Spectrum Blog

The Adventists: Watch Clips from the Documentary

Jared Wright — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:35:47 -0700

Martin Doblmeier's latest documentary, The Adventists, is scheduled to air on PBS in early April. Doblmeier has participated in screenings across North America in what he is jokingly calling his "haystack tour." Now, courtesy of YouTube user danatjourneyfilms, you can preview segments of The Adventists.

Spectrum reviews the film here.

You may also learn more about the documentary online by visiting the film's website at

http://theadventiststhefilm.com/

THE GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT

ELLEN WHITE'S VISIONS

JOHN HARVEY KELLOGG

GEORGE KNIGHT ON KELLOGG

DR. LEONARD BAILEY

ADVENTISTS AND LONGEVITY

REBEKAH WANG - BODY, MIND, SPIRIT

DR. VIPUL PATEL - ROBOTIC SURGERY

For more clips from the documentary, visit danatjourneyfilms on YouTube [link].

Time for Lent: Homelessness

Beth Miller Kraybill — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:17:09 -0700

Our Lenten authors today, Beth Miller Kraybill and Ken Kraybill, are Mennonites from Seattle, WA. I had the privilege of studying with Beth at the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary (AMBS) in Elkhart, IN. At a school forum, Ken gave a presentation that addressed homelessness from both a local and national perspective. The story of how their home church gradually reached out to those on the streets really spoke to me, so I invited them to share their experience as part of this series on caring for others—the heart of peace and justice. I hope you will receive their story warmly. - Jeff Boyd

Learning to Love our Neighbors as Ourselves

Seattle Mennonite Church is an urban congregation that worships in a renovated movie theater in the north Seattle neighborhood of Lake City. On any given Sunday there are 80 to 100 participants. We tend to be well-educated, predominately white, middle-class, and heavily represented by 30-60 year olds. So how did we find ourselves actively involved in a Community Ministry to people experiencing homelessness in Lake City? It started by acknowledging the fact that people were literally sleeping on our doorstep.

The congregation had moved to Lake City in the early 1990’s. As elsewhere in Seattle, a number of people were living on the streets in Lake City. Within a short time of the church’s move-in, some people found a safe haven sleeping in the nooks and crannies surrounding the building. Church members would arrive for Sunday services just in time to see bleary-eyed, disheveled people packing their bedrolls and moving off the premises.

Pastoral and administrative staff began to have daily encounters with people simply wanting to talk, to use the phone, or asking for various forms of assistance. Many congregants learned to know individuals by name. Occasionally someone living outside would come in to worship or to have coffee during the Fellowship hour. Before too long, the church began to host a monthly Sunday evening meal for folks living on the streets.

The congregation’s call to ministry among our homeless neighbors continued to grow. Yet we were not sure how to proceed. We turned to Jesus’ example as described in Mark 10:

Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus stood still and said, “Call him here.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take heart; get up, he is calling you.” So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus. Then Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” The blind man said to him, “My teacher, let me see again.”

What do you want me to do for you? That question changed our lives. When we began to ask, rather than assume, what the homeless community needed and to work collaboratively with them, we learned what mattered to them. For starters, we learned that people had access to food but had nowhere to cook or store it. They were interested in looking for day labor or going to medical appointments but had nowhere to securely store their few belongings.

Thus, we began the Stop, Drop and Roll program – a volunteer staffed block of time every Thursday from 6-8am and 6-8pm during which people could bring their belongings to the church in the morning for storage and use the kitchen to cook breakfast. They could then retrieve their belongings in the evening and cook and eat dinner together. Gradually we added more days.

Along with other churches and community volunteers we established a weekly Sunday evening community meal. By 2007, we hired a couple who share a FT position as Pastors of Community Ministry. We now have a drop-in center with showers, laundry, and kitchen open 6 hours, 6 days/week. Within the past year a permanent supportive housing building was built in Lake City and 15 of our formerly homeless neighbors are now housed. We are grateful and yet mindful that eight other people in this same vulnerable community have died in the past two years.

People experiencing homelessness are at risk – physically, emotionally, and spiritually. As one of our Community Ministers states, “Recovery from the trauma of homelessness is long-term work, and our hope is to be patient, goal-oriented supporters of people in that recovery.” God has given us eyes to see, ears to hear, and the example of Jesus to follow. When the “least of these” appeared on our doorsteps we were given scriptural guidance in order that we might respond. We are blessed indeed.

For more information, see the following:

- - - - - - - -

Today’s action step is to spend some time learning about the 100,000 Homes Campaign. The video and links on the website will provide plenty to think about as you contemplate deeper involvement. Alternatively, call your local United Way to find out what care is currently being given to homeless people in your area and what needs persist.

*****
Beth Miller Kraybill is an RN of many years who is currently morphing into a chaplain. She will graduate from AMBS in May, 2010 with an MDiv concentrated in Pastoral Care and Counseling. Ken Kraybill, MSW, works for the Center for Social Innovation as a Training and Technical Assistance Specialist in the arenas of homelessness, poverty concerns, and behavioral health.

Reviewing the Review: Youth Edition

Andrew Hanson — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:05:48 -0700

February 18, 2010 - Vol. 187, No. 5

GENERAL COMMENT

This issue is pretty much standard fare. I do have things to say about two of the articles, CLAIM YOUR CAMPUS and PRESS POWER, after reviewing of the rest of the magazine.

WORLD NEWS AND PERSPECTIVES

The Adventist Development and Relief Agency along with Loma Linda University doctors and nurses are making a difference in Haiti. Hopital Adventiste d’Haiti is serving as the clinical center for the country.

Kent Hanson’s blog and email ministry has a worldwide readership of 4,000. Check out the email version at http://mondaygrace.com.

Bert Beach, longtime Adventist worker and religious liberty leader, is looking forward to attending his fifteenth General Conference Session in Atlanta, Georgia.

REVIEWS

STRETCHING OUR FAITH by Sandra Blackmer recounts a personal story in which she learned to be a successful public speaker.

Roy Adams advises readers that STAYING CALM when your contribution to a project goes unrecognized is a smart move in God’s eyes.

Fredrick A. Russell and George Johnson, Jr., and Alvin Kibble remind us that February is Black History Month. Russell’s forbearers never got the 40 ACRES AND A MULE they were promised, but “even in the face of these inequities, [Russell contends that] “God has blessed African-Americans as a people, notwithstanding their bad start in this country”.

George Johnson Jr. profiles three African Americans who are MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE HALLS OF POWER. Darron Paul Monteiro works in the White House Office of Public Engagement, Debra C. Anderson is the Deputy Chief of Staff and Communication Director for Representative Chaka Fattah, and Mark Brown is a Senior Information Security Officer for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Alvin Kibble reminds us that the spirituals like THE MORNING TRAIN reveal “the sagacity and spiritual awareness of these slaves of yesteryear. Wisely, they warned us not to wait for the evening train. ‘The evening train may be too late!’”

LIFE IN A PHRASE by Andy Nash demonstrates that you only need six words to sum up a formative period in your life. Andy, here are my six words. “God loved Job, an honest man.”

Kathryn Lay reminds us that when our lives change IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE, hope remains.

With CHURCH TRENDS, Monte Sahlin begins a new series about “action-oriented information about the Adventist church and the world in which it works”. This information is vital, and I don’t understand why it’s not available online. The following websites and addresses are those supplied by Sahlin.

"Seventh-day Adventists in North America: A Demographic Profile" can be obtained from the Center for Creative Ministry or 800-272-4664; Why Our Teenagers Leave the Church: Personal Stories From a 10-year Study—Roger Dudley; Valuegenesis Ten Years Later: A Study of Two Generation—Gillespie, Donahue, Boyatt, and Gane; and Ministering With Millennials—edited by Dudley and Walshe. These materials can be obtained from the local Adventist Book Center or through AdventSource or 800-328-0525.

COMMENTS

In CLAIM YOUR CAMPUS, Jimmy Phillips argues that if the Adventist Church will only “give young adults meaningful roles within the church”, they will stick around as adults. In my opinion, that tactic will only work if young people can be given a powerful voice in a campaign to modify the official 28 official doctrines of the Adventist Church. This creed is now set in concrete and defended officially and irrationally as God ordained, in spite of the fact that a preface to SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS BELIEVE states that “understanding is ever progressive” and Adventist doctrines are “the product of Adventist growth ‘in grace and knowledge’”.

PRESS POWER by Bill Krick makes a relevant point when it comes to the power of the press. Spiritual ignorance cannot “successfully contend with the mass distribution of myth-exposing literature” when it finds “its way into the hands of the common people”. Maybe that’s why half of Jimmy Phillips’s high school class “is no longer actively involved in the church, many of whom drifted away during college.”

Video|Where Does Reinhold Niebuhr Fit Into Current Theology and Politics?

Alexander Carpenter — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:41:52 -0700

Peter Beinart, of The New America Foundation, and Rev. Daniel Schultz, of Religion Dispatches, debate the history and current relevancy of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.

The "Cold War's public intellectual" has lately gained some new attention as through the praise of New York Times columnist David Brooks and repeated citations by President Barack Obama.

On a related note, public radio's "Speaking of Faith with Kista Tippett" has a terrific interactive site, including Reinhold Niebuhr time line with letters and pictures from the Library of Congress. Listen to Tippett's conversation, Obama's Theologian, about Niebuhr with David Brooks and E. J. Dionne at Georgetown University.

Discussed:

Who Reinhold Niebuhr was and what he believed
How his philosophy evolved from WWI to the Cold War
Invoking Niebuhr in the torture debate
The decline of theologians in public discourse
Niebuhr’s odd place in today’s politics
What would Niebuhr have said about Iraq and Israel-Palestine?

Art, Allah, and Cultural Naiveté

Bjorn Karlman — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:22:32 -0700

Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks was back in the news this week after it had been discovered that seven arrests had been made in Ireland due to a plot to kill him. In 2007, Vilks’ work depicting the Prophet Muhamed with the body of a dog was published in the Swedish Nerikes Allehanda newspaper. Vilks’ work had originally been featured in an arts project before it was published by the paper. It caused widespread anger in the Muslim world as well as a bounty of $100,000 to be placed on his head by a group linked to Al Qaeda in Iraq and, as the BBC reports, “a 50% bonus if he was ’slaughtered like a lamb’ by having his throat cut.”

After the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and created the country’s biggest international blowup since World War II, you would have thought basic common sense would have discouraged any similarly-inspired artwork. But no, Vilks carried on and his work caused such an uproar that Sweden’s embassy in Pakistan had to express regret over his art and the subsequent hurt caused while stating that it could not prevent the publication of the material because it would interfere with the freedom of the press.

Vilks at the time chimed in saying that his work was art and told the Associated Press, “I’m not against Islam. Everybody knows that. . .” The Christian Science Monitor quoted Vilks after the $100,000 bounty had been placed on his head: “I suppose this makes my art project a bit more serious. It’s also good to know how much one is worth.” The same article reports that Vilks created his controversial art “as an editorial comment on self-censorship, freedom of expression, and religion.”

The BBC, in an August 31, 2007 piece, quotes Pakistan’s foreign ministry on “what it described as a growing tendency ‘among some Europeans to mix the freedom of expression with an outright and deliberate insult to 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide… Such acts deeply undermine the efforts of those who seek to promote respect and understanding among religions and civilisations. . .’ ”

How do you react to such sentiment? You could go the route of conservative political commentator, Tony Blankley. After the cartoonist behind the original Danish work, Kurt Westergaard, was attacked in his home by a Somali Muslim, Blankley railed against the fact that “most European journalistic commentary argued that Western writers and artists should, for prudence sake, abstain from such (allegedly blasphemous) expression..”

Said Blankley,

. . .it is worse than imprudent for Americans (or Europeans) to give up freedoms and ways of life that have been defended for centuries by the martial sacrifice of our ancestors (and current warriors) — and by the intellectual courage of our writers and artists — just because our morally feeble, self-proclaimed ‘educated class’ and elites have lost the will to defend our civilization.

What Blankley seems to miss is that the problem has very little to do with defending Western civilization and every bit to do with basic intercultural relations. Just because the free world embraces freedom of speech does not mean that all forms of reason and restraint and respect for cultural and religious differences should be cast to the wind. Freedom of religion and expression are a basic right in the free world but there are limits; anti-hate speech legislation exist in a number of Western countries that prevent expression of hateful rhetoric based on factors such as race, ethnicity and sexual orientation.

With current anti-Islamic sentiment at record highs, there is little difference between irresponsible (blasphemous, in the eyes of some) art depicting Muhammad, and hateful propaganda. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are important rights and should remain so. But cultural cretins like Vilks should think carefully about the responsibilities that come with such freedoms.
*****
A graduate of Andrews University, Bjorn Karlman blogs at Culture Mutt.

Adventism's Impact

Alexander Carpenter — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:17:50 -0700

Feb. 16, 2010: President Obama's personal aide Reggie Love and White House doctor Jeffrey Kuhlman ride in a spare limousine from Lanham, MD to the White House.

Official White House Photo By Pete Souza

Capt. Jeffrey Kuhlman, USN, a member of Spencerville Seventh-day Adventist Church in Silver Spring, Maryland, is head of the White House Medical Unit and is the chief physician to President Obama.

This Adventist connection has been reported before, but seeing this recent image reminded me of how the Adventist commitment to making humans whole has allowed our little faith community to have an outsized impact on our world.

Time for Lent: Economic Justice II

Jeff Boyd — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:33:18 -0700

In Part 1 we established that the Jewish prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus and the early church were concerned about the economic life of the community.[1] In light of Ellen White’s statement that economic injustice would be an on-going scourge, Wednesday’s task was to begin listening to the cry of the oppressed.

We begin Part 2 by focusing on this cry and choosing an attitude that will guide our response. When explaining the rationale behind the call to justice in Exodus 22:21-23, Aryeh Cohen, a professor of rabbinic literature, compares God’s (Exodus 2:23-25) and Pharaoh’s (Exodus 5:15-18) responses to the Israelite’s cry of oppression in Egypt. Cohen says to the Jews:

You were in Egypt. You know that there are two ways to react to the cry of the oppressed. You can react like God and hear the cry and bring about redemption, or you can react like Pharaoh and ignore the cry and bring God’s wrath upon yourself. Exodus 22:20-23 puts the choice of justice in its starkest form—you can choose to imitate God or to imitate Pharaoh.[2]

This decision is ours as we look at today’s economic justice issue—workers’ rights. Discussing this topic is difficult given the best conditions and is even more challenging at a time when the economy has faltered and many readers are unemployed.[3] However, it just may be that God’s wisdom regarding economic justice is even more critically important now than ever.

“Workers’ rights” is an expansive topic, so I’m narrowing the discussion to wages of those at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, both in the U.S. and abroad. What are fair wages? What is a living wage? Who decides? I hold two perspectives in tension. First, I have taken enough economics courses to gain some degree of trust in the market forces of supply and demand to determine various economic variables such as wages, prices, and production. At the same time, experience has shown that the invisible hand of the market can easily oppress. This is because at least one factor is missing from the supply and demand equation: power.

An example of the role of power can be seen in Congress. Senators and Representatives regularly vote themselves raises. This is not because wages need to increase in order to induce more people to run for office. There is no supply shortage of politicians. Yet leaders raise their pay because they have the power to do so. Because power is not always this obvious, it seems wise for us to deliberately consider latent power dynamics when analyzing the market forces of supply and demand.[4]

You and I may appreciate our “free” market context, but as Christians we understand the difference between maximizing profit (the market’s goal) and maintaining justice (the right use of power resulting in shalom for all members of society). We understand that because some stakeholders (e.g., laborers and even the environment) often lack voice and power, we do not blindly presume that the most obvious consumption options presented to us by marketing and production managers represent all of the choices required for economic justice.

I believe we need to acknowledge that our economy and our standard of living have been built on the backs of those at the margins, just as other empires before us have done. In our quest for ever cheaper products, we have given certain desperate and powerless workers subsistence wages while those arranging the system have grown rich. The market may excuse the widening gap between the rich and poor, but we saw in Part 1 that God isn’t buying it.[5]

Since paralysis in guilt is not an adequate response, what tangible actions can we take? First, we can accept the grace God gives us despite how the unintended consequences of our actions have hurt others. Second, we can look for ways to offer this grace and freedom and hope to others through our economic decisions. This is today’s assignment. We cast a single vote for a president once every four years, but we vote for tomorrow’s world with every dollar spent today. Let us learn to vote well. For example, we can:

Join our local co-op and encourage management to pay vendor laborers what we believe is a Living Wage. We can demand that our prices reflect a just exchange.
Search for Fair Trade merchandise. We can learn what is available and where to purchase it.[6]
Learn the True Cost or Full Cost of our most commonly purchased products.[7]
Research common (and uncommon) brands and learn which ones are socially responsible and environmentally friendly.[8]
Make loans to entrepreneurs in developing countries through Kiva.[9]

*****
[1] Ash Barker looks at the nine Hebrew words for oppression on pages 33-35 of Make Poverty Personal: Taking the Poor as Seriously as the Bible Does (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2009).

[2] Or N. Rose, Jo Ellen Green Kaiser, and Margie Klein, eds., Righteous Indignation: A Jewish Call for Justice (Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2009), 145.

[3] My wife and I were once collectively unemployed for some 15 months, so I have at least some measure of empathy for those currently out of work.

[4] Two other examples of power are labor unions (unions do not change the medium- or long-term supply of labor, but they do increase worker power) and the military (Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, recognized this is 1933—speech excerpt). Lobbying could arguably be included as well.

[5] The CEO-to-worker wage ratio in the U.S. in 1980 was 42. In 2008 it was 319 (http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/). This report analyzes the numbers differently -- http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/swa08-exec_pay.pdf -- and includes an inter-country comparison. Also, see a longitudinal chart that shows the ratio of CEO:worker pay at http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_200606.... Compare this trend with the real purchasing power of minimum wage at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html. As with all statistics, these numbers are open to discussion, and there are multiple methods of looking at income levels, for example tax brackets. One may say that the economic tide raises all boats, but it seems to me that this effect is less than satisfactory. When roughly a billion people live on 1 dollar a day and more than another billion live on 2 dollars a day, this analogy doesn’t seem to hold water. I doubt that this phrase means much to the 25,000 to 30,000 children who die every day from poverty-related causes (http://www.globalissues.org/article/715/today-over-25000-children-died-a... & http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/news/2003/nz0708.html).

[6] Consult http://www.transfairusa.org/content/WhereToBuy/. Consider buying gifts for others from 10,000 Villages or go all out at ADRA or World Vision.

[7] Learn more at Utne or Adbusters.

[8] Possible websites to start the search include the National Green Pages, Corporate Critic (UK), Ethical Consumer (UK) and Get Ethical.

[9] For additional ideas, see The Revolution (Zydek, 2006, pp. 51-66), Zealous Love (Yankoski & Yankoski, 2009, pp. 207-234), Everybody Wants to Change the World (Campolo & Aeschliman, 2006, pp. 11-32), and How to Make the World a Better Place (Hollender & Catling, 1995, pp. 203-248).

The Exalted Father (The Question of God - Alt. S.S. 4 of 11)

Rich Hannon — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:23:59 -0700

Freud, like Lewis, associated the spiritual worldview with the metaphor of a father. But this is always problematic. Even the best father figures are insufficient as role models. So the more expansive question is not about fathers per se, but what should we use as a model for God? It is to that question we now turn our attention.

Anselm and Perfection

St. Anselm (1033-1109) was Italian, Benedictine and the Archbishop of Canterbury in England. He wrote a book entitled Proslogian where he made an attempt to prove God’s existence (this argument is often labeled the Ontological Argument for God’s Existence). But for my purposes here I wish to point out a definition of God he wrote in Chapter 4: “God is that than which a greater cannot be conceived.”

And, for purposes of this class, I will at times use the term ‘Anselmean God’, to hang a label on this idea because I think it is so frequently envisioned but lacks a handy moniker. Don’t get too hung up with the term, but it captures, in my view, how many (most?) of us view God.

Let’s unpack Anslem’s phrase. He is saying that the proper definition of God will/should take all those attributes we would normally attribute to God – omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence etc. – and extrapolate them to the limit of human comprehension. Then realize each attribute continues beyond that into transcendence, and this is how we should view God. Such a high view, of course, eliminates all those inferior god-wannabes (e.g. Zeus, Baal) who are just extrapolations of humanity with all its weaknesses. And our interaction with such deities involves avoidance and negotiation. We want to dodge those lightning-bolts on the one hand, and we seek to bribe the god to help us achieve good fortune, on the other.

I’m suggesting that Anselm’s definition resonates with most of us. And it is also somewhat indebted to Plato’s idea of the divided line. Consider this diagram– from The Republic, Book 6.

Plato’s Divided Line

Figure 6

Here Plato contrasts Belief with Knowledge, suggesting that the invisible is more perfect (and not transient) compared with the visible. For Plato, his concept of deity has real understanding while we struggle too frequently with mere opinion. And while we are in a transient world, coming into and going out of being, deity holds the actual forms in mind.

What then might be some implications of an Anselmean God? These extrapolated characteristics infer perfection – we take the virtues and extend them beyond our limited horizons.

So what about …

Human free will?
The classic theistic picture of God’s sovereignty infers that He has exhaustive knowledge, and that would seem, logically speaking, to preclude genuine human freedom. This whole subject is highly contentious and exceeds the focus and scope of this essay. The label often used for the topic is Open Theism and one of its early proponents was Adventist theologian Rick Rice. For further reading I would refer you to his book The Openness of God[1] (sadly I fear, it is presently out-of-print). Also there is a seminal philosophical paper written by Nelson Pike where he attempts to demonstrate that the classic high view of God’s foreknowledge logically precludes man having free will [2]. Several years back on the Spectrum website I wrote a paper where I defended the Pike perspective [3]. It would seem that we want our ‘cake’ and eat it too, i.e. allowing God exhaustive foreknowledge yet retaining human freedom.
The Problem of Evil?
An Anselmean definition of God leaves us grappling with the Problem of Evil. If we extrapolate God’s supposed virtues – omniscience, omnipotence, omni-benevolence – what answer can we give for what seems to be the inescapable reality of evil in this world? For now I will beg that critical question, but Session 10 will deal with it at length. Stay tuned.
Perfectionism and Human Frailty?
Adventism has long struggled theologically with the idea of a person obtaining perfection in the Last Generation – perhaps this even being the trigger for the second coming. The Bible states “You must, therefore, be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." --Matt. 5:48. And, an Anselmean God would have the capacity to provide resources toward this end. So why do we fall so short of the mark?

God as Father – Anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism attributes human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, natural and supernatural phenomena, objects and abstractions. How does this affect how we view God? In Session 2 I discussed transcendence. Here is where the problem touches us. How can we know anything about the transcendent dimensions of God – where it exceeds our inherent limitations? It seems evident that God must take the initiative, invading our world with the best approximation of His personhood, so we might at least dimly understand. It cannot go in the other direction.

But note that a necessary consequence of this anthropomorphism is that such ‘God knowledge’ is inductive. We get glimpses ‘through a glass darkly’ and there is a real risk that our limitations will distort the picture God wishes to convey.

Let me try to amplify this problem of distortion.

Black Swans

There once was a time when we humans were more sure about how the world actually ‘was’. Back in the 19th century most of the world was unaware of the existence of black swans (only indigenous to Australia). So logic books even had the audacity to suggest syllogisms like: For all x, if x is a swan, then x is white. The discovery of black swans became the classical example of falsification and I refer you back to my discussion in Session 3 about how the scientific method is both inductive and built on the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

But a similar, more pervasive example of such hubris also existed in philosophy. People were sure the Euclidian geometry was correct. Here was one real-world certainty verifiable from mathematics. But then, again in the 19th century, came both Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometries. I’ll spare you the details (they exceed my skill level anyway) but Riemannian geometry is not applied to a flat surface, rather a sphere. It finds practical application in flying Great Circle Routes. If, for example, you worked for an airline and were responsible for planning the most direct route from New York to Hong Kong you would be wise to appreciate these implications. Still, the projection of an image in Riemannian space is pretty counter-intuitive. Consider this example – a drawing by M.C. Escher, to illustrate:

Figure 7

This image – viewed from a Euclidean perspective – looks distorted. But it is normal if you are working from a Riemannian set of assumptions.

What then does this say about God as Father – and the implicit anthropomorphism behind that idea? Be careful that you don’t find yourself thinking too much inside the box.

Lewis and Freud – Perspectives on the Father Metaphor

Nicholi on Freud:

Freud insisted that one’s personal relationship with God depends entirely on one’s relationship with one’s father. … Freud explained that when the child grows up … [h]e is imprinted with the “image of the father whom in his childhood he so greatly overvalued. He exalts the image into a deity and makes it into something contemporary and real.” (Question of God - p. 43)

Freud wrote that the individual creates for himself the God “whom he dreads, whom he seeks to propitiate, and with whom he nevertheless entrusts with his own protection.”

So Freud asserts we possess intense, deep-seated wishes that form the basis for our concept of and belief in God. God does not create us in His image; we create God in our parents’ image – or, more accurately, into the childhood image of our father. (p. 44)

Nicholi on Lewis:

C.S. Lewis countered Freud’s wish-fulfillment argument with the assertion that the biblical worldview involves a great deal of despair and pain and is certainly not anything one would wish for. He argued that understanding this view begins with the realization that one is in deep trouble, that one has transgressed the moral law and needs forgiveness and reconciliation. He wrote that this worldview begins to make sense only “after you have realized that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power.” … Although this biblical faith is “a thing of unspeakable comfort … it does not begin in comfort; it begins in dismay”. (p. 45)

The Video Conversation [7 minutes, 28 seconds] - Transcript

Handout Material for Week 4

Some Questions to Consider:

Q: How much does our early interaction with our fathers color our concept of God?

Q: What about a mother figure? Fathers in our society are often weak and/or absent. How might our ideas of God be shaped differently when we extrapolate from the ideas of a ‘heavenly mother’?

Q: Do you agree or disagree that our concept of God is ‘Anselmean’?

Q: In what ways, if any, have you seen people misuse anthropomorphism in trying to understand God?

References:

1	Rice, Richard, The openness of God: The relationship of divine foreknowledge and human free will. (Review and Herald Pub. Association, 1980)
2	"Divine Omniscience and Voluntary Action." [Abstract] Journal of Philosophy (November 7, 1963), 60(23): 735-736
3	http://www.spectrummagazine.org/node/399

Links to the other essays in this series:

1) Introduction
2) A Transcendent Experience
3) Science or Revelation
4) The Exalted Father
5) Why Believe?
6) Miracles
7) Moral Law – Part A
8) Moral Law – Part B
9) Love Thy Neighbor
10) The Human Condition
11) Suffering and Death

Video|That Millerite Prophecy Chart. . .Explained

Alexander Carpenter — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:29:47 -0800

"An interview with Adventist historian Merlin Burt about the Millerite prophecy chart that inspired Spectrum's prophecy chart tee shirt.

Dr. Burt's dissertation is available electronically from your local university through University Microfilms International. It's title is 'The Historical Background, Interconnected Development, and Integration of the Doctrines of the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and Ellen G. White's Role in the Development of Sabbatarian Adventism from 1844 to 1849.'"

Text and video by David Hamstra.

Reviewing the Review: None Controversial Edition

Andrew Hanson — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:26:51 -0800

February 25, 2010 - Vol. 187, No. 6

GENERAL COMMENTS
Once again, there is nothing in this issue that inspires controversy. However, the cover feature, ANOTHER BATTLE OVER DAVID AND GOLIATH, is interesting and cutting edge informative. Note: For those of you who do not subscribe to the Review, some of the news and articles I review are “members only”. Often, those are worth the very affordable subscription price.

WORLD NEWS AND PERSPECTIVES includes information about the April 20 Ministry Professional Growth Seminar that will take place in Pasadena, California. Featured speakers are: Marguerite Shuster, Miroslav Volt, Roy Adams, and Lawrence Geraty.

SDA’s creation care stance is lauded on the New Humane Society Web Page.

Florida’s Nicholson Center for Surgical advancement received a $4.2 million dollar grant. The money will be used to train doctors in surgical robotic research.

In February, the SDA Health Training Conference met in Orlando, Florida. “The annual summit offered tools for local and regional church leadership to deliver community health programs.”

REVIEWS
Gerald a. Klingbeil’s editorial, CONTEXT, makes the case for illuminating even the darkest events of our lives with the light provided by The Light of the World.

ON KEEPING ON, Mark A. Kellner quotes Ellen White to remind readers that “A rich, glorious reward. . .is the prize for which we run”.

NICODEMUS IN THE NIGHT by David Marshall provides the evidence that after his secret conversation with Jesus, Nicodemus was a changed man.

Andrew McChesney, iconoclastic Moscow reporter, as done it again. In DON’T PICK UP! he tells the story of the time that sin called him on the telephone “just a few minutes after midnight”.

ANOTHER BATTLE OVER DAVID & GOLIATH, Michael G. Hasel, the Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Southern Adventist University, confronts the many questions regarding the historicity of the Old Testament before the time of Josiah. The Review is to be congratulated on its evenhanded reporting of this current archeological controversy. This is a MUST READ.

Ellen G. White regarded THE SCRIPTURES AS SAFEGUARD. She paraphrases the Psalmist with these words. “Thy testimonies are my meditation. Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.”

A PORTAL FOR PRAIZE is a MUST READ. It is the story of lay men and women who have created a virtual ministry that opens Internet portals for churches throughout the world. Amazing!

RETHINKING VEGETARIANISM by Wes Youngberg is a MUST READ for vegetarians and those who might want to give it a try.

For young people, It’s all ABOUT EMPOWERMENT, according to Jose Cortes, Jr. He recommends mission projects.

According to Vanessa Sanders, “Christians should be more like drug addicts.” JUST AS YOU ARE explains what she means.

Soulforce Equality Riders to Visit Oakwood and Union

Alexander Carpenter — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:26:39 -0800

Soulforce, which engages in relentless nonviolent resistance against political and religious oppression of LGBTQ people, will be visiting Oakwood University on Monday, March 15, and Union College on Thursday, April 21.

Soulforce Equality Rides are based on the nonviolent direct action work of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi to increase equality and engage in dialogue over issues of human sexuality and gender identity. Equality Riders commit to a credo which starts out:

I believe that my adversary is also a child of the Creator, that we are both members of the same human family, that we are sisters and brothers in need of reconciliation.

Oakwood University's president has issued some guidelines for students during Monday's visit.

For the purposes of the visit day, any person who comes to campus in support of the Equality Ride (other than its internal members) will be considered trespassing and so will not be permitted to enter university property.

Other guidelines include:

Members of the OU community are requested to avoid interactions with Equality Riders
The riders are well versed in their rhetoric; debate is unlikely to be productive

A 2007 visit to Brigham Young University, a private institution run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints led to a clarification regarding sexual orientation among students.

Here is video starting out their 2010 Equality Ride season

Here is video from a visit to Morehouse and Spelman.

For more information on the Oakwood visit, click here.

For more information on the Union visit, click here.

Time for Lent: Economic Justice I

Jeff Boyd — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:19:16 -0800

The ways we eat, approach politics, worship God and spend money are highly emotionally charged because they emanate from the core of our identities. The values, hopes and fears that shape our practices and attitudes in these areas are veritable land mines; venture here at your own risk. This is to acknowledge that we need to offer each other abounding grace today as we talk about economics at the personal and societal level.[1]

In her essay, “The Last Crisis,” Ellen White describes both physical destruction and economic injustice. I begin today’s deliberation with the following quote from this portion of Testimonies for the Church to remind us that an awareness of injustice is part of the Adventist heritage. “The enemy has succeeded in perverting justice and in filling men’s hearts with the desire for selfish gain.”[2] White continues by citing Isaiah 59:14 and then states:

In the great cities there are multitudes living in poverty and wretchedness, well-nigh destitute of food, shelter, and clothing; while in the same cities are those who have more than heart could wish, who live luxuriously, spending their money on richly furnished houses, on personal adornment, or worse still, upon the gratification of sensual appetites…. The cries of starving humanity are coming up before God, while by every species of oppression and extortion men are piling up colossal fortunes.[3]

With our western view of justice, we can be tempted to think that any amount of wealth amassed using legal means is just, and that using our finances primarily for personal pleasure and security is the rightful benefit for our hard work. However, before we excuse ourselves too quickly, which I’ll admit is my first reaction, I think it is important to consider two strands of counter-thought.

First, an understanding of the Jewish concept of justice, which encompasses tzedakah, mishpat and shalom, enables us to hear Jesus’ priorities in Matthew 23:23—justice, mercy and faithfulness. For example, consider tzedakah:

"Tzedakah" is the Hebrew word for the acts that we call "charity" in English: giving aid, assistance and money to the poor and needy or to other worthy causes. However, the nature of tzedakah is very different from the idea of charity. The word "charity" suggests benevolence and generosity, a magnanimous act by the wealthy and powerful for the benefit of the poor and needy. The word "tzedakah" is derived from the Hebrew root Tzadei-Dalet-Qof, meaning righteousness, justice or fairness. In Judaism, giving to the poor is not viewed as a generous, magnanimous act; it is simply an act of justice and righteousness.[4]

This reveals why Jesus warns those who have wealth but don’t use it to take care of others (e.g., Luke 12:16-21). Similarly, John asks the probing question: “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” (1 John 3:17). In summary, God’s justice not only involves right means of wealth accumulation, but also the right use of our resources to care for those in need.[5]

Second, a brief look at the sabbatical and Jubilee laws reveals God’s priorities and provides a lens through which to view Jesus’ ministry. The guidance given in Exodus 23, Deuteronomy 15 and Leviticus 25 “were a type of economic reform legislation to redistribute the capital resources of the community so that they would not become concentrated in the hands of a few.”[6] Even though the Israelite nation did not fully practice these instructions, and even though they would be impossible to enact in a hyper-literal fashion today, we are still able to discern God’s values in these ancient teachings. By arranging for productive assets to be distributed between families in perpetuity, God prioritized the avoidance of systemic poverty over the freedom to amass wealth.

With this understanding of God’s character and kingdom, we turn to Jesus’ hometown speech (Luke 4:13-21). The portion of scripture Jesus reads from Isaiah 61 was “one of the passages selected for reading at the commencement of the Jubilee year.”[7]

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”

Let’s allow the significance of this statement to sink in. Jesus’ proclamation was
“good news” to the poor, slaves, debtors, and other oppressed persons who could rejoice in their freedom. There was a redistribution of wealth and everyone was put on equal footing. Thus a Jubilee year was indeed an acceptable year to all the types of oppressed persons. Luke portrays Jesus as proclaiming the inauguration of such an era.[8]

As we look at the ministry of John the Baptist and the life of the early church, we see the embodiment of these teachings. While we may question the effectiveness of John’s preparatory ministry, his call for radical equality—if you have two coats, give one away—did embody the Jubilee.[9]

Later, after Jesus ascension, we find the young community voluntarily living Jubilee principles to the degree that there were none in need (Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37). Shane Clairborne points out that “redistribution comes from community, not before community. Redistribution is a description of what happens when people fall in love across class lines.”[10] We may not currently be prepared to live this way, but that does not mean we are more economically and socially enlightened than the Holy Spirit-infused early church.

We have seen that the Bible and Ellen White argue against both greed and economic oppression. What we have not considered are the actual expressions of economic injustice and oppression in our world today. Therefore, today’s assignment is to take time to research this ethical cancer that Ellen White said would exist until the end. Step One is to pray that God will open our eyes to the injustices that break his heart. Step Two is to begin reading. I encourage each of us to spend time browsing at Sojourners, Evangelicals for Social Action or Poor People’s Economic Human Rights. Step Three is to pray for wisdom and compassion to inform action.[11] Maranatha!

[1] If this essay is irksome to you, a highly effective response would be to say, “Jeff, prove that you have given all away and are free from global economic structures.” After closing my Mountain Gear catalog, my only reply would be, “You win, but together let’s keep growing in compassion and justice.”

[2] Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948), 11.

[3] Ibid., 9:12. These writings that renounce “grinding down the poor” are consistent with the words of the prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures (Ps. 9:17-20; 82:1-4; 146:6-10; Prov. 13:23; 14:31; 22:16; Ez. 16:49; 22:13; Is. 1:15-18; 58:3-7; Jer. 22:16), the life and teachings of Jesus (Luke 1:53; 6:24; 12:16-21; 16:19-31; Matt. 19:23; 21:12-13; 25:31-46), and the subsequent priorities of the early church (Gal. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:9-18; 1 John 3:17; James 1:10-11; 2:6; 5:1-6; Rev. 3:17; 6:15; 18:3).

[4] http://www.jewfaq.org/tzedakah.htm. To learn more about the Jewish conception of justice and repairing the world, see pages 3-52 in Righteous Indignation: A Jewish Call for Justice edited by Or N. Rose, Jo Ellen Green Kaiser and Margie Klein (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 2008) and “Justice, Human Rights, and Government” by Ron Sider in Toward an Evangelical Public Policy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005), 168-177.

[5] It should be noted that legal business practices may be highly unethical and unjust in God’s eyes. We will consider this in Part 2.

[6] Perry B. Yoder, Shalom: The Bible's Word for Salvation, Justice, and Peace, 1st ed. (Nappanee, IN: Evangel Publishing, 1987), 81.

[7] J. Massynbaerde Ford, My Enemy is My Guest: Jesus and Violence in Luke (New York, NY: Orbis, 1984), 55.

[8] Ibid.

[9] As Adventists we believe we have inherited John’s ministry of preparing people to meet Jesus. It seems to me that we might have something to learn from the content of John’s teachings. That is, from the little that is recorded we see that John taught social ethics rather than (or quite possibly in addition to) a prophetic timeline. I believe it’s possible that embracing John’s priorities may play some part in fulfilling Ellen White’s comment about living God’s character, though I understand her phrase is controversial on its own without my added dimension.

[10] Shane Claiborne, The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 163.

[11] An alternative assignment would be to begin paying a graduated tithe. Like the author of this article, I first heard of this generous form of tithing in Ron Sider’s Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (1997), a book that challenges me every time I open it. A third assignment option that puts flesh on the Jubilee act of redistributing capital is to mentor and tutor since education is quite possibly the most critical “productive resource” in this information age.

A Short History of Healthcare

Don Barton — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:44:11 -0800

In the beginning, before the modern age, when man hurt himself from injury or acquired a disease there was no one to help him. So he cried out for healing, and someone responded, and studied how they might help man and cure him from his disease. And he became known as a doctor or teacher, and because there were so few doctors to help man from his aliments, man had to wait a long time to see the doctor, hence man became known as a patient, for if he wanted to be helped--he must be very patient!

For it was apparent, if a man couldn’t recover from his disease, then he wouldn’t be able to work and take care of his family, so paying for a doctor was a priority, so others became doctors and studied more to understand various diseases, so as to help those who fall sick, so they can take care of their families, and have money to pay the doctors.

And the people were glad for the doctors to keep them from disease, and the doctors were happy to help people as well. And there was peace in the land. As time went on, doctors charged more for their services, for they studied more, and created tests that they may ascertain what is making man sick. The doctors worked long hours for this was their lot. But there were still not enough doctors to heal man of his diseases.

So as man began to industrialize, and as the standard of living went up, the people cried out for better healthcare facilities and more competent physicians to heal them of their diseases. And the government said, we will open healthcare to free enterprise, so young entrepreneurs can create better tools, medicines, and build hospitals to keep laborers productive longer. And the capitalists beheld the future and said “this is very good business – the longer people work, the more will be our profits!” And the churches rejoiced, “we shall fulfill our mission to heal the sick.” And they too built hospitals, and educated doctors - to make man whole and to evangelize him to fill their churches.

And more hospitals were added to the landscape so people would not have to stay home to take care of sick loved ones, so they could continue to go to work, to earn money to pay taxes and buy things. With more money to pay for healthcare, new entrepreneurs came forth, and created even more medicines, and supplies, new laboratory tests and X-ray machines, and the capitalists saw this and said, this is very good for profit! And the churches continued to talk of their mission to make man whole.

But the family members, the churches, and friends cried out, we cannot afford to pay for this new healthcare! So the Capitalists and entrepreneurs decided to create a new way of paying for healthcare that would make them even more money – the 3rd Party Payer. We will preach that healthcare is not a right, but a privilege, and tell everyone to pay “a little” each month for the privilege to access healthcare.

The people responded to this calling by the 3rd Party Payers. And the 3rd Party Payers rejoiced for they now had a huge source of income. And they built very large building, at great cost – and in return, promised to pay the hospital and doctors bills so a person could get this new healthcare (note: only after premiums had been paid and exclusions and deductables applied )

The people rejoiced, because they had access to better hospitals and more educated physicians. And there was peace in the land, and for a time all were happy; the public, the doctors, the hospitals, and the entrepreneurs who were finding new ways to generate incomes from all the money paid out by the 3rd party payers.

The vendors increased, the pharmaceutical companies flourished, and doctors and hospitals embraced the new technologies and drugs that promised to make man whole. More and more money was spent and the people rejoiced even more, as the magic of entrepreneurs continued to make the tools to heal them of their diseases, accidents, and more and more, their poor life style choices.

But soon the 3rd Party Payers cried out, we cannot stay in business and keep paying out all this money, we must raise premiums to meet the demands of making man whole.

And the people murmured of this burden, and some exclaimed they could no longer pay the premiums, and they cried unto their leaders. And the leaders said we will tax the middle class more, and the leaders created Medicare to pay the hospitals and doctors.

The self appointed Protectors of the Public also said there must be justice to those who are hurt from such expensive healthcare, and set forth to involve doctors and hospitals, and vendors with the fear of litigation with massive settlements to punish those who would make mistakes. And the cost of healthcare continued to rise to offset the expensive lawsuits and trials. And the hospital and doctors began to cry out for Tort reform, but since most of the leaders were also Protectors of the Public by trade, they couldn’t understand why. And a new form of medicine came into being, call Defensive Medicine, which raised the costs making man whole even more.

And those people who come to America without permission, they too used the healthcare system, and the leaders said you must find a way to take care of these people. And the hospitals and doctors cried out more for they were healing those without permission -but not getting paid.

And then the leaders sat down, and said, we must overhaul the healthcare system to allow equal access for all.

And some leaders said we will tax every citizen to pay more money for healthcare, and we will tell the doctors and hospitals how much money they can make, and tell them how to conduct healthcare, and who should receive treatment, and who should not. While other leaders cried out, we must let free market forces reshape healthcare, and not politicians. Much discussion went on, but the leaders couldn’t agree among themselves – yet all the leaders did agree on one thing, “something must be done!”

And the hospitals exclaimed in fear and torment, “how can we run our hospitals, if we cannot get paid what we charge for our services. How will we pay our vendors and our staff and management? How will we build new hospitals, and furnish them?”

And the 3rd Party Payers realized that soon they could become simple functionaries of their leaders’ policies, and their profits will be never as they were before, and in anger and rage, vowed not to give in and worked hard to influence their leaders’ decisions!

The doctors lamented their futures, and prepared to fight for their rights to make man whole, realizing they will soon be less independent, and will work for hospitals and government agencies with decreased income. And they sought ways to pressure their leaders.

And the entrepreneurs of technologies and services will cry out; “how will we develop new machines and instruments to heal diseases, and how will we pay our staff if we cannot charge as we have before?” And they created groups to force leaders to listen to their cause.

The pharmaceutical companies shuttered and exclaimed with defiance, “how can we make new drugs and better medicines to heal people of their many ailments and continue to employ the many professionals if we do not have a good income?“ And they conspired how to change their leader’s minds

And the Protectors of the Public wailed with gnashing of teeth, and wept uncontrollably, “who will protect the people from mistakes made while in hospitals or by physicians or by large deep pocketed companies who make defective products?” And they used their talents and influence to do everything they could to prevent their leaders from taking away their rights to protect the people.

The leaders sighed and said, but we must do something to make sure all people have the same access to healthcare, regardless of income or a pre-existing illness.

And the poor rejoiced at their leader’s words,

The rich complained bitterly.

The middle class moaned because they had little or no recourse.

The liberal felt justified.

The conservative felt betrayed.

The capitalists began to look for other ways to use their money.

The socialist felt society was coming into a new more progressive age, and were exceedingly happy.

And the individual was left confused.

And the patient asked, “is there anyway I can get an aspirin around here?”

Don Barton has previously written about The Secularization of Adventist Higher Education in the United States.

Art: Thomas Eakins, The Gross Clinic (detail), 1875.

Divining the Voice in My Head

James Coffin — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:50:15 -0800

I often hear the expression (used rather glibly, I must say): “God told me.” The words are typically the preamble to a description of some strongly held conviction. But the expression leaves me uncomfortable.

For starters, just how did God tell the person? Was there a booming voice from heaven that all in the room heard? Was there an actual voice, but audible only to the person? Or was it just a strong conviction—a moment of clarity—that came at a crucial point in the person’s mental wrestling?

It seems to me that we’d better be absolutely sure that our thoughts are truly of divine origin before we attach the name of God to them. There’s a commandment that prohibits taking the name of the Lord “in vain.” In other words, connecting the name of God to something that doesn’t merit having God’s name attached to it.

It’s one thing to say “I feel,” “I think,” “I believe,” “My study of the Bible has convinced me,” “I’m convicted.” It’s quite another to say, “God told me.” I’m not saying God doesn’t literally speak to people. I’m just saying that making such a claim is a loaded expression that should be used only when all other explanations have been ruled out. It’s kind of like an atomic bomb: very powerful. So it should be used with the utmost reserve.

Anyway, as I read the scriptures, I wonder if maybe the people in Bible times weren’t given to the use and misuse of the “God told me” expression just as we are now. Maybe even more so. “God told” people a lot of things back then, it seems. And judging just from the context and the ethics of the advice given, I think it possible that there may have been times when God gets the credit for something that came from other sources. I’ve come across some prime examples recently while preparing sermons. Let’s look at just one right now.

Hagar, an Egyptian maidservant, was presented by the barren Sarah to Abraham as a possible surrogate child bearer. It seemed a good idea at the time. But it didn’t work out quite as planned. And it seems it didn’t work out in part because Abraham, who was supposed to involve himself in a purely clinical manner in this exercise, got into the spirit of it just a little too much. I’ve come to that conclusion—not because God told me, but—because it seems to fit.

Apparently, the once-cooperative Hagar became a little uppity once she realized she was pregnant. At one time she had envied what her mistress had that she didn’t. Now she knew that her mistress envied what she had. Hagar decided to milk it for what it was worth. She became insolent. She developed a superior attitude. What Hagar lost sight of was that Sarah still held most of the trump cards. And hell hath no fury like a woman scorned—be it by a servant or a husband. Or both.

“You’re responsible for the wrong I am suffering,” Sarah exploded to her husband (emphasis mine). “I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant she despises me.” Maybe I’m reading too much between the lines, but the fact that she specifically mentioned Hagar being in Abraham’s arms, and the fact that she blamed him so vociferously, suggests to me that she was faulting him for getting into the exercise too enthusiastically—which in turn was seen to have caused Hagar’s uppitiness. At least that’s I how interpret it.

Skipping over many years and much turbulence, we finally come to the point where Sarah has her own baby, born miraculously in her old age as the fulfillment of a divine promise. But Hagar’s son, an early teen by now, mocks Sarah’s precious little Isaac. And it all becomes too much to bear. So again she explodes to Abraham.

“Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.” It was an ultimatum. But not one that was easy for Abraham to accommodate. “The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son,” the Bible tells us (emphasis mine).

And so it should have distressed him. Ishmael was indeed Abraham’s own flesh and blood. And Hagar was his wife. At least that’s the word the Bible employs at the time the intimate relationship commenced. As a father and husband, Abraham had certain obligations—both to the woman he’d impregnated and to the child she’d borne. Yet here his prime wife was demanding that both be banished.

Abraham was caught. He needed peace with Sarah. He also wanted to fulfill his fatherly/husbandly obligations. And the two seemed mutually exclusive. He wrestled with his dilemma. And then his moment of clarity came! Suddenly he saw a way to have his cake (not feel like a total heel for abdicating his deeply felt responsibilities) and eat it too (keep Sarah happy). How did this come about?

“God said to him, ‘Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.’” Abraham suddenly had an epiphany! Clearly he had been overly sensitive, overly righteous, overly concerned.

Since Isaac was the one through whom the divine promises would be fulfilled, his perceived obligations toward Ishmael were just that: perceived. His conscience and sense of duty had been too finely tuned. He realized he could do exactly what Sarah had demanded.

Throughout this process, there has been an ongoing devaluation of Hagar and Ishmael. First, Sarah refers to Hagar as “that slave woman.” It’s the first reference to her slave status. Earlier in the story, she was described as a “maidservant.” And it was Sarah herself who gave Hagar to Abraham to be his “wife.” Now Hagar is nothing more than “that slave woman.”

And Ishmael, who caused Abraham such consternation because Sarah’s demand “concerned his son” (emphasis mine) is reduced to merely being “the boy” once Abraham begins to entertain actually banishing him.

The story is as heart-rending as any we’ll ever encounter in the Bible or in life around us. The decision once made—because God “told” him to do it—Abraham acts. “Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy.”

Remember, Abraham was a wealthy man. He had flocks and herds and other valuables in abundance. He could have sent her off with an escort and plenty of money to ensure that she would want for nothing. He could have made sure that she was appropriately set up elsewhere, even if her presence in his household was no longer viable. But God had “told” him that it was OK to listen to his prime wife. And Sarah would never have allowed such generosity toward “that slave woman”—who was in the predicament she was in because Sarah had taken advantage of her, just as Abraham had. In Abraham and Sarah’s household, Hagar was a dispensable commodity, and her usefulness was well and truly past.

As if the send-off weren’t sad enough, the tragic saga continues: “When the water in the skin was gone, she [Hagar] put the boy under one of the bushes. Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, ‘I cannot watch the boy die.’ And as she sat there nearby, she began to sob.”

I find it fascinating that we attribute actions to God that, if they were engaged in by any human, would call down the strongest of denunciations. Yet we commend God for them. If, for example, any humans had caused another to suffer as Hagar was suffering there in the desert, we would find their role despicable. But we never even blink when suggesting that God told Abraham to take steps that were going to bring such pain to another human. Why?

Why do we have such relatively high standards for human behavior and such relatively low standards for divine behavior? And why do we drop our relatively high standards for human behavior whenever the Bible suggests that “God told” humans to behave badly?

Fortunately, in the Hagar-and-Ishmael story, God comes to the poor woman’s rescue. He not only provides water but likewise gives her much-needed encouragement: Her son will also become the father of a great nation. But why did Hagar have to go through such horrendous emotional trauma? Why didn’t Abraham take steps to spare her that pain?

Could it be that it was because Abraham too willingly attributed his own thoughts to God? Could it be that if Abraham had removed the “God told me” phrase from his vocabulary, he would have been forced to ponder more deeply and more critically the thoughts that were running through his mind? Could it be that he would have behaved in a more moral, more ethical, more loving manner if he knew that he personally had to accept responsibility for his actions and couldn’t hang the blame on God?

And could it be that we today need to face up to that same reality?
*****

James Coffin is senior pastor of the Markham Woods Church of Seventh-day Adventists in Longwood, Florida.

Spectrum Does the Oscars - LIVE

Jared Wright — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:32:03 -0800

View our live conversation on the 82nd Academy Awards below.
Great bunch of films this year!

Spectrum Does the Oscars

Science or Revelation (The Question of God - Alt. S.S. 3 of 11)

Rich Hannon — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:27:36 -0800

With this session we approach what could be one of the most contentious and impassible subjects to be tackled in a SS class. There is much heat generated on how literally one should read Genesis and whether YEC (Young Earth Creationism) and/or YLC (Young Life Creationism) is mandatory to be a true Adventist or not. One prominent Adventist thought leader has suggested those who do not adhere to such conservative views are, in effect, “Seventh-day Darwinists” and ‘fifth columnists”[1]. This sort of rhetoric, while no doubt heart-felt, can and has obfuscated the issues of how to parse and resolve the two potential knowledge streams – revelation and experience – that I alluded to in my Figure 1, Session 1.

A full treatment of the Faith and Science debate would far exceed my space, goals and competence. So what I propose to do this week is much more modest. I wish to mostly work on definitional boundaries. Much contention we encounter is semantic, not substantive. That is, we use words in disparate ways believing we are talking about the same thing, but we are not. Consequently it can be most helpful to cut through some of that equivocation and at least try to be on the same page when using terminology.

Some Definitions:

Science: “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation”[2]. The mechanism employed is known as the -

Scientific Method: “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”[3].

Science is also naturalistic. This does not mean that scientists necessarily have bias against the supernatural (although many do). It merely notes that the enterprise deals with the natural world using methods of repeatability and falsification. It seeks to further our understanding of why things happen in nature the way they do. Scientists assume that the world normally behaves in a consistent and predictable manner, according to physical laws (as opposed to behaving randomly). This implies that cause and effect relationships exist in nature. This does not preclude scientists from believing in the possibility of catastrophism or miracles. But a catastrophic or miraculous event is inherently unrepeatable, thus there is no way to generate or test hypotheses from such actions.

Although scientists generally rely upon certain principles (such as logic) in conducting their work, there is no single, universally accepted "scientific method". Nonetheless, most every scientist would agree that science includes at least three basic elements[4]:

1)	Collecting facts, or "data”
	a)	Observations: most basic way to collect facts, and in its most basic form, requires no special training or equipment.
	b)	Measurements: usually requires measuring devices, and often the use of those devices requires special training.
2)	Formulating a "hypothesis" to explain those facts. A hypothesis, by definition, is neither right nor wrong, it's simply an untested explanation. However, good science avoids basing a hypothesis on anecdotal evidence. It attempts to evaluate all of the information that is available, and even uses common sense.
3)	Testing the hypothesis.
	a)	Controlled Experiments: are properly designed to test a certain hypothesis, and they can be repeated. Unfortunately, many hypotheses – such as in geology – cannot be directly tested in a controlled experiment. Some distinguish between "hard" and "soft" science on this basis: "hard" science relies on controlled and repeatable experiments to support its hypotheses and theories, whereas "soft" science does not.
	b)	Predictions: A hypothesis or model can also be tested by making predictions based on that hypothesis. If a prediction comes true, then there is reasonable evidence for accepting the hypothesis. Not every hypothesis can be tested in this way.
	c)	Circumstantial Evidence: When it is impossible to collect direct evidence (e.g., through a controlled experiment), a scientist must rely on "circumstantial" evidence to test hypotheses (as would a detective). However, circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretation, so the conclusions drawn using this approach are less certain.

The point made in 3c, above (Circumstantial Evidence), deserves more elaboration. There are many who try to define science as only a single category, the above-labeled hard science. So-called soft science would consequently be unworthy to be called science. The argument loosely runs like this. I go, for example, into the lab with a beaker of some unknown liquid and dip in litmus paper. The paper turns blue. Consequently the pH of the liquid is basic. And I can do this day after day with the same results. That repeatability then demarcates science.

Obviously results obtained in a repeatable process are preferable. But now consider a discipline, like geology, that is inherently non-repeatable. Some months ago a geologist friend of mine went hiking with me in Zion National Park. As we walked he pointed out some of the sedimentary structures in the sandstone cliffs. He noted that the rock layering is consistent with wind and water patterns where deposition proceeds systematically and episodically, as we can observe in any dunefield or stream bed today. They are not at all consistent with flood deposition and subsequent evaporation. These features are found throughout the two-thousand-foot section of Navajo Sandstone at this location. Estimates of maximum possible deposition rates and analogy from observable rates indicate a time-frame greatly exceeding the limits of even the most liberal Young Earth Creationist. And this deposit lies in the middle of the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic column.

Now, of course, we were not on hand with video cameras to provide irrefutable documentary evidence as to how this landscape came to be as we saw it. One has to rely on inference or remain silent. For someone, perhaps preferring a short chronology for theological reasons, who wishes to limit science to only those disciplines where repeatability occurs, there can be some measure of comfort obtained from this lack of ‘video’. But it seems to me we have several issues to ponder here. First – and one should not discount this – we were, of course, not present when it happened. So humility and a healthy appreciation of God’s transcendence should keep us humble when drawing inferences. But one also has to ask whether God would provide evidence that was counterintuitive to what a reasonable and honest person might infer.

It also seems to me that there are many Christians who have such fear regarding this general topic that they are prepared to seriously resist evidence in order to hold to a YEC and/or YLC hypothesis. And no wonder. There is a genuine and considerable risk of a theological slippery slope here. To see this clearly consider Randall W. Younker’s article, entitled Consequences of Moving Away from a Recent Six-Day Creation[5]. Whether he makes an adequate ‘slippery-slope’ argument is for you to consider. But it is not hard to understand that the stakes are high. Death threatens us all. And, if we are merely believing ‘cleverly devised fables’ then our futures are at grave risk.

Naturalism

Another important concept to clearly understand is the difference between Methodological and Philosophical Naturalism.

Methodological Naturalism means that all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events only. This rules out recourse to the supernatural as explanation. But it does not rule out personal belief in the supernatural or the possibility that there have been supernatural causes. It simply delimits the extent of the scientific method.

Philosophical Naturalism posits that there is no higher tribunal for truth than natural science itself. This is virtually identical to Scientism, where natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, or humanistic explanations.

Sometimes people conflate these terms. Since miracles are inherently unrepeatable you cannot do science on any terms besides methodological. But again, a commitment to methodological naturalism in no way precludes the scientist from believing in God or miracles. Examples include Michael Behe’s Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution[6], or Francis Collin’s The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief[7]. But some pejoratively use the term naturalism as if there was only one kind – philosophical naturalism.

And, as noted in Session 1, many theistic scientists also want to be compatiblists. That is, science is compatible with God’s revelation. As God is both the source of His specific revelation of Himself in the Bible and the general revelation of Himself in nature, the findings of science and theology cannot really contradict. The contradictions must be merely apparent and a resolution possible which is faithful to the truth of God's revelation.

Now let me attempt to clarify some science and revelation issues by examining:

Two Types of Reasoning

First, consider Deductive Reasoning.

Here we argue from the general to a specific instance. If something is true for a class of things, this truth applies to all legitimate members of that class. One of the most common and useful forms of deductive reasoning is the syllogism. For example, the form known as Modus Ponens:

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.

with the classic example:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Contrast that with Inductive Reasoning.

This is reasoning from a specific case or cases and then deriving a general rule. It draws inferences from observations in order to make generalizations.
Inference can be done in four stages:

Observation: collect facts, minimizing bias.
Analysis: classify the facts, identifying patterns of regularity.
Conclusion: From the patterns, infer generalizations about the relations between the facts.
Confirmation: Test the conclusion through further observation.

Please note some important, but often overlooked differences.

Deductive reasoning produces no new truth. It is merely truth preserving. And syllogisms carry risks. First the premises may be unsound. So, garbage in, garbage out. Second the inferences may be invalid. That is, the reasoning process between premises and conclusion may be faulty. However, even with a sound and valid argument, we have merely uncovered a perhaps previously unrecognized truth but nothing novel. Still, this truth-preserving aspect of deductive logic delivers certainty. And certainty is viewed by many as a sort of ‘siren song’ of confidence. Further, there is a flawed but potent argument, for theists, that runs something like this. God’s revelation is certain. So if we proceed carefully, and deductively, using the propositional truths found in the revelatory source the conclusions we reach will be superior to any inductive method. Such an approach can devolve into proof-texting.
Inductive reasoning, in contrast, is probabilistic. By starting with specific data then working from specific to general there is a real risk that we will make inferential errors, producing faulty conclusions. Science, consequently, is always tentative for at least this reason.
And another frequently unrecognized point - induction is a deductive fallacy.

To see this fallacy, consider the invalid syllogism known as Affirming the Consequent.

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

Induction begins with observation – some series of Q’s. Some of these observations are so well established we take them for granted. Like gravity. Jump off a cliff. You invariably fall (except perhaps for Wile-E-Coyote). This experiment is so repeatable it takes on the near-certainty of natural law. But, logically speaking, this data is but a sequence of Q’s. If the data is consistent we might form the hypothesis: If P then Q. So when a Q occurs, we say the cause was P. But this inference is not mandatory.

Let me suggest here an analogy to the old, hopefully familiar, game of ‘Chutes and Ladders’. Here is a small portion of the game board:

Figure 4

Let’s use this to visualize the reasoning process of Modus Ponens and Affirming the Consequent.

The game rules dictate that if I am on square 98 then I must slide to square 78. But let’s simplify even more:

Figure 5

Starting on square P I must necessarily slide to Q (if P then Q). But if you recall the rules you also realize that this is not the only way to reach square Q. I could roll the dice and reach Q by some other route. I could draw some card that would also land me at square Q. One might even say that a ‘miracle’ could occur to bring me to Q. There are multiple possible ways to get there. Science (as opposed to scientism) recognizes the logical fallacy built into the inductive method.

Some Take-aways

Deduction delivers certainty – but no new knowledge. Induction can produce new ‘knowledge’ but not certainty.
Science is inductive and, consequently, probabilistic.
Methodological Naturalism is agnostic with respect to Theism.
Science has gained great authority in part because the method has been so successful.
Hard Science is different from Soft Science, but both attempt to falsify the hypotheses and are methodologically naturalistic.

Revelation

As I noted earlier, knowledge derived from revelation has the appearance of being deductive:

Premises are statements presumably warranted by God (so they are inherently sound).
Inferences are what theology does, but if, upon review, they follow sound logical rules, they are then valid.
The conclusions produce an expanding body of certain doctrine.

Since deduction produces certainty, and God (the presumed starting point) is also certain, then this stream of knowledge appears better than probabilistic science – which historically has reversed itself (e.g. Ptolemy → Copernicus; Newton → Einstein).

However:

Which revelation wannabe (if any) is the correct starting point? Christians simply assume the Bible but a Muslim, for example, would not agree.
What does a ‘plain reading of scripture’ consist of (how can we be sure the premises are sound)? How do we handle contradictions? Metaphor? Cultural context?
Theologians sometimes disagree about conclusions even if they agree about the premises. So the validity of their inferences must be examined carefully and skeptically.
What should we do when Revelation and Science seem to conflict? Ought we to give up the quest for compatiblism and have one side just ‘trump’ the other?

Freud writes “The scientific method is the only source of knowledge.” He consequently dismisses revelation out-of-hand. But the DVD discussion participants are far from being in total agreement with this. Winifred Gallagher notes that “just because it is not scientific doesn’t mean it is not true.” Science is one window into reality, but it seems short-sighted to presume – a-priori – that this is all there is. But as Michael Schermer notes – with science you have a method that seems to hold promise of separating out some truth and error via falsification. And religion is less objective.

The Video Conversation [4 minutes, 49 seconds] – Transcript

Handout Material for Week 3

Some questions to Consider:

Q: How does one quarrel with personal, subjective experience? Is it just true for ‘me’ or can we find ways to determine what may be true for all?

Q: Are we, if theistic, inherently compatiblists? How should one resolve dissonance when the two streams of knowledge-formation (revelation and experience) disagree?

Q: Stephen Jay Gould once suggested (in 1999) the concept of NOMA (Non-overlapping Magisteria) [8]. This is a supposed to be "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion." … “the NOMA principle is “the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap (emphasis mine), nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty).” But there are overlaps – the competing stories of evolution and literal Genesis being one of the most obvious. Do you think Gould has a solution here? Or is this just a convenient way to allow science to ‘trump’ religion?

References:

1	“a growing number of Seventh-day Adventists who refuse to be silent while a morally dishonest fifth column among us ruins our church by (whether in the name of progress, or science, or whatever) seeking to bring into it teaching that in every possible way undermines all that we believe and stand for.” http://www.atoday.com/dinosaurs-perspectives-goldstein-and-taylor
2	http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
3	http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/scientific%20method
4	adapted from: http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ozsvath/lectures/Science.htm
5	Younker, Randall W., “Consequences of Moving Away from a Recent Six-Day Creation”, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 15/2 (Fall 2004), online at: http://www.atsjats.org/publication.php?pub_id=6&journal=1&cmd=view&hash=
6	Behe, Michael J., Darwin’s Black Box (Simon and Schuster, 1996)
7	Collins, Francis S., The Language of God (Simon and Schuster, 2006)
8	http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Links to the other essays in this series:

Time for Lent: Environment

Jeff Boyd — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:07:51 -0800

Environmentalism did not begin with Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis in 1972. It didn’t start with the founding of Green Peace in 1971 or the celebration of Earth Day in 1970. Its commencement preceded the publication of Carson's Silent Spring in 1962 and even John Muir’s efforts to establish the Sierra Club in 1892.

In actuality, care for creation has its origins in a proclamation that had few observers and no national press: “The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it” (NIV, Genesis 2:15, emphasis mine).[1] One could even argue that environmentalism had started a couple days earlier when God first declared creation good.

Theologians such as Jo Ann Davidson[2] and Matt Krick[3] have articulated a theology of ecology, so rather than read the Bible at length here, I am going to focus on reading culture. Three Christian voices are representative of very different views of the state-of-the-world and the proper human response, views that I have heard expressed by Adventists, though usually in less extreme language.

First, Ann Coulter tells us that nothing is wrong and any effort aimed at ecological conservation is misguided. “The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet – It's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars – that's the Biblical view.”[4]

Second, James Dobson's son, Ryan, represents a more commonly accepted view. He believes that managing and subduing the earth are Christian responsibilities, yet at the same time he seems to minimize both the environmental problems and the role of human activity in these issues. “I don't know how anybody can live with a philosophy that says he himself is the world's problem. That's what moral relativists believe about man's impact on Mother Earth.”[5] Honestly, I’m not sure how one can look at pollution, aquatic dead zones, specie extinctions rates, animal habitat loss, desertification, and other issues and not see direct human responsibility.

Third, Matthew Sleeth shares an alternative perspective in Serve God, Save the Planet.[6] As a physician managing an ER, he began to see connections between environmental degradation and his patients’ ailments. Increasing rates of illnesses such as cancer and asthma prompted him to begin researching these correlations.

Rather than minimize the problem and society's role, Sleeth's research eventually led him to leave his medical practice that he believed merely treated symptoms. Instead, he began a ministry aimed at working on the root of the problem—modern ways of living that pollute our air and water.[7] While some environmental advocates such as Al Gore are criticized for not walking their talk, the Sleeth family has radically changed lifestyles in line with their developing awareness.[8]

Which of these three voices best express your current attitudes and beliefs? What do you see as benefits and dangers of each? Have you moved in one direction or another along this continuum? How do you determine acceptable levels of environmental degradation (e.g., second hand smoke, smog, chemicals in water, nuclear waste, etc.)? What lifestyle choices would you consider changing and which ones are not open to consideration?

Two fundamentals of the Seventh-day Adventist faith that position us well to embrace the more radical, sustainable and healthy lifestyle that the Sleeth family exemplifies—Sabbath and the health message.[9] Sabbath provides a weekly opportunity to thank God for our created world, and one way to demonstrate gratitude is to take care of the gift we've been given. Additionally, with a history of commitment to personal health, we are especially equipped to embrace ways of living that promote the health of others. As Leroy Barber of Mission Year emphasizes, “The environment has to be taken care of because people need to be taken care of.”[10]

One example of this connection is the food we consume. Eating organically grown food may not dramatically increase our intake of phytochemicals or antioxidants, but it means migrant laborers can work in fields free of pesticides and herbicides. A friend of mine works for a government-funded agency that teaches workers in conventionally farmed fields the dangers of coming in contact with their children when arriving home covered in these chemicals. As we purchase organic foods (and clothing), farmers and corporations are encouraged to switch to less harmful methods of production. Clearly, sustainable living not only includes limiting our carbon footprint (controversial as this may be), but also minimizing our chemical and resource footprints.

As you take time for lent today, leisurely walk through your neighborhood for an hour. Observe the many sights, sounds and smells. Look for signs of life you may not have noticed before. Intentionally search for connections between what you observe and the well-being of the residents, especially in land, air and water. Thank God for at least one piece of creation you discover (or re-discover). When you get home, select one additional action from the following list—10 Tips from Adventists for the Environment. [11]

[1] For more commentary on this verse, see my presentation at the bottom of this blog post: http://sdaenvironmentalism.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/lakeview-sda-church-....

[2] http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=2030

[3] http://www.marshill.org/pdf/theologyOfEcology.pdf. Krick also speaks in the sermon series, God is Green.

[4] http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2000/10/12/oil_good;_democrats...

[5] Ryan Dobson, Be Intolerant: Because Some Things are Just Stupid (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2003), 42-43.

[6] J. Matthew Sleeth, Serve God, Save the Planet: A Christian Call to Action (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007). See also http://matthewsleethmd.com/About.html.

[7] Learn more about this ministry, Blessed Earth, at http://www.blessedearth.org/?home and http://twitter.com/blessedearth. Other positive Christian ministries include Arocha, Restoring Eden, Creation Care and Renewal.

[8] All three members of the family have now written on the topic—It’s Easy Being Green and Go Green, Save Green.

[9] For more on Adventism and the environment, read the church’s statements listed at the top of this post: http://sdaenvironmentalism.wordpress.com/faith/.

[10] Jamie Moffett, The Ordinary Radicals: A Conspiracy of Faith on the Margins of Empire, DVD, Documentary, 2008.

[11] For more practical ideas, consider the following: Dan Haseltine, “Clean Water,” in The Revolution: A Field Manual for Changing Your World (Orlando, FL: Relevant Books, 2006), 1-15; Tony Campolo and Gordon Aeschliman, Everybody Wants to Change the World: Practical ideas for Social Justice (Ventura, CA: Regal, 2006), 47-71; Jeffrey Hollender and Linda Catling, How to Make the World a Better Place: 116 Ways You Can Make a Difference (New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 1995), 83-156; Mike Yankoski and Danae Yankoski, eds., Zealous Love: A Practical Guide to Social Justice (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 51-75, 155-179; Peter Illyn, “The Environment,” in The Revolution: A Field Manual for Changing Your World (Orlando, FL: Relevant Books, 2006), 155-169.

Art: Jackson Pollock, Circle, c. 1938-40
Oil on composition board
Museum of Modern Art

Reviewing the Review: Kosher Edition

Andrew Hanson — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:53:36 -0800

February 11, 2010 - Vol. 187, No. 4

GENERAL COMMENTS
There is nothing in this issue that isn’t kosher, including a shot at critics of the church in a letter from Trevor Connell, comparing them to “Jesus’ enemies”.

WORLD NEWS & PERSPECTIVES
ADVENTISTS WERE AMONG THE FATALITIES IN THE HAITI EARTHQUAKE. 522 church members, 450 of them young people, lost their lives. (The number of injured was not reported.) 27,000 members are without homes, 55 churches were destroyed, and 60 churches damaged. The Adventist hospital, the only local one that survived the quake, is a vital medical outpost. ADRA is hard at work. North American Division promised $500,000 in tithe and the General Conference $200,000 to be used to aid the Adventist work in Haiti.

JAN PAULSEN WAS HONORED AT LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY by scholars and health professionals for his 35 years of denominational leadership. The organization, GENERATION OF YOUTH FOR CHRIST (GYU) held its eighth annual worldwide conference in Louisville, Kentucky.

REVIEWS AND A COMMENT OR TWO
A CELEBRATION OF MATURITY is a salute to the senior Adventists. A PRACTICAL PROMISE is a Carlos Medley reminder that “all things work together for good”.

Mark A. Kellner interviewed the Mid-America Union President Roscoe Howard in INSIDE MID-AMERICA. LOOKING OUTWARD, SEARCHING WITHIN by Erica Richard is a story of how two specific experiences shattered her comfort zones. WAGING WAR WITH ADJECTIVES by Trevan Osborne counsels carefulness in defining our church with an adjective.

JESUS FOR US ALL by Wilona Karimabadi is a concise overview of the problems and blessings that are part of a church committed to the Christian education of special-needs children. Resources are cited along with checklist designed to help children’s ministries leaders ready their programs and Sabbath School rooms.

Karimabadi ends her report with the words of Ann Roda, Associate Pastor of Fulton, Maryland’s New Hope Adventist Church. “This whole idea of inclusiveness—that has to be the foundation [of] a church’s [efforts]. . .[These efforts must not be] limited to those with special needs. . .The starting point in what we do in ministry should be to ask, ‘What is the environment we can create here that will allow kids to experience God? In this classroom, in this program, in this activity, how can kids experience God?’ All the training in the world will not help if you don’t have an attitude of inclusiveness and an attitude of ‘This is God’s ministry, this is His kingdom.’”

WHY, GOD, WHY? reveals a side of Cliff Goldstein that I admire. “Long ago I quit seeking to understand evil and suffering. Even in the context of the great controversy it’s a fruitless venture, one guaranteed to drive you mad. All I know is that a God who would take upon Himself all our sin is a God I can trust and love, despite my immersion amid a planet wired through and through with nerves that sizzle and snap like downed electric wire.”

Goldstein’s other, doctrinaire and authoritarian side, is not so attractive. In his defense of a biblical, literal, seven-day creation delivered at the GUY Conference, he asserted, “You can be an Adventist, [or] you can be an evolutionist, but you cannot be both!”

In SLIPPING THE KNOT: A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON LIVING TOGETHER without benefit of marriage, Richard Davidson argues that, “We [as a church] need to uphold the biblical mandate that disapproves of any emotional-sexual relationship other than within the institution of marriage. At the same time, in the spirit of the Pentateuchal legislation (and the gospel of Jesus Christ!) we need to act redemptively. . .Scripture calls for a balanced approach by the church: maintain the biblical standards, and at the same time minister with grace to the offenders. (1)

While Pentateuchal legislation does not directly address the practice of cohabitation, it does deal with the foundational premise upon which cohabitation is based—the right for men and women to engage in sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Although premarital sexual intercourse did not carry the same severe punishment as many other sexual offenses, it nonetheless was taken seriously. The penalty included a heavy fine that the man (who presumably initiated the sexual relationship and deprived the woman of her virginity) (2) must pay to the woman’s father, and the requirement that the couple face the consequences of their action by marrying, with no possibility of future divorce (Deut. 22:28, 29)—unless the father of the woman considered that such marriage was unwise, in which case they did not marry but the man paid the dowry to the woman’s father as if they had married (Ex. 22:16, 17).

Norma O'Hara offers her answer to the question, WHY NOT MUHAMMAD OR BUDDHA? “With deep respect and admiration for the piety of other religious leaders, and with the understanding that everyone is free to choose their own belief system, the Christian must yet uphold the God-man, Jesus Christ, as sovereign Lord of all and the only way of eternal salvation.”(3)

(1) That’s a genteel way of describing probable rape.

(2) Sounds better than advocating that these couples be thrown out of the church, although “ministering” (by whom) with “grace” (how defined) to the “offenders” (certainly a judgmental word) leaves plenty of room for the same old holy persecution. Sounds like “don’t ask, don’t tell” still makes a lot of sense if you’re an Adventist. If Pentateuchal legislation is cited as the biblical constraint, it provides no condemnation for people with no living parents and when virginity is not an issue. Party on old timers!

(3) I’m increasingly skeptical of the words of anyone who uses the word “only” in a theological conversation. And another thing, if Christian belief is the “only way of eternal salvation”, why should Christians show “deep respect and admiration for” other religions?

Between Athens and Jerusalem: More Augustine for Adventists

Zane Yi — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:19:52 -0800

In previous posts, we’ve discussed both Augustine’s biography, and also the Platonism that influenced much of his thought. For better or worse, most of us in the Christian or post-Christian West have imbibed from this well. In this post, we’ll examine another aspect of Augustine’s thought that has been bequeathed to us: his understanding of “free-will.” I’ll argue against his view, at least as articulated in his early work On Free Choice of the Will, claiming that we are significantly less free than Augustine claims. Ironically, such an understanding, I’ll claim, should positively shape our ethical perspectives of ourselves and others.

The significance of Augustine’s claims about the will, or voluntas, becomes more evident if compared to the dominant understanding of his day. Plato explained non-virtuous behavior as ignorance; people do what they do because they do not understand any better, or in Platonic language, they do not grasp the Form of the Good. Ignorance of the good leads to non-virtuous behavior, while an intellectual grasping of the Good gives one the knowledge, and the ability, to properly order his or her desires, actions, and life, i.e. to lead a virtuous, or excellent, life.

This raises questions, however, about the origin of human ignorance of the Good. Or in the words of Augustine’s interlocutor, Evodius, “Please explain to me the source of our evil doing” (Bk. 1, Ch. 2).

Augustine’s exploration of this question is theologically motivated. “We believe that everything that exists comes from the one God, and yet we believe that God is not the cause of sins. What is troubling is that if you admit that sins come from the souls that God created, and those souls come from God, pretty soon you’ll be tracing those sins back to God,” he explains (Bk 1., Ch. 2).

Those familiar with Augustine’s biography will recognize that this is very personal issues and question for Augustine. One thing Augustine explains very clearly from the beginning: God is good and in no way responsible for human evil-doing. (By “evil-doing” Augustine has in mind actions like murder and adultery.)

Humans do evil because they choose evil.

Actually, Augustine’s analysis is much more complex than that. According to him, evil doing is ultimate motivated by misdirected desire, which results in fear. “All wicked people, just like good people, desire to live without fear,” Augustine explains, “The difference is that the good in desiring this, turn their love away from things that cannot be possessed without the fear of losing them. The wicked, on the other hand, try to get rid of anything that prevents them from enjoying such things securely” (Bk. 1, Ch. 4).

It is desiring too much things that one can lose against one’s will, i.e. temporal goods like money, sex, power, and fame, and the fear of losing them that results in a laundry list of human evils. From Augustine’s perspective (influenced strongly the Stoics), it is a futile task to desire permanent possession of something that is temporal and fleeting. Along this line, it is much more reasonable to desire those things that can never be lost against our will, i.e. virtue and God. This kind of desire is not coupled with fear, and therefore, no violent actions and drives that harm others.

“Our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee,” Augustine would later pray to God.

Who, or what, is responsible for this misdirected desire? Augustine argues it is not the goods that are external to us, or the strength of the desires within us. It is a choice. In other words, humans have volitional control over their desires and can direct them to temporal goods or eternal ones. Augustine explains, “The goods that are pursued by sinners are in no way evil things, and neither is free will itself. . . What is evil is the turning of the will away from the unchangeable good and toward changeable goods” (Bk. 2, Ch. 18).

It’s important to distinguish Augustine’s understanding of choice or will here, i.e. as control over the object of one’s desires, and the other ways we have grown to use this term. Augustine is not talking about control over our physical actions, formation of intentions to act, or judgments about the truth or falsity of certain beliefs. We are responsible for our loves, which ultimately is what fuels our other choices.

Augustine is clear to point out that there is no further explanation for this choice than choice itself. There is no “natural” explanation. Comparing the movement of the will to a falling stone, Augustine notes, “[T]he stone has no power to check its downward movement, but the soul is not moved to abandon higher things and love inferior things unless it wills so. And so the movement of the movement of the stone is natural, but the movement of the soul is voluntary” (Bk. 3, Ch. 1).

Here we get a radical conception of the freedom of the will (what today is called the libertarian view, which is distinct from the political view that share that same title, but is not unrelated) as a faculty that is independent from the natural order, but has some sort of causal power!

All this raises some interesting philosophical questions. Do we have volitional control over our desires? Doesn’t “the heart want what the heart wants,” as Woody Allen once quipped? Secondly, are we, in fact, as free, as Augustine claims and as many of us think or want to be?

Before turning to explore these questions, let’s examine Augustine’s motivation, other than his theological one, for being so insistent on the radical nature of the free choice of the will. This motivation is ethical. Simply put: “If the movement of the will by which it turns this way or that were not voluntary and under its own control, a person would not deserve praise for turning to higher things or blame for turning to lower things” (Bk. 3, Ch. 1).

In other words, justice requires responsibility, and responsibility requires free-will.

Here is another aspect of Augustine’s thought that continues to influence us today, outside the realm of theology. It is a basic principle of our penal/judicial system.

Did Augustine, however, get it right? How does one reconcile his understanding of human choice and freedom today in the light of what sociologists, psychologists, and biologists tell us about all the factors that shape who we are, what we desire, and what we do? It is difficult deny that that one’s community, experiences, and genes, limit the range and strength of human choice significantly.

If this is true (and I think it is), individuals are significantly less responsible for their actions than Augustine claims.

Acknowledging this does not entail denying that humans make choices or have a free-will, i.e. determinism, or that humans are not responsible for their actions; it is the recognition that there are numerous other factors that need to be taken into consideration, factors that, in many cases, greatly decrease the amount of blame and praise an individual deserves. (In some instances, however, it may greatly increase it!)

Keeping this in the forefront of our minds, I believe, will have a significant and positive effect on our attitudes toward ourselves and toward each other.

First, it widens the scope of responsibility for certain evils in society to include a wider circle. This does not absolve the individual of responsibility , but allows us corporately to share in both praise and blame for the actions of an individual. We need to examine and improve social systems and communities and think long-term about solutions for human moral failure, not just short-term retribution and rewards for individuals.

Secondly, it should make us more gracious to the failures we perceive in ourselves and in others, as many of these are shaped by factors outside an individual’s control.

Augustine’s views we’ve explored here need to be tempered by what he had to say much later in his life, after his interaction with the Pelagians. I close with some of Augustine’s words at the end of his life, wise words that raise many other issues and questions:

Unless the will is liberated by grace from its bondage to sin and is helped to overcome its vice, mortals cannot lead pious and righteous lives. And unless the divine grace by which the will is freed preceded the act of the will, it would not be grace at all (Reconsiderations, Bk. 1, Ch. 9).

*****
Zane Yi is a Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy at Fordham University, and, in light of some of his desires, actions, and beliefs, is grateful for grace.

Theology, Philosophy, Medicine, Justice

Alexander Carpenter — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:00:58 -0800

Theology, Philosophy, Medicine, Justice

Damien Hirst

2008

Bull sharks, glass, steel, silicone and formaldehyde

Time for Lent: Vegetarianism

Andrew Gerard — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:46:35 -0800

When I was young, my family’s vegetarianism embarrassed me. I thought vegetarianism was a strange affectation, just one of many things that made me self-conscious, eccentricities that separated me from non-Adventist friends. I no longer feel this way and am again vegetarian; however, I do think that the vegetarian life can seem like little more than an Adventist peculiarity. Lent is set aside (by many denominations and a small group of progressive, blogging Seventh-day Adventists) as a time for reflection and analysis. To this end, reflection on the rationale for vegetarianism may be an appropriate way to spend this period.

One of the more well-known Lenten traditions is the foregoing of meat. For Adventists, vegetarianism tends to be a year-round tradition, but may be examined less than a Lent’s worth of abstinence for Catholic or Orthodox Christians. My purpose in this blog is not to discuss traditional Adventist reasons for vegetarianism (a good topic), but rather to encourage a discussion of ethical, sustainable eating, and how this relates to Adventists who come from a perhaps under-analyzed, but salutatory culture of meatless living.

Foregoing meat at Lent has multiple meanings. One is self-abnegation, giving up a luxury or distraction from a relationship with God –in this case meat is a luxury to temporarily do without. Another meaning is an older reason for abstinence: solidarity with poor people who could not afford as much meat as wealthy people. In the US, low-income families probably do not eat less meat than wealthier families – everyone eats more than they did one hundred years ago. The health effects of eating cheap food, including fast food (much of which is factory-farmed meat), however, disproportionately harm the poor.

Our economic and cultural system rewards cheap food, externalizing the consequences of factory farming to our health, the quality of life of the animals we raise to eat, and the environment (e.g., studies by the UN and Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production have shown that worldwide, the meat and dairy industries contribute more to climate change than the transport industries). So while giving up meat in solidarity with the poor probably does not make sense in the US, giving up meat because factory farming and the fast food industry in the US and climate change on the global scale disproportionately harm the most vulnerable populations is a sensible, meaningful thing to do.

We do nothing in a vacuum. Our eating habits affect other people and the environment more than most personal choices. Americans on average eat the equivalent of 21,000 individual animals in a lifetime – think of the volume of animal waste, energy use, and pain produced by raising and killing this army of animals. As difficult as it can be to connect all the hidden steps in an economic exchange, these externalized costs are real and worth meditating on. If you do eat meat, in light of the environmental and ethical consequences, you might ask yourself why. For those who are unfamiliar with these consequences, Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer is a good start. If you do not eat meat, researching the environmental and ethical rationale for vegetarianism is still helpful because vegetarianism that is simply a tradition has little chance of influencing others by example.

It should be noted that vegetarianism is not the end-all for ethical eating. When we buy eggs at the grocery store, we tend to ignore how painful and cramped the lives of laying hens are, how their beaks are clipped off without painkillers to keep them from wounding each other in their body-to-body cages, how their lives are, according to Michael Pollan, worse than any other factory-farmed animal.

I cannot relate a strict diet to follow or specific path to convincing friends and neighbors to think about the environment and the lives of animals before buying a tuna sandwich, but by studying the global and local effects of the meat and dairy industries we can move toward a more sustainable way of eating. The stakes are high – the suffering of millions of animals and the health of our planet are directly related to the way we choose to eat. For Lent, I encourage you to think before you chew, and then think about what you can do to influence our society’s factory-farm driven, environmentally irresponsible food culture. To that end, here are some resources:

Farm Forward: “Farm Forward implements innovative strategies to promote conscientious food choices, reduce farm animal suffering, and advance sustainable agriculture.” (www.farmforward.com)

Farm Sanctuary: “Works to end cruelty to farm animals and promotes compassionate living through rescue, education and advocacy.” (www.farmsanctuary.org)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: Even if you are against throwing tomatoes at fur-wearing fashion models, even if you think PETA is full of violent wackos, there is no arguing that they have effectively brought animal cruelty into the public consciousness. (www.peta.org)

Eating Animals: Read the book, but also check out the website, where you can find the above links and many more. (www.eatinganimals.com)

Note: Most of the information I use in this blog comes from Eating Animals, by Jonathan Safran Foer, with some input from Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma. These books are excellent, especially Eating Animals, and I would be remiss if I did not note that I barely scratched the surface on these complicated, disturbing issues. I tried to link to their sources when possible, but I would recommend reading the books to get a clearer picture (and to see where I got that 21,000 animals per year figure).

*****
While studying anthropology at Andrews University, Andrew Gerard co-founded ACTION, a student group committed to social justice. Andrew now works at Habitat for Humanity and blogs at Notes from the Fault and Adventist Activism.

Andrea Luxton Becomes Provost of Andrews University

Alexander Carpenter — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:34:55 -0800

Today, during his Board of Trustees briefing, President Niels-Erik Andreasen announced that Dr. Andrea Luxton will become the second woman to hold the Provost position at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

She replaces Bill Richardson who has served in that position after the university's first provost, Dr. Heather Knight, moved to Northern California in 2009 to become the President of Pacific Union College.

Dr. Andreasen has been President of Andrews University since 1994.

For the last few years Andrea Luxton has been the President of Canadian University College. Previously, she served as Associate Director of Education at the Adventist headquarters in Maryland and President of Newbold College in the United Kingdom.

In 2004, Andrea Luxton received the Woman of the Year award from the Association of Adventist Women. This was due to her career in Adventist education and well as her work introducing Women's Ministries to the churches and conferences of the British Union.

Dr. Luxton was born in the United Kingdom, and received her education at Newbold College, Andrews University, and Catholic University of America.

Video | The Futures of Progressive Christianities

Alexander Carpenter — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:13:17 -0800

I am happy to see my friend Peter Laarman holding forth in this informed discussion with David Gushee on the futures of the evangelical and mainline Christian movements.

Are they converging?

What does "progressive" in Christianity mean? Or "moderate?"

Is America really entering a post-Christian Right era?

Why do only 16% of non-Christians in their late teens and twenties, who grew up in church, say they have a "good impression" of Christianity?

Is same-sex marriage really worth the fight for conservatives?

Is the White House office of faith-based initiatives an abomination to church/state separation?

David Gushee teaches at Mercer University.

Peter Laarman is the executive director of Progressive Christians Uniting.

The Question of God (A Transcendent Experience) – An Alternate Sabbath School Lesson Series (2 of 11)

Rich Hannon — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:19:12 -0800

Is there really a universal human longing for transcendence? Augustine famously wrote “Thou hast made us for Thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee”. But is he right? Is there really a ‘Hound of Heaven’ in pursuit or might any such perceptions, if they exist at all, be better explained as naturalistically grounded in physiology or psychology?

C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, argued that if there is a human drive toward something – such as food or sex – then it would be counter-intuitive for there to be nothing real with which to satisfy such a drive. He then postulates that we all have this Augustinian-like drive toward – what? Lewis suggests that what we really seek is God. We were made that way and separation from God, with the accompanying consequences of angst and despair, is universally felt by mankind, although often misunderstood.

Believers are understandably attracted to this argument and use it often in an attempt to buttress the case for God’s existence. And not surprisingly, unbelievers (often following Freud’s reasoning) reject the premise and/or conclusion.

Let me suggest that we first back up and attempt to get our bearings. It has been my experience that disagreement can be classified into two different yet fairly obvious categories – semantic and substantive. Semantic disagreement means that we understand the definition of a word or idea differently (perhaps radically differently). And if you think we are discussing some X while I think we’re instead talking about Y we could actually be in substantive agreement but spend much unproductive time in futile semantic argumentation. So obviously it is quite helpful to first clarify definitions and at least try to segregate these two types of disagreement so that we might minimize semantic issues and concentrate on substantive ones.

So let’s begin by trying to look more carefully at the idea of knowledge. We all think there are things we know, but this supposed ‘knowledge’ can, at minimum be segregated into two obvious and quite different categories. First there is what I will label ‘Know How’, and secondly, there is ‘Know That’.

Know How is pragmatic. If you or I were parachuted into the Borneo jungle we would hope to be discovered by friendly natives with good Know How – i.e. what things are safe to eat, how to find shelter, what direction is ‘civilization’, etc. And ditto if they were parachuted into some (what we might arrogantly label) First-World country. We know about supermarkets, bank accounts, driving cars, etc. They don’t. These sorts of things are mostly pragmatic. Further they have little to do with what constitutes a life ‘well lived’. For this end we need Know That, i.e. understanding of more universal matters such as: what is justice, wisdom, defensible ethics, etc. So, while it’s easy to see that we all need Know How for survival, Know That is by far the more central concept.

In philosophy there is an attempt to better define Know That. I like to use the memory-aid acronym TJB (in my era this also stood for Tijuana Brass). But the idea here is that T.J.B. stands for True Justified Belief. So let’s set aside the pragmatic Know How and concentrate on unpacking T.J.B.

True Justified Belief

True: First note the difference between Truth and Knowledge. Truth is out there. That is, something is true or false whether I or anyone else knows it, or is even able to know it. It is external reality. So I obviously can never have real knowledge about something that turns out to be false. But recognize also that for me to have knowledge that some X is true then its truth or falsity must be also be inherently knowable to humans.

Some things are trivial to determine their truth or falsity. For example, if there is a jar filled with jellybeans and I say there are 1459 beans in the jar – all we have to do is count to determine whether I am right or wrong.

Other things may never actually be determined for certain by humans but they are within the realm of possible human knowledge, given adequate technology. So if I tell you there is a 1 cm. iron rock orbiting Jupiter’s moon Ganymede, we presently cannot decide if I am right but would agree that the potential exists for reaching a conclusive decision. We would ‘merely’ have to expend the necessary resources to mount a space mission to decide the question.

Also there are things potentially knowable to humans but might always be hidden from us. Consider whether the angel Gabriel has red hair. If we are never allowed access to this angel (assuming you believe such a being even exists) we will never learn the answer. But it is still clear that the answer is inherently knowable by humans. But this human knowability is not the case for everything. And we will consider that issue shortly.

Belief: This is the easiest of the three components to understand. I cannot know something if I don’t believe it. Conversely I could believe something – even with great confidence – that turns out to be mistaken. Then I would just think I know something but simply be wrong.

Justified: Suppose, for example, I passionately believe that the earth is flat or that your body is made out of silly putty. Such beliefs – irrespectively of the intensity in which they are held – are worthless if not justifiable in light of some appropriate evidence. Let’s revisit my jellybean example. Suppose, for whatever reason, that I am totally persuaded that this jar contains exactly 1459 jellybeans. So we count and, sure enough, I am right! Would you then conclude that I knew how many beans there were in the jar? I seriously doubt it. You’d likely think it was just a lucky guess. You see, I hope, that this criteria of justification is the crucial component – and the most difficult to establish. People believe a lot of things that may turn out to be true. But that doesn’t mean that they really know they are true. And really knowing is very difficult to define, understand and establish. In fact there is a seminal 1963 philosophical paper by Edmund Gettier[1] entitled Is Justified True Belief Knowledge where the difficulty of establishing this criteria is explored. So this T.J.B. is tough – mostly the ‘J’ part.

At this point let me introduce a weakly-drawn sketch (I’m no artist) that attempts to help illuminate this problem:

Limits of Perspective and Knowledge:

Figure 2

Here you see two stick figures on a mountainous landscape - and an eyeball above everything. The eyeball is intended to represent the possibility of a ‘God’s-eye view’ – a position where one might survey everything and thus have a perspective that does not miss any crucial data. Then there is you and me – let’s say we’re represented by the stick-figure on the right-hand side. I placed us there to show that – while our perspective is still limited (our full view is cut off by some of the mountain peaks) we have a better vantage point than the stick figure I’ve placed on the left-hand-side. Perhaps this individual represents someone isolated from First-World ‘civilization’, like a person living in the mountains of New Guinea. You see I’ve tried to show (with radiating lines) the range of vision afforded by the ‘elevation’ of this right-hand-side person. But there is still much that cannot be seen by either person.

Now any of these potential stick figures – wherever positioned – have their own crucial Know How but we (right-hand-side figures) likely have a better perspective on Know That (I expect some might contest this assumption). But if we r.h.s. people do have greater Know That it is likely due to multiple advantages such as education, adequate health care, etc. Still, the point I would make here is that we are much more like each other than we are to the God’s-eye view perspective I’ve drawn. And sometimes this crucial point is deeply underappreciated. We Christians recite a Biblical-doctrinal story in support of our Know That and the risk is that we might trade important humility for an almost Gnostic-like hubris based on an over-exhaled view of the supposed knowledge we have - due to our fortunate elevation. Almost as if we had the God’s-eye view because of the information we possess.

But whatever elevational advantages we might have this is not a God’s Eye view. Our ‘knowledge’ is limited in both experience and capacity. Now note at this point the weakness of my above drawing/metaphor. I have God’s 'eye’ looking down – which might represent the potential scope of human knowledge. In theory you and I, with enough time and genetic fortune, could approach this more expansive viewpoint. But God, as we would expect Him to be defined, ought to also have an entire realm of knowledge we can never access. Knowledge available to him because of His nature that we are inherently (because of our natures) unable to understand. Perhaps I should have drawn a layer of clouds at His eye-level with a second eye looking upward into a realm we cannot penetrate. We could use the word transcendence to define this inaccessible region. And this is the issue being addressed this week by Armand Nicholi in the DVD dialog.

The primary meaning of transcendence, then, denotes God’s knowledge/capability compared to the scope of potential human knowledge. There are aspects of His being and character that are forever unreachable (and consequently unknowable) by mere mortals. No surprise there. Otherwise God would just be a ‘superman’ to whom the human race might some day catch-up to or surpass. But such a reasonable definition still carries with it great difficulties that can cause problems for God-seeking people. We are ‘inside’ the system, with limiting boundaries. But God is in part outside of anything we are capable of experiencing and any communication with us must ultimately involve His breaking in to our limited world for us to have any knowledge of this realm.

Now since I am a visually-oriented guy, let me propose another diagram to try and illustrate this:

Figure 3

Here I show a series of Venn diagrams with the outermost one labeled All Possible Beliefs and a vertical line bisecting true and false beliefs. The sets are not intended to be drawn to scale. In fact one would presume the set excluding All Human Beliefs would be huge, maybe infinite. This outermost set would represent God’s knowledge as He only holds true beliefs, but is aware of all beliefs (both true and false) and is also able to properly distinguish between error and truth. Next there is the subset labeled All Human Beliefs indicating the limits of human understanding. Finally there are my (or your) beliefs – again with part truth and part error. Note I have made the subsets of false belief greater than the true, suggesting that there are a whole lot more false beliefs than true ones. For me then to improve my knowledge involves increasing the size of my total beliefs and shrinking the size of my false beliefs. Note also that some of my (or your) beliefs meet the line right on the edge of what humans can possibly know. It is at this intersection that God may attempt to convey the most sublime truths – those closest to transcendence. And it is here that God would need to try and find ways to communicate this transcendence using methods (e.g. metaphor) that lie within what humans can understand. Christ’s incarnation comes to mind here, for example.

I also would point out that if you are an atheist then you would not believe there is any such thing as transcendence so All Possible Beliefs would be the same as All Human Beliefs.

Finally, although I didn’t diagram it, let me note that some true beliefs have much less of what I will call epistemological distance from God’s transcendence than others. Gravity, for example, is something I’m pretty sure I have a clear handle on. It is as close to our daily experience as anything you could conceive (minimal epistemological distance) and conversely would also be as far from that border with transcendence as possible. But a concept like the Trinity might even straddle that transcendent ‘line’.

As we consider that zone near the edge of our human capabilities and consequently also near where God’s transcendence begins, dealing with the issue of belief justification (the ‘J’ part of T.J.B.) is hardest. This is where agnosticism is more understandable and even plausible. How can I know about that which is beyond my capability to know? The example I like to use here is teaching my cat quadratic equations. I strongly suspect that math is, for cats, out there in some feline transcendent zone. (However, if you’re game to try and have success, I suspect there’s a Nobel Prize lurking for you). But quadratic equations are knowable for humans (although considering my math grades, one might wonder).

Some have recognized the theoretical existence of this transcendence but mostly dismissed it. Famously, Bertrand Russell once quipped:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Conversely, philosopher Huston Smith was dismissive of such Russellian moves, complaining in a chapter entitled The Tunnel as Such in his book Why Religion Matters [2], that too many people were unwilling to think outside of a naturalistic ‘box’ to consider the possibility of genuine transcendence with appropriate seriousness.

Let me sum up. To consider the question of transcendence is to first ask what is knowable and what knowledge entails. It is helpful, I proposed, to segregate practical knowledge (know how) from moral/ethical/religious knowledge (know that). And while we casually think there are many things we truly know, breaking knowledge down into its T.J.B. components helps differentiate real knowledge from mere opinion and can help us better appreciate the difficulties associated with justifying belief. This is especially true when the knowledge-object might straddle the border of what humans are capable of knowing, i.e. be transcendent. The ‘Question of God’ – does He exist and what He is like – involves 'knowing' something, inferentially, that otherwise transcends our capacity. We are dealing then with a question that is not amenable to analysis by the sort of methods science might employ. If we have had genuine encounters with God the evidence is personal. You can’t do a double-blind study on it.

On the DVD Nicholi begins exploring this issue by asking whether his conversation partners have ever felt an instinctive drive for a creator-relationship, and if so, what was that like? All could relate to the awe experienced in the natural world, but conclusions, as one might expect, varied from attributing this to some ‘hound of heaven’ vs. a naturalistically-grounded cause. They could agree, though, that much more was at stake here than some reductionist, naturally-grounded rationale. So, now read the transcript and then consider the questions below.

The Video Conversation [8 minutes, 13 seconds] - Transcript

Handout Material for Week 2

Some Questions to Consider:

Q: How does a Theistic or Atheistic world-view come to be ‘in us’ initially? Is it just that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree? But if so, where do radical world-view paradigm shifts ever come from?

Q: What are the practical consequences of belief or disbelief in God’s existence? And is it valid to even by considering this question pragmatically?

Q: Is belief in Transcendence in any way rational?

Q: Is belief in Transcendence necessarily personal?

References:

1	Gettier, Edmund, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”, Analysis, v.23, available online at: http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html
2	Smith, Huston, “The Tunnel as Such”, Why Religion Matters, pp. 42-58 (Harper Collins, 2001).

Links to the other essays in this series:

Time for Lent: Mentoring

Desmond Murray and Charity Garcia — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:02:24 -0800

By Desmond Murray and Charity Garcia

Leaving aside for the moment the root causes of achievement gaps, there is almost universal acceptance that disparities in American democracy still persist in the age of Obama. This ultimately tarnishes and devalues the uniquely American brand – the American Dream. Further, while the terminology of ‘achievement gaps’ is most often linked to objective, quantifiable measures in the educational outcomes among demographic groups defined primarily by gender, ethnicity and socioeconomics, it is broadly applicable to other social justice issues as well.

Mentoring, we believe, is an effective way whereby believers in a community of faith can get involved, personally and corporately, in bringing change to bridge societal divides and disparities. Spiritually, it links human souls into life-changing relationships. As Christians, we inherit a privileged history of perhaps the greatest example of mentoring in the timeless story of Jesus and his disciples. Think about the socioeconomic backgrounds and personalities of the disciples. Think about how Jesus mentored them from disparate individuals, and by ‘chain reaction,’ transformed them into what is now and has been for over two thousand years – the Christian Church. We really need not go very far within our faith tradition to realize the importance and impact of mentoring. Divinity incarnate mentoring humanity to find, realize and actualize our God-given spark.

So, in our own lives, we too, like the disciples, can continue on the work of ensuring that all men, women, boys and girls, of any color, from any country, are living out their highest ideals and realizing their God-given potentials. Mentoring is the best workforce development strategy around! Historically, it has been around since antiquity and has been defined in numerous ways in a substantial body of literature and research. It appears in Homer’s Odyssey, forms the core of the Socratic method, and has been part of many world religious traditions. It works in the classroom and the boardroom, in posh suites and inner-city streets. It allows us all to give of what we have and pass it on like the sun giving light to the earth or a candle giving light to a room. Whether we are a candle or a sun, we work in partnership with God by mentoring another to become all that God expects them to be.

Lent is the period of preparation that precedes the period of Easter celebration. It represents the time – forty days - that Jesus spent in the desert preparing for community work, his public ministry of healing and teaching. Mentoring is that time – preparation time. . .desert time. . .before celebration, before the blooming of flowers, before the flowing of rivers, before caterpillars become butterflies, before the advent of Spring, and before the satisfactions of success.

The truth is preparation for one’s life’s work, preparation in the passionate pursuit of excellence, or just preparation for life takes more than forty days and forty nights. For the sustained efforts often required to be ‘successful,’ a good mentor is critical. Whatever the field of work, whatever the stage of life, having a mentor helps negotiate the terrain, both its obstacles and opportunities.

Mentoring is not simply a quick ‘flyover.’ It requires developing close and caring relationships between those involved. It demands a consistent presence rather than a quick one-time fix. It requires an active citizenry more than governmental mandates. The continuing gaps and disparities in the underbelly of American democracy demands a new age of widespread mentorship. This ancient tradition of apprenticeships must be given new life in the 21st century for the American experiment to move closer to its lofty ideals.

In the context of Adventism, both of us have been involved in leadership of the Socrates AfterSchool Project based on the campus of Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. This program involves students mentoring students. Andrews University students volunteer in the surrounding communities of Berrien Springs, Buchanan, and Benton Harbor offering free tutoring at several sites, including area schools and social organizations, like Boys and Girls Club.

In addition, Desmond founded Building Excellence in Science and Technology (BEST), which advocates for and provides early research participation opportunities for youth in Southwest Michigan. During the last few years Charity has become more actively involved in mentoring at-risk youth in urban settings. Many of these mentoring opportunities have come from her involvement with Harbor of Hope, a Seventh-day Adventist church plant in Benton Harbor, Michigan, that seeks to reach families by connecting with kids and teens. Charity is also finding other opportunities through Wintley Phipps' U.S. Dream Academy, an innovative, national afterschool and mentoring program that helps thousands of at-risk youth, especially children of incarcerated parents, realize their dreams. In each of these cases there are ample examples of mentors impacting the trajectory of a young person’s life in a positive way.

We suggest that each person find their own mentoring path by sharing their gifts, knowledges, labors of love and passion with someone else eager to learn. We have both found that ‘the harvest truly is great but the laborers are few’ (Luke 10:2). Mentor today.

*****

Charity Garcia is currently a visiting scholar at the University of Maryland, College Park and a Curriculum & Instruction doctoral student at Andrews University. She is also a curriculum consultant, is passionate about minority & urban education, and is a committed mentor of at-risk youth.

Dr. Desmond H. Murray is Assistant Professor of Chemistry at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.

Reviewing. . .Adventist World: Conviction Edition

Andrew Hanson — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:49:25 -0800

February 2010 - Vol. 6, No. 2

Adventist World is free online. For that reason, I only review or comment on articles and editorials that I believe to be of special interest.

REVIEWS
Reporter Sandra Blackmer provides an extensive update about the General Conference’s program, CONNECTING WITH JESUS. “It’s part of the GC’s overall quinquennial evangelistic plan, ‘Tell the World’. The project’s objective is to print and distribute 2 million sets of 10 Spirit of Prophecy books in major world languages at a price affordable to Adventists—particularly new members—in every division. Study guides and a Bible reading plan are included with each set of books” for $10.

The 10 Ellen G. White books included in the Connecting With Jesus initiative are:

The Acts of the Apostles, Christian Service, Counsels for the Church, Counsels on Stewardship, The Desire of Ages, The Great Controversy, The Ministry of Healing, Patriarchs and Prophets, Prophets and Kings, and Steps to Christ

This program also provides ”downloadable audio versions, in contemporary language (1) and narrated by professional book readers, of the first three books of the Conflict of the Ages Series. Plans are in place to complete the last two books of the series, along with Education, The Ministry of Healing, and Steps to Christ.” connectingwithjesusaudio.com

"In North America we have about a 17 percent reader population for the Spirit of Prophecy books, and most of those readers are over the age of 65," Kibble, an NAD vice president, explains. James Nix, White Estate Director, told Adventist World,

If new members are not oriented as to why we’re Seventh-day Adventists and what motivates us as a church, if they don’t understand the great controversy theme, if they don’t see the emphasis that God has given us through the writings of Ellen White—then we’re going to have a lot of people who don’t totally understand why they’re Seventh-day Adventists and who may not be fully prepared to stand true to God in the last days. (2)

In ADVENTIST AND MUSLIMS: FIVE CONVICTIONS, William G. Johnsson presents convincing evidence that “Seventh-day Adventists are uniquely positioned to bring the gospel to Muslims.”

Norman R. Gulley makes the case for the Trinity in 1+1+1=ONE. However, when he argues that the books of the Old Testament confirm the Trinitarian position, he weakens his argument.

Andrew King reports that Adventists are RESPONDING TO NEEDS, medical and educational, in Burundi and Rwanda.

Jan Paulsen is in favor of SHARING OUR MESSAGE on YouTube.

There are amazing BENEFITS OF BREASTFEEDING according to Allan R. Handysides and Peter N. Landless.

In BODY PARTS AND HEART RELIGION, Angel Manuel Rodriguez does a nice job of describing what Old Testament writers meant when they used body parts to describe human emotions. “The psalmist has nothing to hide, so he says to the Lord, “Test me, O Lord, and try me, examine my heart [kidneys] and my mind [lēb, ‘heart’]” (26:2). By examining the kidneys God can identify the wicked and bring to an end their violence (Ps. 7:9). The combination of kidneys and heart in the phrase indicates that God examines the totality of the person.”

STEADY HOPE IN HIS BLOOD by Rosse Mesa Diaz, concludes his piece with the following quote from Corinthians: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

It’s noteworthy that the sins mentioned here are the failings of human beings. Only homosexuals are singled out for being what they are. Paul, you aren’t admitting to be a “reviler” are you? Did you really intend to make “an abusive, unqualified verbal attack” on members of this group? Did you, Rosse Mesa Diaz? I didn’t think so.

(1) White Estate assistant director Darryl Thompson is responsible for preparing and editing the books.

(2) I guess sola scriptura isn’t getting the job done.

Doc on Adventist Congregation Premieres at American Film Institute

Alexander Carpenter — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:59:19 -0800

"There are 6,000 Adventist Churches in North America—each one has a story."

Hollywood Blvd (2010) by award winning filmmakers Melody George and Paul Kim is the first in the series of documentaries on the stories of three Adventist congregations.

This part of the series follows the Hollywood church as it is confronted with a dwindling congregation that has reflected the recent troubles of their city. With only a handful of disconnected people straggling in for worship service, an idealistic new pastor and a gifted musician decide to take action. Under their guidance, a group of young professionals commit to wrestling with the pivotal question, "How can we be a people among whom God dwells?"

This series is commissioned by the Church Resource Center (Vervent) of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists.

WHERE:
American Film Institute
2021 N. Western Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90027

WHEN: Friday, March 5, 2010 from 7:00 - 9:30 pm

COST: FREE but must RSVP. Seating is limited.

To reserve a seat or for more information contact Cecilia Luck at the Hollywood Adventist Church - (323) 462-0010 or email luck [AT] hollywoodsda [DOT] org.

Facebook event page where people can RSVP and comment: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=349617073915&ref=ts

Time for Lent: Love Your Enemies

Jeff Boyd — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:28:40 -0800

G. K. Chesterton observed, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.” Arguably, this statement is most clearly true in Jesus’ call to love our enemies.[1] If you’re anything like me, you embrace this teaching at a cerebral level and yet have difficulty responding with kindness when even slightly provoked or criticized.

Even though Jesus came to bring peace, he knew that his ministry would divide people.[2] Enemies would inevitably be created; however, these individuals were still to be treated with love and respect. We see an example of this when Jesus was traveling through Samaria en route to Jerusalem. [3] When the Samaritans rebuffed Jesus, the disciples wanted to call down fire from heaven. However, Jesus quickly corrected the error of their violence. Commenting on this story, Ellen White states,

“There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and to destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas”.[4]

In contrast to the disciples’ attitude, Martin Luther King Jr. embodied love for one’s enemies:

Do to us what you will and we will still love you….But be assured that we’ll wear you down by our capacity to suffer, and one day we will win our freedom. We will not only win freedom for ourselves; we will appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.[5]

Last May I participated in a peaceful demonstration calling for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.[6] While marching from Congress to the White House, I talked with a protester who was passionate and well-informed about human rights and geo-politics. However, his description of what he thought should be done to members of the Bush administration was hardly peaceful.

My fellow demonstrator was not really against torture; he just wanted a different target. Only by following King’s call to “overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression” are we able to avoid becoming the pigs of Orwell’s Animal Farm.[7] Rather than responding to our enemies with violent thoughts, words and actions, we, as disciples of Jesus, are learning to respond with acts of healing.[8] We do not do this in our own power. Jesus must live in us and grow his love in our hearts.

“It is only this deep rootedness in God’s all-inclusive love that can prevent the peacemaker from being ravaged by the same anger, resentment, and violence that leads to war.”[9]

Today’s social action assignment is to seek out a conversation partner who disagrees with you about a topic you care deeply about—health care, free-market capitalism, immigration, etc.[10] Rather than maintaining peace by avoiding difficult conversations or destroying peace by engaging with venom, try to deeply hear the person’s opinions, rationales and fears. Stephen Covey’s admonition to seek first to understand and then to be understood can be a powerful communication tool, though it is incredibly difficult for many of us.[11] As we converse, may we treat others in a manner consistent with Worthington’s definition of love: "being willing to value the people on the other side and being unwilling to devalue people."[12]

On Sunday this series is going to turn a corner. With our commitment to prayer, community and loving our enemies, we will turn our attention to specific social issues. Also, I have invited guest writers to offer their unique voices on a number of these topics. I hope you’ll welcome them warmly even if they push the conversation in uncomfortable directions.

[1] Matthew 5:43-48. See also Romans 12:14-21 for Paul’s teaching. For commentary on turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-42), see Walter Wink’s essay, “Christian Nonviolence” (http://www.zcommunications.org/christian-nonviolence-by-walter-wink/). For a powerful story of loving one’s enemy, see pp. 260-263 in The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne.

[2] Luke 2:14 and Luke 12:49-53/Matthew 10:34-39.

[3] Luke 9:51-56.

[4] Ellen Gould Harmon White, The Desire of Ages (Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1898), 487.

[5] Martin Luther King (Jr.) et al., The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr: Symbol of the movement, January 1957-December 1958 (University of California Press, 2000), 341-342.

[6] http://advactivism.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/100-days-campaign/

[7] http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-acceptance.....

[8] Mark 3:5. See Nooma:Store (http://nooma.com/nooma_store_016_rob_bell.php/).

[9] Henri J. M. Nouwen, Peacework: Prayer, Resistance, Community (Orbis Books, 2005), 71.

[10] If your enemy is an abusive parent, cheating spouse, or the like, your pressing assignment is to find safety and support as opposed to finding someone to verbally spar with. Alternatively, if you are feeling courageous, your assignment is to seek reconciliation with a current “enemy.” For motivation, read Chapter 2 of Walter Wink’s book, When the Powers Fall (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998).

[11] Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, 15th ed. (Free Press, 2004). Another book that has influenced me is Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, 1st ed., Kerry Patterson et al., (McGraw-Hill, 2002). This short article at Utne is also insightful—“The Great Divide.” My friends and family members can affirm that I have sometimes (often?) done a poor job of living these principles, and yet I believe my wife would say there is marked if not linear improvement. The less I feel I have to win the argument, the better positioned I am to listen.

[12] Everett L. Worthington Jr., A Just Forgiveness: Responsible Healing without Excusing Injustice (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 153.

The Question of God (Introduction) - An Alternate Sabbath School Lesson Series (1 of 11)

Rich Hannon — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:35:09 -0800

With this posting I begin an 11 part series structured for possible use as an alternate Sabbath School Study Guide. I will post one lesson/study per week. The springboard for discussion comes from a PBS television program (subsequently released as a DVD) and book entitled The Question of God. The book is authored by Harvard psychiatrist Dr. Armand Nicholi, who also developed and produced the PBS broadcasts. I integrated segments from the DVD into the class. The issues he raises touch some of the most foundational spiritual questions people face.

After this introductory session the remaining 10 are entitled:

2) A Transcendent Experience
3) Science or Revelation
4) The Exalted Father
5) Why Believe?
6) Miracles
7) Moral Law – Part A
8) Moral Law – Part B
9) Love Thy Neighbor
10) The Human Condition
11) Suffering and Death

The topics covered will range from epistemology to ethics and ask such questions as – how ought we to ground our morality, and is there an answer to The Problem of Evil?

One of the difficulties chronically associated with a standard Sabbath School class is that it too often makes unwarranted assumptions about what the participants actually believe, perhaps assuming that the group operates with more theological unanimity than really exists. That can short-circuit important questions members may wish the class would explore, but instead avoid raising them for fear of appearing out-of-harmony with others or perhaps feel unsure they are in a safe environment to explore such thoughts.

Sabbath School is also too often initiated with discussion-starter questions that have ‘agreed upon’ answers which produce status-quo responses that can then leave the group with little resolution to genuinely perplexing problems. The class may even end with some semi-satisfying recapitulation of cherished beliefs, but all too frequently little serious investigation has actually occurred because our initial presuppositions were both taken for granted and then reaffirmed.

To help avoid such potential traps, when I taught and prototyped this series in my own local Sabbath School, I asked for a few simple ground rules:

First, class members needed to wait until some introductory, explanatory material had been presented before any discussion began. Now obviously this can be a two-edged sword. If all I did was to pontificate my own personal theological presuppositions (prejudices?) without developing a substantive framework for deeper discussion then such an intro would just provide me an ego-scratching, hubristic, bully pulpit. But if I could lay groundwork that would preclude mere recapitulation of standard ‘safe’ responses then perhaps the class would better address new and often difficult issues. At any rate, this was my approach and intent.
Second, I requested people to not just speak up whenever they wanted without first gaining permission by some slight nod or hand-raise. This worked well as its obvious fairness was recognized. It also prevented people from hijacking the discussion and/or just riding their favorite hobby-horses.
Third, I told class members that I especially wanted to hear thoughts from those who rarely spoke up – but I would promise never to call on them without their permission. I hoped this would make them feel both safe and realize that they too might have a chance to participate even when there would likely be others more assertive who otherwise could quickly dominate the more quiet and hesitant class members.

Now, concerning content. Dr. Nicholi’s book is primarily an examination of the key philosophical/religious issues addressed by Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis – perhaps two of the most seminal personalities of the 20th century – one who chose atheism, the other Christianity. From this material Nicholi created a Harvard seminar and from that class the PBS video series was developed. The majority of the DVD material is a dramatic re-enactment of the biographies of both Lewis and Freud, moving through their lives from childhood to their deaths. At various points Nicholi interrupts this dramatic narrative to include short roundtable discussions (roughly between 5 and 12 minutes each) of some key philosophical/religious questions being alluded to in the dramatic portions of the DVD. He carefully chose seven highly intelligent participants, whose viewpoints range from a fairly conservative practicing Christian to an avowed atheist.

I chose to skip the DVD’s dramatic portions and focus strictly on the conversations. So the Sabbath School lesson hour was broken down as follows:

Start with an overview lecture by the class teacher (adapted as desired from this 11-part Study Guide) to orient and focus the discussion to follow.
Proceed (most weeks) to watch one of the short video conversations.
Open up the last ½ hour for class discussion.

Each week I provided handouts: first a summary of the lecture material, then also (when applicable) a transcript of the DVD roundtable discussion.

Obviously the organization I detail here is only my personal choice regarding class structure. Use whatever seems to work best in your context. I would advise that you buy the DVD so the class might have an opportunity to watch the discussions. However, each discussion comes with a transcript on the PBS website which you could work from if you are unable or decide to not use the DVD discussion portions directly. And there is one week (besides this one) where the introductory material was just too extensive to include both lecture and video discussion.

More information on this PBS series may be found here.

You may purchase the DVD here.

The book The Question of God can be purchased at Amazon or elsewhere.

One of my class handouts for this Introductory Week 1 is a bibliography. Note that this is the additional material I have drawn on for my own research, consequently it may not be a good fit for you or your class unless you take the time to review some of it personally. But it might provide class members with additional references for further study, were they so inclined.

Here is the link to that material.

Here is a link to the class syllabus handout I used, where more detail is given about the content of each session. Note that the weekly topic ordering I chose is also slightly different from way it was organized on the DVD. The rearrangement was intended to facilitate better topic flow.

Finally, below is my Week 1 lecture/essay which correlates to the handout material.

Lewis and Freud – Two World Views

What is a world View?
Knowledge formation -> world view -> context

Figure 1

Typically our discussions on difficult and contentious subjects (and subsequent frequent disagreements) take place contextually. That is, we argue about such topics as Creation, homosexuality, women's ordination, etc. These contexts are what I like to call ‘above the water line’. I’m thinking metaphorically of an iceberg, where the topic is what we see, but the more substantive (and more abstract) components are not obviously visible. Immediately below this ‘water line’ is our world-view, a way of sorting out and organizing this swirling mass of sense-data that has seemed to work for us – more-or-less – through the years. World views are enormously helpful. We cannot continually revisit every idea or issue that needs deciding so we usually lean on past experience and analysis. We (hopefully) apply reasoning, listen to respected authorities, etc. And then develop a fairly consistent, pragmatically workable belief system that lets us make religious and philosophical choices expeditiously. But world views are not static. They can morph over time as dissonant input data competes for our attention and we try (often painfully) to resolve the dissonance.

Now, for an atheist/agnostic, the line I’ve drawn (as the left-hand-side input to the world-view) marked ‘revelation’ barely exists, or at best is in embryonic form. Knowledge formation, for such people, is almost exclusively influenced from experience. And experience here should be understood to include the voices of authority, such as peer-reviewed science, extended (one hopes) by sound/valid personal reasoning. But for a Theist, there is a second, competing stream of potential knowledge - revelation. Obtained from some presumably super-human source: perhaps the Bible, Koran, Bagavad-gita, Scientology, space aliens – whatever.

And most Theists, I would also suggest, are what I call compatiblists. That is, they adhere to the reasonable assumption that these two knowledge streams ought to somehow and eventually resolve. After all, God’s explicit revelation should be compatible (consistent) with His ‘book of nature’. And if we cannot always presently see this resolution, then the problem is likely our limited vision, not God’s
schizophrenia, duplicity or lack of existence.

Yet there frequently remain some areas (e.g. Faith and Science, homosexuality, women’s equality) where such resolution can remain elusive and hence the contextual views expressed (above the water line) may be quite contentious.

How then should one attempt to deal with such dissonance? Freud and Lewis have chosen two radically different approaches.

Freud – Wish Fulfillment

Freud’s approach was what one might term ‘bottom up’. He used the words ‘wish fulfillment’ meaning by this that we really personally manufacture a God from our deepest needs, then extrapolate from these needs to a (possibly personal) God figure.

Consider some of these quotes from Nicholi’s book:

Nicholi p. QoG p. 41: “Freud … proffers two main arguments against the existence of an intelligence beyond the universe: one, the psychological argument concerning wish fulfillment, and two, the argument concerning human suffering.”

“Freud’s psychological argument against the spiritual worldview rests on the notion that all religious ideas are rooted in deep-seated wishes and are therefore illusions – false beliefs.”

From Freud's Future of an Illusion: “We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence and if there were a moral order in the universe and an afterlife, but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be”.

Nicholi: QoG p. 41: “Freud therefore concludes that belief in God is merely a projection of powerful wishes and inner needs.”

Nicholi: QoG p 44: “So Freud asserts we possess intense, deep-seated wishes that form the basis for our concept of and belief in God. God does not create us in His image; we create God in our parents’ image … God exists only in our minds.”

Nicholi then notes a problem of Freud’s method:

Lewis – The God-shaped Hole

Lewis saw things ‘top-down’. One might label this the ‘Hound of Heaven’ argument, named after the 19th century poem by Francis Thompson. Lewis postulates that humans have a ‘God-shaped hole’ which our divine pursuer lovingly seeks to fill with Himself.

Nicholi writes (quoting Lewis):

QoG p. 46 “Lewis [argues that] not only does wishing for something not rule out evidence for its existence of the object wished for – it may itself be evidence for its existence. In his own life, Lewis experienced periodically a deep-seated desire that he called “joy” and that he eventually concluded was a desire for a relationship with his Creator. Lewis notes we usually possess desires for things which exist. He asserts that “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well there is such a thing as sex.” He then implies we all have a deep-seated desire, or wish for, a relationship with the Creator and for an existence beyond this life … .”

QoG p. 47 ‘Lewis writes: “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”

So here we begin with two radically different and likely logically irresolvable perspectives. Do we humans manufacture God (Freud) or does God find us (Lewis)? Or is there some of both at work?

One of my favorite metaphors illustrating this most fundamentally human dilemma comes from an ancient book entitled The Ecclesiastical History of the English Speaking People written around 673 AD, by the Venerable Bede. In it he relates this story:

“The present life of man, O king, seems to me, in comparison of that time which is unknown to us, like to the swift flight of a sparrow through the room wherein you sit at supper in winter, with your commanders and ministers, and a good fire in the midst, whilst the storms of rain and snow prevail abroad; the sparrow, I say, flying in at one door, and immediately out at another. Whilst he is within, he is safe from the wintry storm; but after a short space of fair weather, he immediately vanishes out of your sight, into the dark winter from which he had emerged. So this life of man appears for a short space, but of what went before, or what is to follow, we are utterly ignorant.”

- Bede, Ecclesiastical History: Book II

There are many Christians and Adventists I think who would be quite uncomfortable having me back up this human dilemma to such an uncertain starting point for discussion. We want to begin with axiomatic Bible quotes (not to mention Ellen White statements) liberally sprinkled into the logical flow as ‘unassailable’ touch points, with everything then moving downstream from there. But to start at that point begs a full range of crucial questions we need to first address. And as I stated above, Sabbath School too often avoids this messy inquiry.

Here then is how I wish to begin these series of Lessons – with semi-clueless humans searching for the possibility of the Divine. Armand Nicholi’s book is, after all, entitled The Question of God. How then are we to find Him or be found?

Handout Material for Week 1

Some Questions to Consider:

Q: What methods should be employed in the search for God?
Q: Are Freud’s presuppositions better or worse than Lewis’s?
Q: Can we ever step-back from our birth heritage and pre-suppositions to examine this question objectively?
Q: What does ‘objectively’ mean anyway?

Time for Lent: Community

Jeff Boyd — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:14:31 -0800

Welcome back to the Lenten series on giving our time to work for peace and justice.[1] Today’s focus is community. This may not be the first topic that comes to mind when contemplating social action, but I believe it is important for positioning our future discussions. Even the Lord’s Prayer begins with a sense of community—“Our Father…”[2] “The prayer Jesus taught us is a prayer of community and reconciliation, belonging to a new kind of people who have left the land of ‘me.’”[3]

When we contemplate social justice, we are not simply analyzing issues; we are talking about people’s lives.[4] As we are in personal relationships with those affected by the various social concerns that will be highlighted in this series, we are blessed with friendship and an improved perspective for the requisite social analysis. As Shane Claiborne says, “It is a beautiful thing when folks in poverty are no longer just a missions project but become genuine friends and family with whom we laugh, cry, dream, and struggle.”[5]

Recently, a classmate showed me what this can look like. He suddenly left a lecture saying he had an emergency at home. When I later asked what had happened, he responded, “The homeless man who lives with our family had a seizure and fell and hit his head.” I was surprised that this gentleman who is on the board of a national humanitarian agency cares for an individual as earnestly as he cares for society more broadly. This may sound extreme to many of us, but I am thankful that families open their homes in ministries of hospitality.[6]

Community is an expansive topic. In addition to opening our homes for extended periods as just described, community also includes shorter-term hospitality,[7] intentional communities,[8] and the on-going relationships in our network of social bonds.[9] Christine Pohl highlights another expression of community—sharing meals. “Especially in the context of shared meals, the presence of God’s kingdom is prefigured, revealed, and reflected.”[10] The experience of the early church demonstrates the importance of this practice:

[S]hared meals were a significant setting for struggling with cultural boundaries in the early church, especially in working through the incorporation of Gentiles into the early communities. At meals together, tensions surfaced between rich and poor believers; meals provided the context for instructions on equal recognition and respect. Hospitality practices in the Christian community were to portray a clear message—that of equality, transformed relations, and a common life.[11]

You guessed it; eating together is today’s action step. Jesus brought together significantly diverse individuals to form the core of his movement. Who can you eat with today to continue the revolution of the Kingdom of God—a coworker with differing political views, a neighbor whose skin tone doesn’t resemble your own, a church member who is either more conservative or liberal than you, or someone who doesn’t currently have money to repay you? Bon appétit![12]

*****
Jeff Boyd is the Assistant Director of Church of Refuge at the Center for Youth Evangelism and is pursuing an MA in Peace Studies at the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary. He has undergraduate degrees from Union College in Religion and Psychology and an MBA from Andrews University.

[1] To read the first article, in this Lenten series, on action and prayer, click here.

[2] Matthew 6:9-13.

[3] Shane Claiborne and Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, Becoming the Answer to Our Prayers: Prayer for Ordinary Radicals (IVP Books, 2008), 18.

[4] Shane Claiborne, The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 292-293.

[5] Ibid., 128. On pages 134-135 Claiborne says, “Community is what we were created for. We are made in the image of a God who is community, a plurality of oneness…. The biblical story is the story of community, from beginning to end…. But that doesn’t mean community is easy.”

[6] For additional reflections and stories in this vein, see The Irresistible Revolution (pp. 115-190), Becoming the Answer to Our Prayers (p. 22), School(s) for Conversion (Rutba House, 2005, pp. 39-54), Dissident Discipleship (David Augsburger, 2006, pp. 57-84), Everybody Wants to Change the World (Tony Campolo and Gordon Aeschliman, 2006, pp. 40-42), http://newneighbor.org, http://www.qideas.org/audio/new-neighbor.aspx, and http://ccda.org.

[7] See Matthew 25:35 and Hebrews 13:2.

[8] See http://www.newmonasticism.org, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/september/16.38.html?start=1, and http://www.communityofcommunities.info.

[9] Two random bits: One enemy of community is mobility. If you are like my wife and I, this Jesus Manifesto article on flight risks may speak to you—Rebellion as Staying Put. For E. G. White quotes on relationships, see the Church of Refuge website.

[10] Christine D. Pohl, Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition (Eerdmans, 1999), 30.

[11] Ibid., 31-32.

[12] Maybe 1844 could print t-shirts with the slogan, “Changing the world one bite at a time” or “Share a haystack—Change the world.” I promise never to write copy for a t-shirt company!