Sunday, October 21, 2007
Self Promotion, New Covenant, and War
Accusations of self promotion seem to be one of the stimulating factors that lead Paul to write another letter to the community in Corinth. His response is to discuss the new covenant in what we know as II Corinthians, chapter 3. What is the connection? Is Paul blowing a smoke screen, bringing up a deep theological discussion to distract us from the sensitive issue of his self congratulatory comments? Just what is the significance of the new covenant?
That is the question. I have friends who have left Adventism over the new covenant and the perception that we Adventists have totally missed the mark. The perception is that since under the new covenant we are saved by Jesus Christ and His grace, Adventist's continued overemphasis on archaic, legalistic laws like the sabbath constitutes an effort to earn salvation. Unfortunately, there are enough legalists in every religion, Adventism included, that this view finds plenty of evidence for corroboration. However, it seems to me that this evangelical perspective grounded in the Biblical (though limited) substitutionary model of atonement and focused on personal salvation also misses the point of the new covenant.
Some background may be helpful. The old covenant has been described as a marriage document(1)between God and the Israelites consisting of some core commandments written by God on tablets of stone and numerous other laws written down separately. Jack Rogers gives this covenant context in his book, Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality.
He writes, "The Israelites had been slaves in Egypt; they had wandered in the desert, subject to attacks from other tribes, starvation, and infectious diseases. The needed cohesiveness, cleanliness, and order in every aspect of their lives. They wanted to keep pure their manner of worshiping God, who had brought them to this land. They were struggling for their own identity. Failure to form a tight knit community could threaten their long-term survival. They needed a code for living.
In response, they developed a Holiness Code to define their religious, civic, and cultural identity. The Holiness Code’s function was to achieve the “holy purity” they sought. Its underlying theme was that they must be separate, different from the Egyptians from whom they had escaped and unmixed with the Canaanite into whose land they had now come. How were they to achieve holy purity?" 2
This raison d'etre resonates with my own appreciation of the 10 commandments as primarily designed to maintain a community in relationship with God and one another. The old covenant then was an agreement between God and Israel dealing with community and relationships.
Then, moving us into the present, God incarnate lives, teaches, dies, and lives again and this changes everything, or does it? Jesus inaugurates the new covenant and sends the Holy Spirit. The results are seen in the gospels, especially Luke, and become increasingly evident in Acts. The narrowly defined holy community of Jews has the doors blown off and the line of demarcation between those in and those out keeps expanding until nobody is excluded.
The new covenant is not so much a change in substance as it is a change in dimension. The law previously written on tablets of stone for the Jews is now written on human hearts for the world. This good news prompts Peter Storey to write, "When Christ was nailed to the cross, he nailed us to our neighbors, breaking down the divisions between us. All Christians, whether pacifists or proponents of the "just war" theory, are bound to acknowledge that for those who follow Jesus, all wars are civil wars. All wars, everywhere, are a form of fratricide."
Every war whether fought for freedom, over borders, across pews, or from competing ideologies is a sibling rivalry. Those who we like to consider "other" (elderly, muslim, female, homosexual, black, etc.) could better be described as "brother" and "sister," possibly estranged but related non-the-less. This is the good news and the big change in the new covenant.
When there is genuine unity amidst diversity in a community, this is evidence of God's life-changing grace. Paul recognizes that and responds to accusations of self endorsement by pointing to the community in Corinth struggling with sin and fighting over theology yet growing in love and he says, "You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all; and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (3)
1. Rob Bell, Sex God
2. I found this insightful quote in a discussion on the Spectrum Blog about a new documentary, "For the Bible Tells me So." Thanks Stephen!
3. II Corinthians 3:2-3 (NRSV)
That is the question. I have friends who have left Adventism over the new covenant and the perception that we Adventists have totally missed the mark. The perception is that since under the new covenant we are saved by Jesus Christ and His grace, Adventist's continued overemphasis on archaic, legalistic laws like the sabbath constitutes an effort to earn salvation. Unfortunately, there are enough legalists in every religion, Adventism included, that this view finds plenty of evidence for corroboration. However, it seems to me that this evangelical perspective grounded in the Biblical (though limited) substitutionary model of atonement and focused on personal salvation also misses the point of the new covenant.
Some background may be helpful. The old covenant has been described as a marriage document(1)between God and the Israelites consisting of some core commandments written by God on tablets of stone and numerous other laws written down separately. Jack Rogers gives this covenant context in his book, Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality.
He writes, "The Israelites had been slaves in Egypt; they had wandered in the desert, subject to attacks from other tribes, starvation, and infectious diseases. The needed cohesiveness, cleanliness, and order in every aspect of their lives. They wanted to keep pure their manner of worshiping God, who had brought them to this land. They were struggling for their own identity. Failure to form a tight knit community could threaten their long-term survival. They needed a code for living.
In response, they developed a Holiness Code to define their religious, civic, and cultural identity. The Holiness Code’s function was to achieve the “holy purity” they sought. Its underlying theme was that they must be separate, different from the Egyptians from whom they had escaped and unmixed with the Canaanite into whose land they had now come. How were they to achieve holy purity?" 2
This raison d'etre resonates with my own appreciation of the 10 commandments as primarily designed to maintain a community in relationship with God and one another. The old covenant then was an agreement between God and Israel dealing with community and relationships.
Then, moving us into the present, God incarnate lives, teaches, dies, and lives again and this changes everything, or does it? Jesus inaugurates the new covenant and sends the Holy Spirit. The results are seen in the gospels, especially Luke, and become increasingly evident in Acts. The narrowly defined holy community of Jews has the doors blown off and the line of demarcation between those in and those out keeps expanding until nobody is excluded.
The new covenant is not so much a change in substance as it is a change in dimension. The law previously written on tablets of stone for the Jews is now written on human hearts for the world. This good news prompts Peter Storey to write, "When Christ was nailed to the cross, he nailed us to our neighbors, breaking down the divisions between us. All Christians, whether pacifists or proponents of the "just war" theory, are bound to acknowledge that for those who follow Jesus, all wars are civil wars. All wars, everywhere, are a form of fratricide."
Every war whether fought for freedom, over borders, across pews, or from competing ideologies is a sibling rivalry. Those who we like to consider "other" (elderly, muslim, female, homosexual, black, etc.) could better be described as "brother" and "sister," possibly estranged but related non-the-less. This is the good news and the big change in the new covenant.
When there is genuine unity amidst diversity in a community, this is evidence of God's life-changing grace. Paul recognizes that and responds to accusations of self endorsement by pointing to the community in Corinth struggling with sin and fighting over theology yet growing in love and he says, "You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all; and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (3)
1. Rob Bell, Sex God
2. I found this insightful quote in a discussion on the Spectrum Blog about a new documentary, "For the Bible Tells me So." Thanks Stephen!
3. II Corinthians 3:2-3 (NRSV)
Labels: Acts, Adventist, community, Corinthians, Epicenter, Jesus, law, religion, unity
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Seeing Beyond Modernity and Postmodernity
The Adventism of my youth was rooted and established in modernity. As a child, my mind was filled with the heady imagery of the grand narrative of God's people culminating in the ultimate end time showdown between us the Sabbath keeping remnant and the raving, depraved, even demonic others. Ellen White's writings were referred to as "The Spirit of Prophecy" as if they contained all encompassing, infallible truth. My elders spoke of having "the truth" as if we had reached the zenith of modern Biblical sholarship and theology with nothing more to learn and certainly nothing to revise. Evangelism was accomplished through extended lectures where this truth was expounded to all important individuals. I came of age in the last towering heights of modern influenced Adventism.
The Adventism of my young adulthood is undermined and deconstructed by postmodernity. Emerging as a critique of the arrogance and violence inherent in the meta-narrative of modern progress and colonialism which led to horrible injustice and outragous atrocities in the 19th and 20th centuries, postmodernity has functioned as an effective chemotherapy against the cancer of unchecked modernity.* In the process, foundations have been demolished. Ellen White has been knocked off of the precarious pedastal we placed her on by intellectuals who failed to be awed by modern apologists. Truth is recognized as relative and a claim to have all of it has become ridiculous if not overtly evil. Evangelism is a dirty word to many people and more important than intellectual truth for individuals is practical results for humanity. In Europe, where postmodernity ignited and took off, the fallout for Christianity and Adventism in particular has not been pretty. Along with the rest of North America, I seem to be rocketing along the same trajectory.
The Adventism of our future is open before us and the way is now cleared for new improvisations of ancient faith. In looking back to our premodern foundation as articulated by Paul, I find a hopeful way forward through the rubble. With postmodernity's deconstruction of the proud, modern, self-reliant, fully-informed individual, the way is open for a new way of being human. As N.T. Wright puts it, "If anyone is in Christ -- new creation! Not 'Cogito, ergo sum' but 'Amor, ergo sum': I am loved, therefore I am." Now that modernity's claim to be able to know all things objectively is shown up as a power-play, Paul's method of knowing in part and loving the other while respecting their 'otherness' becomes possible. Since the exploitative, power-based underbelly of modernity's grand narrative of scientific progress and intellectual enlightenment has been revealed, there is room for the counter-intuative epic that Paul proclaimed based on love not power with the Cross of Christ at the center.** I'm seeing the future of Adventism through Paul's eyes, and it looks good!
* For more on this concept, see Brian McLaren's chapter in the new book, Emergent Manifesto of Hope.
** These thoughts are quoted from and inspired by N.T. Wright's book, Paul In Fresh Perspective.
The Adventism of my young adulthood is undermined and deconstructed by postmodernity. Emerging as a critique of the arrogance and violence inherent in the meta-narrative of modern progress and colonialism which led to horrible injustice and outragous atrocities in the 19th and 20th centuries, postmodernity has functioned as an effective chemotherapy against the cancer of unchecked modernity.* In the process, foundations have been demolished. Ellen White has been knocked off of the precarious pedastal we placed her on by intellectuals who failed to be awed by modern apologists. Truth is recognized as relative and a claim to have all of it has become ridiculous if not overtly evil. Evangelism is a dirty word to many people and more important than intellectual truth for individuals is practical results for humanity. In Europe, where postmodernity ignited and took off, the fallout for Christianity and Adventism in particular has not been pretty. Along with the rest of North America, I seem to be rocketing along the same trajectory.
The Adventism of our future is open before us and the way is now cleared for new improvisations of ancient faith. In looking back to our premodern foundation as articulated by Paul, I find a hopeful way forward through the rubble. With postmodernity's deconstruction of the proud, modern, self-reliant, fully-informed individual, the way is open for a new way of being human. As N.T. Wright puts it, "If anyone is in Christ -- new creation! Not 'Cogito, ergo sum' but 'Amor, ergo sum': I am loved, therefore I am." Now that modernity's claim to be able to know all things objectively is shown up as a power-play, Paul's method of knowing in part and loving the other while respecting their 'otherness' becomes possible. Since the exploitative, power-based underbelly of modernity's grand narrative of scientific progress and intellectual enlightenment has been revealed, there is room for the counter-intuative epic that Paul proclaimed based on love not power with the Cross of Christ at the center.** I'm seeing the future of Adventism through Paul's eyes, and it looks good!
* For more on this concept, see Brian McLaren's chapter in the new book, Emergent Manifesto of Hope.
** These thoughts are quoted from and inspired by N.T. Wright's book, Paul In Fresh Perspective.
Labels: Acts, community, Epicenter, evangelism, postmodernity
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Finding God in Acts
I just recieved my copy of Emergent Manifesto of Hope which is a book by many of the influential pastors and theologians in the emerging church movement. If you don't know what the emerging church movement is all about this book offers a nice introduction.
There is a chapter in the book by Samir Selmanovic in which he explores the important idea of finding God in the 'other.' This got me thinking. Where do we find God in Acts. Specifically, where do we find God in Paul's imprisonment and trials at the end of Acts? Paul actually sees God in his accusers, affirming their zealousness for God. Other's see God in the Roman rulers and their search for justice. While other's see God in Paul's selfless attitude in the face of false accusations and injustice.
Where do you see God in Acts?
There is a chapter in the book by Samir Selmanovic in which he explores the important idea of finding God in the 'other.' This got me thinking. Where do we find God in Acts. Specifically, where do we find God in Paul's imprisonment and trials at the end of Acts? Paul actually sees God in his accusers, affirming their zealousness for God. Other's see God in the Roman rulers and their search for justice. While other's see God in Paul's selfless attitude in the face of false accusations and injustice.
Where do you see God in Acts?
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
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Exclusion and Embrace in Acts 19
A major theme in Acts is unity. Chapter 19 introduces Demetrius, a silversmith in the artisan community at Ephesus. This dynamic leader played on the fears of the Ephesians and villified Paul and the Christians, saying "there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be scorned, and she will be deprived of her majesty that brought all Asia and the world to worship her." The unity thus achieved in defense of the Ephesian god led to confusion, chaos, threat of violence, and further exclusion.
In his recent article, It's Not About Demetrius Lael Caesar quotes General Conference President Jan Paulsen who said, "In his message on the last Sabbath of the 2005 St. Louis General Conference, "It is important to know that God is not owned by anyone." "Including Demetrius," we might add, and including all our favorite groups, theologically Adventist, genetically Abrahamic, or otherwise."
Fear based unification has been all too common in the Christian tradition, most recently evident in the tactics of the Christian Right as explored in Margaret M. Mitchell's article, How Biblical is the Religious Right. Sadly, this method of exclusion, demonizing those who are different, is the antithesis of Jesus' example of loving our enemies and Paul's message of radical inclusivity. The New Testament method of creating unity is beautifully described by Miroslav Volf in his metaphor of Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation.
In an embrace we first extend our arms to the other, opening a place within us to receive the other and inviting the other to come. Then, we wait. Invading the others personal space would become aggression. If the other responds, the embrace is realized as our arms enfold one another each of us receiving the other into our own self. However, the embrace is not complete. Without the final step of re-opening the arms, the embrace would degenerate into oppressive assimilation. With arms re-extended we are allowed to maintain our individual identities, altered though they may be by having experienced the other's perspective. The final posture then demonstrates respect and offers an open invitation.
Promoting unity through fear mongering and exclusion leads to a divisive, violent, chaotic, superficial, and tenuous unity. Any difference arising within the community is then dealt with by further exclusion. (See the reaction of the Ephesian mob to Alexander and the current reaction of some within our own community to those with different ideas). On the other hand, beginning with opening ourselves to the other in a welcoming posture of embrace leads to a healing, loving, peaceful, generous, and lasting unity. In following the example of Christ we will then be prepared to maintain unity in diversity within our own community.
In his recent article, It's Not About Demetrius Lael Caesar quotes General Conference President Jan Paulsen who said, "In his message on the last Sabbath of the 2005 St. Louis General Conference, "It is important to know that God is not owned by anyone." "Including Demetrius," we might add, and including all our favorite groups, theologically Adventist, genetically Abrahamic, or otherwise."
Fear based unification has been all too common in the Christian tradition, most recently evident in the tactics of the Christian Right as explored in Margaret M. Mitchell's article, How Biblical is the Religious Right. Sadly, this method of exclusion, demonizing those who are different, is the antithesis of Jesus' example of loving our enemies and Paul's message of radical inclusivity. The New Testament method of creating unity is beautifully described by Miroslav Volf in his metaphor of Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation.
In an embrace we first extend our arms to the other, opening a place within us to receive the other and inviting the other to come. Then, we wait. Invading the others personal space would become aggression. If the other responds, the embrace is realized as our arms enfold one another each of us receiving the other into our own self. However, the embrace is not complete. Without the final step of re-opening the arms, the embrace would degenerate into oppressive assimilation. With arms re-extended we are allowed to maintain our individual identities, altered though they may be by having experienced the other's perspective. The final posture then demonstrates respect and offers an open invitation.
Promoting unity through fear mongering and exclusion leads to a divisive, violent, chaotic, superficial, and tenuous unity. Any difference arising within the community is then dealt with by further exclusion. (See the reaction of the Ephesian mob to Alexander and the current reaction of some within our own community to those with different ideas). On the other hand, beginning with opening ourselves to the other in a welcoming posture of embrace leads to a healing, loving, peaceful, generous, and lasting unity. In following the example of Christ we will then be prepared to maintain unity in diversity within our own community.
Labels: Acts, diversity, religion, unity
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Progressive Adventism at Corinth
This past weekend we looked at Acts chapter 18. Since Apollos is introduced in this chapter, it was a perfect time to explore Alden Thompson's interesting ideas in, The Adventist Church at Corinth.
Although Thompson's sermon was originally given about 18 years ago, the themes resonate just as well in 2007 as they did in 1989. We discussed the way Paul, Peter, and Apollos each correspond to a stream of thought within Adventism. Then, we related Paul's call to unity amidst diversity in I Corinthians to our current and surprisingly similar diversity today.
Thompson describes these streams by listing some prominent Adventists,
"Peter & Co. are inclined to say that you must obey and you can obey. Kenneth Wood, Tom Davis, Herb Douglass, Mervyn Maxwell, Robert Brinsmead, early in his experience.
Paul & Co. say you must try to obey, but you never really can. Jesus pays the price for you. LeRoy Froom, Roy Allan Anderson, H. M. S. Richards, Robert Spangler, Richard Fredericks, Desmond Ford, Robert Brinsmead, at an intermediate point in his experience.
Apollos & Co. say that the important thing is to try. Love is what matters. If your heart is in the right place, that will do. Graham Maxwell, Malcolm Maxwell, Jack Provonsha, Dick Winn, and very briefly Robert Brinsmead at a later point in his experience."
For a further exploration of Thompson's important ideas please click on the link to his sermon, The Adventist Church at Corinth.
From my perspective, there is one stream of thought within Adventism that Thompson did not address -- progressive Adventism. In my own personal journey, I have been immersed in each of these ways of thinking and I have recently found my thoughts flowing most naturally with progressive Adventism. This viewpoint may not have been addressed by Thompson because it was not around 18 years ago. I don't know how recent a phenomenon it is.
My first thought in relation to "The Adventist Church in Corinth" is that progressive Adventism encompasses the best of each stream of thought. This could of course simply represent my personal bias and experience along with Thompson's assertion that, "Most Adventists can and do profit from all three perspectives." However, if I were to try to fit my understanding of progressive Adventism within the categories as defined by Thompson, I would have to use all of them. Everything that follows then must be prefaced by, in my opinion...
Progressive Adventists affirm along with Paul & Co. that salvation is by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ. However, the definition of some terms would differ. Salvation may be as much or more about justice and mercy to transform lives here and now as it is about landing in heaven someday. The perceived extent of that salvation might also differ ranging from a select few who have heard and accepted Jesus in evangelical Adventism to near universalism inspired by a deep appreciation for God's love at the other end of progressive Adventism.
These differences would then lead to progressive Adventists affirming along with Peter and Co. that you must obey and can obey. However, the motivation for obedience would differ. Obedient actions (i.e. justice, mercy, humility) are a result of grace and are vital for extending the Kingdom of God through practical examples of God's difference making love (or is that love making difference?). Obedience has nothing to do with earning grace, getting ourselves into heaven someday, or justifying God's character.
Progressive Adventists would also affirm with Apollos and Co. that love is essential and all of our doctrines must affirm and be grounded in the fact that God is love. The caveat would be that Christ must be central to this as the clearest representation of God and our actions can and must authenticate this love as well. In fact, we must burn with righteous indignation when we perceive injustice and then do something about it!
This undoubtedly says much more about me and my understanding than it does about the reality of progressive Adventism. So, more important than a depiction of progressive Adventism is a description of how the three streams can critique one another and merge into a unified whole. As we each integrate the best from the other's perspectives, our view of God becomes more complete and our many disparate streams join to form a great river bringing life, freshness, and healing.
Although Thompson's sermon was originally given about 18 years ago, the themes resonate just as well in 2007 as they did in 1989. We discussed the way Paul, Peter, and Apollos each correspond to a stream of thought within Adventism. Then, we related Paul's call to unity amidst diversity in I Corinthians to our current and surprisingly similar diversity today.
Thompson describes these streams by listing some prominent Adventists,
"Peter & Co. are inclined to say that you must obey and you can obey. Kenneth Wood, Tom Davis, Herb Douglass, Mervyn Maxwell, Robert Brinsmead, early in his experience.
Paul & Co. say you must try to obey, but you never really can. Jesus pays the price for you. LeRoy Froom, Roy Allan Anderson, H. M. S. Richards, Robert Spangler, Richard Fredericks, Desmond Ford, Robert Brinsmead, at an intermediate point in his experience.
Apollos & Co. say that the important thing is to try. Love is what matters. If your heart is in the right place, that will do. Graham Maxwell, Malcolm Maxwell, Jack Provonsha, Dick Winn, and very briefly Robert Brinsmead at a later point in his experience."
For a further exploration of Thompson's important ideas please click on the link to his sermon, The Adventist Church at Corinth.
From my perspective, there is one stream of thought within Adventism that Thompson did not address -- progressive Adventism. In my own personal journey, I have been immersed in each of these ways of thinking and I have recently found my thoughts flowing most naturally with progressive Adventism. This viewpoint may not have been addressed by Thompson because it was not around 18 years ago. I don't know how recent a phenomenon it is.
My first thought in relation to "The Adventist Church in Corinth" is that progressive Adventism encompasses the best of each stream of thought. This could of course simply represent my personal bias and experience along with Thompson's assertion that, "Most Adventists can and do profit from all three perspectives." However, if I were to try to fit my understanding of progressive Adventism within the categories as defined by Thompson, I would have to use all of them. Everything that follows then must be prefaced by, in my opinion...
Progressive Adventists affirm along with Paul & Co. that salvation is by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ. However, the definition of some terms would differ. Salvation may be as much or more about justice and mercy to transform lives here and now as it is about landing in heaven someday. The perceived extent of that salvation might also differ ranging from a select few who have heard and accepted Jesus in evangelical Adventism to near universalism inspired by a deep appreciation for God's love at the other end of progressive Adventism.
These differences would then lead to progressive Adventists affirming along with Peter and Co. that you must obey and can obey. However, the motivation for obedience would differ. Obedient actions (i.e. justice, mercy, humility) are a result of grace and are vital for extending the Kingdom of God through practical examples of God's difference making love (or is that love making difference?). Obedience has nothing to do with earning grace, getting ourselves into heaven someday, or justifying God's character.
Progressive Adventists would also affirm with Apollos and Co. that love is essential and all of our doctrines must affirm and be grounded in the fact that God is love. The caveat would be that Christ must be central to this as the clearest representation of God and our actions can and must authenticate this love as well. In fact, we must burn with righteous indignation when we perceive injustice and then do something about it!
This undoubtedly says much more about me and my understanding than it does about the reality of progressive Adventism. So, more important than a depiction of progressive Adventism is a description of how the three streams can critique one another and merge into a unified whole. As we each integrate the best from the other's perspectives, our view of God becomes more complete and our many disparate streams join to form a great river bringing life, freshness, and healing.
Labels: Acts, diversity, Jesus, religion
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Epicenter 01.06.07
This coming weekend we will be covering Acts chapters 12 and 13.
This past weekend we took a look over our shoulder at our journey through Acts so far. We did this in light of our discussion on evangelism. At it's heart, I think we agree that evangelism is sharing the gospel. The issue then is our definition of 'gospel'. Is the gospel a pure, propositional truth that we need sell? Or, is the gospel an interactive, local, relational experience that we get to share? (Just the phrasing of my questions reveals my personal bias.)
Our survey of Acts demonstrates an intriguing concept. Perhaps this separation between the spoken propositional truth and the relational experience is a false dichotomy. We looked at several examples in Acts where both public proclamation and personal meeting of needs in a community either both functioned to expand God's kingdom or where the opportunity to meet another's needs led to the right time to explain a deep truth (e.g. Peter and John heal the lame man at the temple and then have an opportunity to tell a large group of people about Jesus and the healing and refreshing found in God's kingdom.) Therefore in Acts, the two views of the gospel merge into one cohesive local gospel which is both experienced and proclaimed as the opportunity arises.
This is different from every evangelistic series I have been a part. Unfortunately, the order has been reversed with the proclamation of timeless truth followed by a hope that somehow the newly converted will find their needs met in whatever community happens to be more or less available. In addition, there was no consideration given to the community or the local context and needs. Instead a universal presentation was made intended to convince all listeners of timeless, placeless truth.
Here is a link to Ryan Bell's blog Intersections where he highlights a video about an Adventist missional community in the Pittsburgh suburb of Carnegie that has found a way to restore the order. They are attempting to meet the needs of the community which then led to a unique opportunity to speak before the city council. Here is a link to his post.
A Tangible Example of Missional Engagement
I find this story both inspiring and discouraging. It's inspiring because it offers a tangible glimpse into how evangelism can be an integral merging of the experience and proclamation of the good news that the Kingdom of God is here. And yet, it's discouraging because it reveals my own inadequate understanding and poor experience in how the Gospel could and should make an impact here in Birmingham.
Also, Carmen sent me a link to the first chapter of Reimagining Evangelism by Rick Richardson. His ideas have my own wheels turning. What is the goal with evangelism? Is it to save people or to share what we know of God's character and let them know why we are saved? The evangelism he imagines just might appeal to me. (It of course helps that he references one of my favorite movie series) How about you? Below is a link to his book.
Reimagining Evangelism
This past weekend we took a look over our shoulder at our journey through Acts so far. We did this in light of our discussion on evangelism. At it's heart, I think we agree that evangelism is sharing the gospel. The issue then is our definition of 'gospel'. Is the gospel a pure, propositional truth that we need sell? Or, is the gospel an interactive, local, relational experience that we get to share? (Just the phrasing of my questions reveals my personal bias.)
Our survey of Acts demonstrates an intriguing concept. Perhaps this separation between the spoken propositional truth and the relational experience is a false dichotomy. We looked at several examples in Acts where both public proclamation and personal meeting of needs in a community either both functioned to expand God's kingdom or where the opportunity to meet another's needs led to the right time to explain a deep truth (e.g. Peter and John heal the lame man at the temple and then have an opportunity to tell a large group of people about Jesus and the healing and refreshing found in God's kingdom.) Therefore in Acts, the two views of the gospel merge into one cohesive local gospel which is both experienced and proclaimed as the opportunity arises.
This is different from every evangelistic series I have been a part. Unfortunately, the order has been reversed with the proclamation of timeless truth followed by a hope that somehow the newly converted will find their needs met in whatever community happens to be more or less available. In addition, there was no consideration given to the community or the local context and needs. Instead a universal presentation was made intended to convince all listeners of timeless, placeless truth.
Here is a link to Ryan Bell's blog Intersections where he highlights a video about an Adventist missional community in the Pittsburgh suburb of Carnegie that has found a way to restore the order. They are attempting to meet the needs of the community which then led to a unique opportunity to speak before the city council. Here is a link to his post.
I find this story both inspiring and discouraging. It's inspiring because it offers a tangible glimpse into how evangelism can be an integral merging of the experience and proclamation of the good news that the Kingdom of God is here. And yet, it's discouraging because it reveals my own inadequate understanding and poor experience in how the Gospel could and should make an impact here in Birmingham.
Also, Carmen sent me a link to the first chapter of Reimagining Evangelism by Rick Richardson. His ideas have my own wheels turning. What is the goal with evangelism? Is it to save people or to share what we know of God's character and let them know why we are saved? The evangelism he imagines just might appeal to me. (It of course helps that he references one of my favorite movie series) How about you? Below is a link to his book.
Labels: Acts, Epicenter, evangelism, religion
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]