Monday, March 19, 2007
Apathy and Ardor: Acts 22 and Ellen White
Paul's address to the crowd who had just nearly beaten him to death is one of the more surreal moments in Acts. The previously irate Jewish crowd is hushed listening to Paul give his personal testimony regarding Jesus Christ. Perhaps they are lulled into apathy hearing the familiar Hebrew inflections and hopeful discussion of a Messiah. The brief moment of apathy quickly reverts to the former zeal when Paul claims to be sent with a message of hope to the Gentiles. Their Messiah would come to free them from oppression. Their Messiah would direct curses not blessings toward their oppressors. They acted according to the God and Messiah of their own understanding.
Our understanding of God dictates so much of the life that we live -- the life that we live dictates so much of our understanding of God.
There are a few topics which consistently have the potential for evoking similar ardor and zeal within our Adventist community and Ellen White is one. There seems to be agreement that we all desire to keep Ellen White as a conversation partner as we continue to define ourselves in relation to God. Disagreement arises when we come to the issue of her human faults.
Many of the anti-Ellen White websites engage in the very worst forms of hyperbole and misrepresentation. However, those websites in support of Ellen White often attempt to claim too much and in the process do even more damage. The internet is a sketchy place to look for objective research based information (this blog included!). Unfortunately while level-headed research has been done on the issue of Ellen White's use of sources and some of her other personal issues, even the eggheads disagree on the interpretation of many facts! Here is a link to some excellent research from the General Conference archives with a rather long and detailed article dealing with issues of how we as a church relate to Ellen White entitled Ellen White and the SDA Church: Sligo Series. (I am biased because I know the author and have a great deal of respect for him.)
It seems likely that we will never come to a unified homogeneous consensus on this issue within the Adventist community. Just like the Jews of Paul's day created a messiah of their own understanding, we have created an Ellen White of our own understanding. In his review of the play Red Books Julius Nam writes, "The truth is, we make White what we need her to be. I certainly do. It’s a temptation that Adventist preachers, teachers, scholars, students, parents, and the White Estate have failed to resist successfully over the years. Perhaps it’s time to embrace it—not just our individual iconographies of her, but a collective, mosaic one."
It is encouraging that more open conversations are occuring and perhaps a beautiful collective mosaic of Ellen White and her meaning for Adventism is just around the corner. In order for this to happen though, we must not allow our opinions to eclipse love and reason degenerating into the mob brutality of the Jews in Acts 22. We must also avoid being lulled into a state of apathy by disregarding difficult issues and only seeking the familiar. Instead, we need to follow Paul's example as he followed Christ. After being beaten by the enraged mob of Jews, Paul begins his address to them by saying, "I became very zealous to honor God in everything I did, just as all of you are today." He affirmed their best intentions and expressed empathy with the very crowd that nearly beat him to death! If he could do that by the grace of God, perhaps we could extend the same grace and understanding to those who have very different perspectives from our own.
What will this say about our understanding of God -- what will this do for our understanding of God?
Our understanding of God dictates so much of the life that we live -- the life that we live dictates so much of our understanding of God.
There are a few topics which consistently have the potential for evoking similar ardor and zeal within our Adventist community and Ellen White is one. There seems to be agreement that we all desire to keep Ellen White as a conversation partner as we continue to define ourselves in relation to God. Disagreement arises when we come to the issue of her human faults.
Many of the anti-Ellen White websites engage in the very worst forms of hyperbole and misrepresentation. However, those websites in support of Ellen White often attempt to claim too much and in the process do even more damage. The internet is a sketchy place to look for objective research based information (this blog included!). Unfortunately while level-headed research has been done on the issue of Ellen White's use of sources and some of her other personal issues, even the eggheads disagree on the interpretation of many facts! Here is a link to some excellent research from the General Conference archives with a rather long and detailed article dealing with issues of how we as a church relate to Ellen White entitled Ellen White and the SDA Church: Sligo Series. (I am biased because I know the author and have a great deal of respect for him.)
It seems likely that we will never come to a unified homogeneous consensus on this issue within the Adventist community. Just like the Jews of Paul's day created a messiah of their own understanding, we have created an Ellen White of our own understanding. In his review of the play Red Books Julius Nam writes, "The truth is, we make White what we need her to be. I certainly do. It’s a temptation that Adventist preachers, teachers, scholars, students, parents, and the White Estate have failed to resist successfully over the years. Perhaps it’s time to embrace it—not just our individual iconographies of her, but a collective, mosaic one."
It is encouraging that more open conversations are occuring and perhaps a beautiful collective mosaic of Ellen White and her meaning for Adventism is just around the corner. In order for this to happen though, we must not allow our opinions to eclipse love and reason degenerating into the mob brutality of the Jews in Acts 22. We must also avoid being lulled into a state of apathy by disregarding difficult issues and only seeking the familiar. Instead, we need to follow Paul's example as he followed Christ. After being beaten by the enraged mob of Jews, Paul begins his address to them by saying, "I became very zealous to honor God in everything I did, just as all of you are today." He affirmed their best intentions and expressed empathy with the very crowd that nearly beat him to death! If he could do that by the grace of God, perhaps we could extend the same grace and understanding to those who have very different perspectives from our own.
What will this say about our understanding of God -- what will this do for our understanding of God?
Labels: Acts, community, diversity, Epicenter, religion, unity
Friday, March 16, 2007
The God Delusion -- Richard Dawkins
By Carmen
Being an avid reader of all sorts of books, I like to cultivate new understanding for those persons and groups with whom, at first glance, I may not share a lot in common. Yet, this was not my typical read. “The God Delusion” is an elegantly written book with bountiful references to scholarly works. It offers readable summaries of philosophers in recent and ancient history, as well as personal anecdotes and references to current events.
Dawkins was born in Nairobi, yet spent most of his formative years in Great Britain and was raised by Anglican parents. While at Oxford, he studied with Tinbergen, an eminent Danish expert on instinctive animal behavior. Dawkins went on to develop the highly interdisciplinary science of ethology, which is a mixture of psychology, physiology, ecology, sociology, taxonomy and evolution. In his earlier book, “The Selfish Gene”, Dawkins expounded on the concept of memes. This term, developed by Dawkins, refers to the process of how Darwinian principles might spread ideas and cultural phenomena.
True to the breadth of his intellectual curiosity as an ethologist, Dawkins approaches the notion of God from many angles. With his religious upbringing, he knows scripture and handily points out discrepancies as well as highlights many of the Old Testament atrocities that Christians prefer to avoid. He points out the barbaric aspect to the notion that somehow the shed blood of an innocent Jesus Christ (offered by his own father!) will atone for our sins.
Another section of the book highlights the fanaticism and hatred that through the ages has spawned from religion. How can religion have such a pitiful outcome? He notes that the “red” states in the USA, though pockets of Christianity, are not particularly known for being pockets of joy and love. He reminds us of the aggression during the Middle Ages in the name of religion. Even in recent history most churches did make a concerted effort to thwart Nazi Germany, or the Rwandan clashes.
Of course, the book offers a broad exposure to the disconnect between science and literal interpretation of scripture. In addition, Dawkins faults creation apologists for fabricating straw man arguments against evolution. He contends that many creationists ignore the natural selection process---choosing instead to base their arguments on the improbability of chance creation of complex living organisms.
My religious convictions are unmoved by Dawkins’ assertions, but wow, have we misrepresented God and misconstrued the Bible through the centuries! I believe God’s boundless love, as evidenced by His respect for our freedom, is the unifying strand throughout scripture. This becomes more apparent when one has a cohesive understanding of inspiration of the Bible. For example, if one reads the Bible using Alden Thompson’s simple construct of the one, the two and the ten, then one has a clear, practical lens with which to view difficult passages. Yet when one reads isolated passages in the Bible without such a guiding principle, one can see how people develop an unfavorable notion of God. Throughout the ages there have been varied and creative ways that God has reached out to humanity. (This is at the risk of being misunderstood1). I believe our mission is to highlight and emulate God’s character of love! For this to happen in the twenty first century, one must include an enlightened understanding of the process of inspiration.
P.S.
Dawkins offers a persuasive case that a person who calls himself atheist receives little respect and civility. This is in contrast to the special consideration under the guise of religious freedom given to all sorts of people with varying cultural mores. His writings are punctuated with samples of the hateful mail he has received. (This bolsters my determination to treat atheists with kindness and civility in the future! SDA’s are for religious freedom, right?) Anecdotally, there is a determined effort to replace the term “atheist” with the term “bright”. Perhaps that will be more palatable to society.
Being an avid reader of all sorts of books, I like to cultivate new understanding for those persons and groups with whom, at first glance, I may not share a lot in common. Yet, this was not my typical read. “The God Delusion” is an elegantly written book with bountiful references to scholarly works. It offers readable summaries of philosophers in recent and ancient history, as well as personal anecdotes and references to current events.
Dawkins was born in Nairobi, yet spent most of his formative years in Great Britain and was raised by Anglican parents. While at Oxford, he studied with Tinbergen, an eminent Danish expert on instinctive animal behavior. Dawkins went on to develop the highly interdisciplinary science of ethology, which is a mixture of psychology, physiology, ecology, sociology, taxonomy and evolution. In his earlier book, “The Selfish Gene”, Dawkins expounded on the concept of memes. This term, developed by Dawkins, refers to the process of how Darwinian principles might spread ideas and cultural phenomena.
True to the breadth of his intellectual curiosity as an ethologist, Dawkins approaches the notion of God from many angles. With his religious upbringing, he knows scripture and handily points out discrepancies as well as highlights many of the Old Testament atrocities that Christians prefer to avoid. He points out the barbaric aspect to the notion that somehow the shed blood of an innocent Jesus Christ (offered by his own father!) will atone for our sins.
Another section of the book highlights the fanaticism and hatred that through the ages has spawned from religion. How can religion have such a pitiful outcome? He notes that the “red” states in the USA, though pockets of Christianity, are not particularly known for being pockets of joy and love. He reminds us of the aggression during the Middle Ages in the name of religion. Even in recent history most churches did make a concerted effort to thwart Nazi Germany, or the Rwandan clashes.
Of course, the book offers a broad exposure to the disconnect between science and literal interpretation of scripture. In addition, Dawkins faults creation apologists for fabricating straw man arguments against evolution. He contends that many creationists ignore the natural selection process---choosing instead to base their arguments on the improbability of chance creation of complex living organisms.
My religious convictions are unmoved by Dawkins’ assertions, but wow, have we misrepresented God and misconstrued the Bible through the centuries! I believe God’s boundless love, as evidenced by His respect for our freedom, is the unifying strand throughout scripture. This becomes more apparent when one has a cohesive understanding of inspiration of the Bible. For example, if one reads the Bible using Alden Thompson’s simple construct of the one, the two and the ten, then one has a clear, practical lens with which to view difficult passages. Yet when one reads isolated passages in the Bible without such a guiding principle, one can see how people develop an unfavorable notion of God. Throughout the ages there have been varied and creative ways that God has reached out to humanity. (This is at the risk of being misunderstood1). I believe our mission is to highlight and emulate God’s character of love! For this to happen in the twenty first century, one must include an enlightened understanding of the process of inspiration.
P.S.
Dawkins offers a persuasive case that a person who calls himself atheist receives little respect and civility. This is in contrast to the special consideration under the guise of religious freedom given to all sorts of people with varying cultural mores. His writings are punctuated with samples of the hateful mail he has received. (This bolsters my determination to treat atheists with kindness and civility in the future! SDA’s are for religious freedom, right?) Anecdotally, there is a determined effort to replace the term “atheist” with the term “bright”. Perhaps that will be more palatable to society.
Labels: atheist, book, Dawkins, inspiration, religion
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Stranger Than Fiction meets Ellen White in Acts 20
"If a man does know he's going to die and dies anyway, dies willingly knowing he could stop it; then, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?" questions Emma Thompson's conflicted character, Karen Eiffel, in Stranger Than Fiction. If one can avoid over-analyzing the inconsistent, implausible plot, and instead consider the way this original story explores concepts like fate, freedom of choice, and even divine election, then one will be prepared to see Will Farrell's character, Harold Crick, as a type of the Apostle Paul who followed the example of Jesus. This modern day parable then becomes an illustration of a 'righteous' man. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8)
Paul does a similar thing. He is warned in no uncertain terms what awaits him in Jerusalem. Yet, the heart of Christ for his Jewish brothers and sisters compels him to go on. In Jerusalem, Paul meets with James and the other Christian leaders. The significant gift he brings from the Gentile churches is not even mentioned by Luke. Could it be that the gift seemed to do so little in facilitating the Jewish/Gentile unity that Paul so desired that Luke left it out?
In Acts of the Apostles, Ellen White attributes the pride and bigotry of the early Christian leaders to Paul's untimely captivity. Paul went willingly to Jerusalem seeking to do good and knowing that due to the prejudice of those who opposed his message of radical inclusivity, he would not leave the city a free man. He was indeed "the type of man you want to keep alive." Unfortunately, the jealous church leaders did not not seem to think so, "...instead of uniting in an effort to do justice to the one who had been injured, they gave him counsel which showed that they still cherished a feeling that Paul should be held largely responsible for the existing prejudice. They encouraged him to be exposed in the temple courtyard where he was recognized, beaten, and captured."
This interpretation of Acts 21 fits well within the context of late 1800's Adventism. The 'little flock' was growing and becoming more diverse and there must have been elements pushing to go back to traditions from their former churches. In addition, Ellen White had a more personal application where she had been forced by a decision from the church leaders to go to Australia even though she felt it was not where God was leading. In the end, there were even similarities in the results. Paul was forced into an untimely end to his ministry in Jerusalem but was then able to write the much loved prison letters and continue the contextualization of the gospel before Roman leaders and into the very heart of Rome. Ellen White also faced an interruption of her ministry in North America but was afforded the time to write portions of the Conflict of the Ages series and work to expand the horizons of Adventism.
Currently, the paradigm has shifted so that an application of Acts 21 would more likely involve encouragement to seek unity within a growing liberal/conservative polarization without regressing into the legalism of the 1950s and 60s or the 'guerilla warfare' of the 1970s and 80s (See Julius Nam's insightful review of the recent play, Red Books).
In the end the life and work of all these characters, the fictional but very real Francis Crick, the Spirit-led and controversial Paul, and the enigmatic and messy Ellen White, are ascribed value to the extent that they exemplified the heart of Christ and gave their time, effort, and in some cases even their very lives in seeking the greater good of those around them. Isn't that the type of legacy you want to keep alive?
Paul does a similar thing. He is warned in no uncertain terms what awaits him in Jerusalem. Yet, the heart of Christ for his Jewish brothers and sisters compels him to go on. In Jerusalem, Paul meets with James and the other Christian leaders. The significant gift he brings from the Gentile churches is not even mentioned by Luke. Could it be that the gift seemed to do so little in facilitating the Jewish/Gentile unity that Paul so desired that Luke left it out?
In Acts of the Apostles, Ellen White attributes the pride and bigotry of the early Christian leaders to Paul's untimely captivity. Paul went willingly to Jerusalem seeking to do good and knowing that due to the prejudice of those who opposed his message of radical inclusivity, he would not leave the city a free man. He was indeed "the type of man you want to keep alive." Unfortunately, the jealous church leaders did not not seem to think so, "...instead of uniting in an effort to do justice to the one who had been injured, they gave him counsel which showed that they still cherished a feeling that Paul should be held largely responsible for the existing prejudice. They encouraged him to be exposed in the temple courtyard where he was recognized, beaten, and captured."
This interpretation of Acts 21 fits well within the context of late 1800's Adventism. The 'little flock' was growing and becoming more diverse and there must have been elements pushing to go back to traditions from their former churches. In addition, Ellen White had a more personal application where she had been forced by a decision from the church leaders to go to Australia even though she felt it was not where God was leading. In the end, there were even similarities in the results. Paul was forced into an untimely end to his ministry in Jerusalem but was then able to write the much loved prison letters and continue the contextualization of the gospel before Roman leaders and into the very heart of Rome. Ellen White also faced an interruption of her ministry in North America but was afforded the time to write portions of the Conflict of the Ages series and work to expand the horizons of Adventism.
Currently, the paradigm has shifted so that an application of Acts 21 would more likely involve encouragement to seek unity within a growing liberal/conservative polarization without regressing into the legalism of the 1950s and 60s or the 'guerilla warfare' of the 1970s and 80s (See Julius Nam's insightful review of the recent play, Red Books).
In the end the life and work of all these characters, the fictional but very real Francis Crick, the Spirit-led and controversial Paul, and the enigmatic and messy Ellen White, are ascribed value to the extent that they exemplified the heart of Christ and gave their time, effort, and in some cases even their very lives in seeking the greater good of those around them. Isn't that the type of legacy you want to keep alive?
Friday, March 09, 2007
Cash, Kids, and Community
As Acts chapter 20 begins, Paul is traveling with several companions from the various churches he has helped plant throughout Europe and Asia. These companions would have been useful in several ways. They would have ensured accountability since Paul was carrying a large gift of money for the Christians in Jerusalem. They would have also provided some protection from theft. Here is Paul at his best seeking to encourage community between the Gentiles and Jews with a tangible example of the truism, "It is better to give than to receive."
The scene then shifts to Troas where Eutychus gets bored to death and is miraculously revived. Some commentators choose to hammer Eutychus for not being interested in spiritual matters and falling asleep. But, here is an adolescent who is actually listening to a preacher instead of out carousing around the town. It is midnight after all and Eutychus falls. Paul's response was to stop everything and check on the young man and restore him to life. Could this story be an inspiration for us to strive to keep things interesting for all of us including the kids, or perhaps a stimulus to stop what we are doing and check the pulse of our young people, or even a reminder to seek revival for ourselves and our kids? Are any of them still spiritually interested or have they become bored to death?
Then finally, the chapter closes with a beautiful example of the fruits of the community Paul has helped to form. The Ephesian believers gather to meet with their beloved Paul one last time. This unified gathering is drastically different from the unified gathering whipped up by Demetrius in Ephesus in the last chapter. By their fruits...
The scene then shifts to Troas where Eutychus gets bored to death and is miraculously revived. Some commentators choose to hammer Eutychus for not being interested in spiritual matters and falling asleep. But, here is an adolescent who is actually listening to a preacher instead of out carousing around the town. It is midnight after all and Eutychus falls. Paul's response was to stop everything and check on the young man and restore him to life. Could this story be an inspiration for us to strive to keep things interesting for all of us including the kids, or perhaps a stimulus to stop what we are doing and check the pulse of our young people, or even a reminder to seek revival for ourselves and our kids? Are any of them still spiritually interested or have they become bored to death?
Then finally, the chapter closes with a beautiful example of the fruits of the community Paul has helped to form. The Ephesian believers gather to meet with their beloved Paul one last time. This unified gathering is drastically different from the unified gathering whipped up by Demetrius in Ephesus in the last chapter. By their fruits...
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Involvement versus Pew-warmers
Doesn't it sometimes seem that the same people do the same "jobs" in church much of the time? The same people do special music, the same people keep doing women's ministries or social committee, the same people keep teaching the kids departments, the same people keep to themselves, etc.
I began thinking about it because of the pitiful response to my request for "mature" volunteer in my Sabbath school class today. Why was it that I only had one person volunteer, and not 20? Here was a painless, free, and simplistic way for someone to get involved by hugging 12 kids as thy enter Sabbath School, then going back to their regular group meeting. But yet, no one wants to hug cheerful, grateful little kids? How odd. This led me to thinking about involvement, and willingness to step out of our "boxes" and comfort areas.
Maybe that is why the same people are involved and the same non-participants, keep not participating. Is it because some people are not afraid to commit to a "job" and other people don't ever want to want the commitment? Maybe not.
Is it because many people don't enjoy responsibility? Is it because people don't have "time"? Maybe it is because they don't feel adequate? Is it because non-participating is easier, more painless, less emotional?
My sister-in-laws church recently decided to scratch the traditional nominating commitee, and instead use the spiritual gifts assessments. Church members were encouraged to take the gift assessment tests which were then evaluated by another group/committee which then decided where members could serve based on the results. It sounded like a great idea to me! There are times when I feel trapped in certain areas because those are the only ones I keep getting nominated for, and I do feel I should be involved. I'm sure others feel the same at times also.
Well, the spiritual gifts assessments at her church have not gone as planned. The results committee has made some blunders in "reassigning" people to different tasks in a somewhat arbitrary way, feelings have been hurt, and some people have felt slighted. Maybe it was the implementation that failed, maybe the nominating committee wasn't such a bad method after all, or maybe changes needed to be made and people would have been hurt no matter what. I don't know the details. But it seemed to me (an outside viewer) that it was an interesting experiment at the least.
I found a blog on the subject that's worth reading.
http://www.challies.com/archives/002197.php
The article didn't help me figure out why some people are involved in the church, while others continue to just warm pews, but it was insightful.
It seems that if everyone used their spiritual gifts (and I truly do believe that everyone has one God given gift or more) the word"church", community, the term "Christian", ministry, would all carry beautiful connotations, and our church as a whole would be a powerful force for good in the community & the world. (much more powerful than it is.)
Even if spiritual gifts are not well defined, it got me thinking about what my "spiritual" gifts are. What are the gifts God has given me, and am I using them for Him? Am I willing to use them fully? Do I think I have a certain gift but I really don't? How can I be involved in my church and bring Glory to God more effectively?
What do you think? Are we stretching ourselves enough? Are we trusting that God will give us the resources we need? Do we believe we have spiritual gifts that need to be "activated"?
I began thinking about it because of the pitiful response to my request for "mature" volunteer in my Sabbath school class today. Why was it that I only had one person volunteer, and not 20? Here was a painless, free, and simplistic way for someone to get involved by hugging 12 kids as thy enter Sabbath School, then going back to their regular group meeting. But yet, no one wants to hug cheerful, grateful little kids? How odd. This led me to thinking about involvement, and willingness to step out of our "boxes" and comfort areas.
Maybe that is why the same people are involved and the same non-participants, keep not participating. Is it because some people are not afraid to commit to a "job" and other people don't ever want to want the commitment? Maybe not.
Is it because many people don't enjoy responsibility? Is it because people don't have "time"? Maybe it is because they don't feel adequate? Is it because non-participating is easier, more painless, less emotional?
My sister-in-laws church recently decided to scratch the traditional nominating commitee, and instead use the spiritual gifts assessments. Church members were encouraged to take the gift assessment tests which were then evaluated by another group/committee which then decided where members could serve based on the results. It sounded like a great idea to me! There are times when I feel trapped in certain areas because those are the only ones I keep getting nominated for, and I do feel I should be involved. I'm sure others feel the same at times also.
Well, the spiritual gifts assessments at her church have not gone as planned. The results committee has made some blunders in "reassigning" people to different tasks in a somewhat arbitrary way, feelings have been hurt, and some people have felt slighted. Maybe it was the implementation that failed, maybe the nominating committee wasn't such a bad method after all, or maybe changes needed to be made and people would have been hurt no matter what. I don't know the details. But it seemed to me (an outside viewer) that it was an interesting experiment at the least.
I found a blog on the subject that's worth reading.
http://www.challies.com/archives/002197.php
The article didn't help me figure out why some people are involved in the church, while others continue to just warm pews, but it was insightful.
It seems that if everyone used their spiritual gifts (and I truly do believe that everyone has one God given gift or more) the word"church", community, the term "Christian", ministry, would all carry beautiful connotations, and our church as a whole would be a powerful force for good in the community & the world. (much more powerful than it is.)
Even if spiritual gifts are not well defined, it got me thinking about what my "spiritual" gifts are. What are the gifts God has given me, and am I using them for Him? Am I willing to use them fully? Do I think I have a certain gift but I really don't? How can I be involved in my church and bring Glory to God more effectively?
What do you think? Are we stretching ourselves enough? Are we trusting that God will give us the resources we need? Do we believe we have spiritual gifts that need to be "activated"?
Labels: spiritual_gifts, warm_seats
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]