.

3) I recorded 13 audio lectures with The Ambassador Group. These are available at their web site and also can be accessed at thebattleofarmageddon.com. It can also be purchased at amazon.com.

4) I wrote a companion book to go along with the quarterly, Letters to the Thessalonians, published by Pacific Press. It is available at Adventist Book Centers and the corresponding web sites. It should be available on Amazon, but at last check did not yet seem to be.

For those who don’t have access to the printed edition of the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide for this quarter, you can access it online week by week at http://ssnet.org/study-guides/.

<< MORE >>

Great news! I am ready to start the long-promised Facebook and Twitter Commentaries on the Book of Revelation on September 1 or shortly thereafter. The Facebook Commentary will involve the posting of one paragraph a day, working verse by verse through the Book of Revelation for however long it takes. I am guessing about five or six years. The Twitter Commentary will involve a Twitter length (less than 140 characters and spaces) summary of each day’s paragraph that will cumulatively provide a brief summary commentary on the whole book when it is done. When I am finished with all the posting, I expect to have something in excess of a thousand pages that I can cull and edit into a book form presumably. But since publication is moving more and more online, the Facebook version may in the end prove the most helpful and influential. So if you are interested, please make sure you set up Facebook to post my daily blogs on your personal page and we can study together! (Don’t ask me how you do this, I am getting a lot of help) Feedback to these posts is most welcome and will be responded to as I have time. But please keep feedback short and substantive or it may drop off my radar (I can deal easily and quickly with short comments or emails, book-length or even page-length treatises tend to go into piles that never get finished).

Each post will begin with "Rev", then the chapter number, if the comment is of general significance, and then a verse reference, if the comment is specific to that verse (ex: Rev 10:4: ). Since I hope to write a book on Revelation 10-14 soon, I will begin both commentaries with chapter 10, continue through 14 and then probably go back to the beginning of the book. Later collections of these thoughts will be organized more verse by verse and chapter by chapter. This is all new to me and everyone else, so let’s break ground together! Invite your friends to participate!

I delighted at this cool idea, as I have always wanted to write a commentary on Revelation, but have never found the time for such a massive project. This will force me to do a little work every day until I have a draft that can be tweaked and edited into a full-length form that wouldn’t happen otherwise!

Postings on the Sabbath School Lesson will continue until the end of September, when the quarter is finished. Beyond that, I plan to continue blogging on various issues on this site.

<< MORE >>