Quantcast
Channel: Spectrum Voices
Viewing all 519 articles
Browse latest View live

Perspective: What Twitter Can Teach the Adventist Church about Women

$
0
0
Twitter is at the forefront of a social movement that is giving women a voice and a platform on topics including sexism, domestic violence, and equality – and it’s time the church sat up and listened.

On its surface, Twitter is a social networking service not all that dissimilar to its cousin Facebook. Users write and read messages called “tweets” that are 140 characters or less. If a user wants to talk about a particular topic, they use a hashtag. This allows other users to find people who are tweeting about the same subjects. For example, recent top trends include #Hamburglar, #NationalDayofPrayer, #BenCarson, and #ElectionDay.

It’s not the place one would expect to find social reform underway. After all, how much change can one create with a 140 character limit? Quite a lot as it turns out. It even has a name: hashtag activism.

Though many important topics have been discussed through hashtag activism in the past year, women’s issues have predominated. Twitter is at the forefront of a social movement that is giving women a voice and a platform on topics including sexism, domestic violence, and equality – and it’s time the church sat up and listened.

Earlier this month, a senior at an Adventist university wrote an article discussing the hashtag #YesAllWomen which debuted in May 2014. Within four days of the hashtag first appearing on Twitter, it had been tweeted 1.2 million times. The point of the hashtag is that while not all men are sexist, every woman has experienced and been affected by sexism.

This isn’t something we’re comfortable talking about as a church. Perhaps we think we are immune from the evils of sexism that prevail in the world outside our Adventist bubble. But in reality, sexism runs so rampant through our church aisles that we don’t even recognize it by that name when it occurs.

In September 2014, the topic of domestic violence was brought to the forefront of news headlines due to a leaked video of NFL player, Ray Rice, violently attacking his then-fiancée (now wife), Janay Palmer, in an elevator. Whether you follow sports or not, it was hard to miss the commentary that followed. While there was an outcry from some demanding legal action against Rice, others engaged in victim blaming. Adventism’s own Ben Carson weighed in saying, “Let's not all jump on the bandwagon of demonizing this guy. He obviously has some real problems, and his wife obviously knows that, because she subsequently married him.”

Many people expressed a similar sentiment, questioning why Ms. Palmer would marry Rice in the first place, knowing what he was capable of, and why she would subsequently stay. Shortly after the leaked video, a writer named Beverly Gooden took to Twitter with the hashtag #WhyIStayed, hoping to enlighten and raise awareness about a situation that one out of every four women will face in their lifetime.

Gooden stated, “I hope those tweeting using #WhyIStayed find a voice, find compassion, and find hope.” It seems domestic abuse survivors found just that: in less than 24 hours, the hashtag had been tweeted over 46,000 times.

For many women, the reason they stay revolves around what their religion, church, or spiritual counsel told them to do. Gooden herself tweeted, “I stayed because my pastor told me that God hates divorce. It didn’t cross my mind that God might hate abuse, too. #WhyIStayed”

User @LaurenAshleyMay stated, “#WhyIStayed Because the elders of our church told my mother and I that it was our fault.”

Countless women echoed the sentiments of these tweets, with their own stories of their church siding with the abuser, victim-blaming and shaming the survivor, or ignoring the situation altogether. What wasn’t found were examples of churches stepping in or pastors who intervened.

In February, an anonymous Adventist woman shared her own story of spousal abuse and the lack of support she received. Far too many women sitting in our pews each Sabbath have a similar story. But while these women are shunned, shamed, or silenced by the church, Twitter is asking for their stories and giving them a voice.

As heartbreaking as the #WhyIStayed tweets were that September day, tweets with the hashtag #WhyILeft started appearing too, with women sharing how and why they finally found the courage to leave. In the coming days, a domestic violence survivor set up a Twitter chat where women (and some men) meet online weekly to share and counsel together. These strangers are united by only two things: they suffered domestic abuse and they are on Twitter. Yet, the virtual support they give each other brings about tangible results.

Twitter’s success at creating safe spaces only underscores the fact that the Christian church, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church specifically, has yet to do so. We can’t even bring ourselves to address the issue of domestic violence in our pews head-on, let alone provide counseling and safety for the victims, and an action plan for dealing with abusers.

In addition to discussing sexism and domestic abuse, Twitter users are also creating affirming messages for young women. On April 14, 2015, author Courtney Summers launched the hashtag #ToTheGirls, asking women around the world to “take the opportunity to tell the girls you know – and the ones you don’t – that they are seen, heard and loved. Share advice. Be encouraging. Tell us about or thank the girls in your life who have made a difference in yours.”

Over 70,000 women (and a few men) began sharing uplifting and affirming messages of strength, equality, success, and confidence:

User @rachelcaine wrote, “#ToTheGirls Your gender does not define or limit you. Reach for greatness. Fight for it every day, in every way you can.”

@maureenjohnson tweeted, “#ToTheGirls There are no rules about how to be a girl, so whatever way you want to do it? YES. THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY.”

@sarazarr added, “#ToTheGirls: You don't have to grow up to be a mom or a wife if you don't want to. It's ok to not have kids, not want to babysit, etc.”

So often in Adventism we pigeonhole women. We should be wives, mothers, caretakers. If we are not these things, we are told we’re “less than” or we are not fulfilling our duty as Christian women. We are told we should be submissive. When we are leaders we are chastised and reminded of our place.

The Adventist church has left women wanting and needing more. We experience sexism in our churches and we are silenced. We experience domestic violence in our homes, and we are told it’s our fault. We are reminded each and every day that Adventism does not believe we are equal to, or as worthy as, men.

What would it look like if the Adventist church sought to affirm women each day instead of reminding us of antiquated notions of womanhood? What can the church learn from these hashtags that have done more for women in the past year, than the church has done in 150 years?

#YesAllWomen and #ToTheGirls remind us to recognize the sexist views we hold about Adventist women, specifically of the female pastors in our pulpits and the single women in our pews. Let’s actively work to affirm all women, and remember that their value and worth is not based on their relationship status, their career goals, or whether or not they have children.

#WhyIStayed demands that we recognize that domestic abuse is happening to members of our church family. We need to be able to admit that sometimes divorce really is the best option, and that a woman’s health and safety should be our first priority. Our pastoral staff needs to be trained in how to deal with this issue in helpful and constructive ways.

All over the world, women have found a voice through social media that they have not been granted by our church. It’s time that changed. Let’s create a church that hears, that listens, and that affirms women. Twitter shouldn’t be the change we see in the world. That’s our role as the Adventist Church, and we’ve fallen down on the job.

Alisa Williams is Spirituality Editor for SpectrumMagazine.org.


A Chef's Story: From the President’s Table to Loma Linda

$
0
0
Anastacio Rodriquez shares how he found himself cooking for President Barack Obama, and what led to his position as executive chef at Loma Linda University Medical Center-Murrieta.

Anastacio Rodriquez, executive chef at Loma Linda University Medical Center-Murrieta, has worked as a chef for the past 13 years. Rodriquez started cooking in his grandmother’s kitchen as a young boy, but dreamed of learning culinary techniques that reached beyond her countertops. Known fondly as Chef Chito, Rodriquez shares with Spectrum's Rachel Logan how he found himself cooking for President Barack Obama, and what led to his position at Loma Linda University Medical-Center Murrieta.

The Murrieta branch of Loma Linda University Health in Riverside County in southern California is a relatively new addition to the Loma Linda University family. The 106-bed community hospital opened in April of 2011, and as of February 2012, is the “first and only provider of interventional cardiology services in the Murrieta-Temecula area,” according to Loma Linda University Health.

Can you describe your journey to becoming a chef? How did it all begin? 

My grandma was a big influence…[and] I think I’ve always been someone who likes to create things/build stuff. I have a passion for art. In cooking I was able to be creative. I used to watch Emeril  [when I was a young boy] and it was so much fun. When I was 12 I almost burned down my grandma’s kitchen! 

Growing up eating a lot of Mexican food, I knew I loved food and wanted to learn about other kinds of cuisines. 

How did you get the opportunity to cook for the Obamas? What were the steps that got you there?

Always having a passion! Going to culinary school, I felt out where I wanted to go with my career. In culinary, you can end up working for Chipotle or for the White House; it’s so wide and so broad. I’ve always thought: “Make a plan and figure a way to get there.” So, I planned out my career and the ways to get there. 

And how did that lead you to cooking for the President of the United States?

I jumped all over the place working for different kitchens, both fine dinning and otherwise. I was working at a casino and for Suzanne Goin, [of Lucque Group/Catering.]  She’s the one who gets these kinds of high profile events. She said to me, “We have this special person coming; can you come work?” 

We were always cooking for “special people” — movie stars and stuff. We all began to wonder who this special person was — there was all this security clearance! And then we found out it was the President of the United States. 

How does it work, cooking for the President? Are there a lot of safety precautions, other than running you through extensive security and background checks?

Oh yeah! Everything is raw. We prepare at the event. We have to get there super early because they close the streets down around the event. Everything is made on site at these remote kitchens: steaks and everything.

You mentioned that you had cooked for other celebrities before; how did it feel cooking for the leader of the free world?  

It’s pretty amazing. I’ve cooked for a lot of people, but to cook for the President of the United States. . . I got to take a picture!

How many times have you cooked for the Obamas now? 

We cooked for them a lot in 2011-2012 — maybe eight or nine times in total.

What kind of events are they usually for?

Fundraisers, women’s conferences, men’s conferences. . . It can be for groups ranging from 10 to 200 people.  

And now you work for Loma Linda University Medical Center-Murrieta. What is your official job title there? 

I am the Executive Chef at Murrieta [Loma Linda University Medical Center- Murrieta. “LLUMC-Murrieta.”]

How did you become connected to Loma Linda University Health? 

I was working at a different hospital and I was at a conference when I met the director of food operations at the main [Loma Linda University Health] campus, and we hit it off. We exchanged cards and kept in touch. 

At my hospital we had this dinner for doctors’ day, and I sent him pictures of the event. He emailed me back saying there might be a position and I should apply. 

I did my interview and a written chef test. I haven’t done a written test like that since culinary school! It’s good; it weeds people out who say they know stuff who actually don’t. The interviewers had a mystery box of ingredients we [the interviewees] had to use to make a several course meal — I decided to make a couple of extra courses.

That’s hilarious! It must have worked since you got the job. How long have you been working for LLUMC-Murrieta now?   

Three years in September. 

How is it different working in a hospital than it was working in some of the other kitchens you have worked for in the past?

It is completely different since it is a hospital. But at LLUMC-Murrieta the hospital food is not like hospital food; it’s really good! We have beef, chicken, fish, and turkey meal selections for patients. For non-patients [staff, visitors, and students], it’s vegetarian. 

I personally do eat meat, and I figure that we have to make a balanced meal that someone like me who eats meats would like, and that someone who is vegetarian would also like.

Patient meals are regulated for their diets. For our cafeteria, we have a hot entrée; we have a soup or salad option. We have seasonal salads made-to-order. We have a grill that we run specials out of. . . it’s different all the time.

What is one place you are trying to improve in the hospital kitchen?

Working with the team in the kitchen and uniting everybody. [Chef Chito has 25 direct reports at LLUMC-Murrieta.] Most of our chefs have been in culinary school and worked in cool places. They appreciate what we do here — we collaborate together: “Let them [the customers] see how can we make your regular lasagna better.” We are always trying to make the food better. 

What do you most enjoy about your job at LLUMC-Murrieta? 

That’s easy. The thing that I like the most about Loma Linda University Health is their values — honestly! Being a father of three boys and a husband to a great wife this is important. 

Our readers will love that. 

Honestly! Loma Linda University Health understands that as a chef it’s tough; it’s non-stop. At some places it’s 17 hours, 6-7 days week. Here, I can have my family time. It’s nice. I come in to work 9-10 hours max, then I go home. That’s it! It’s very consistent and very supportive. I have worked in many kitchens, hotels, casinos, and in fine dining — this is the best place I’ve worked.

God Bless Moms

$
0
0
A Mothers Day Poem dedicated to mothers of all kinds.

GOD BLESS MOMS

This day is for the special people who help to raise us all
Who clean our peanut butter off the floor and spaghetti off the wall
The ones who kiss our ouches and who help to fix our oopsies
The ones who change our diapers when we load them up with poopsies
The ones who hug away our fears and help calm our anxieties
Today is for those special people who come in all varieties

God bless the women
Whose labor gives us life
God bless those who can’t conceive
Who for years and years have tried

God bless those who adopt a child
And become moms that way
God bless those who can’t keep their babies
Who’ve had to give a child away

God bless the aunts and grandmas
Who do the work that mothers do
God bless single fathers
Who serve as mothers too

God bless those who have lost a child
Who mark this day by grieving
And God bless those who’ve lost their moms
Who mourn a parent's leaving

God bless the single mothers
Whose work is twice as much
God bless those who choose not to have kids
But who help raise children despite not being moms as such

Our heartfelt thanks to all these special people
Whose lives are love defined
God’s best blessing today on all of them
These moms of many kinds

 

 

Jared Wright is Managing Editor of SpectrumMagazine.org.

An Open Letter on the Ordination of Women

$
0
0
Much has been said about the 1990 General Conference Session action regarding the ordination of women. What has been heretofore overlooked is the critical part of the action.

Dear President Ted Wilson and the General Conference Executive Committee:

Much has been said about the 1990 General Conference Session action regarding the ordination of women. What has been heretofore overlooked is the critical part of the action. When the delegates accepted the commission's report, they accepted this statement, ". . . the commission does not have a consensus as to whether or not the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry . . ."

By accepting this statement, the Session delegates officially recognized that Adventists within the Church have two doctrinally distinct views on the ordination of women. Some Adventists believe that Scripture advocates the role of women as pastors, while other Adventists believe that Scripture excludes women from the pastoral ministry. The imperative here is that the Session recognized that the Church has no official doctrinal position one way or the other.

Both sides are sincere and passionate in their beliefs, and each staunchly believes the other side is wrong. Sometime in the future, the Church might settle this matter by establishing a doctrinal position. Until that time comes, each side must recognize that those with an opposing view have the right to believe as they do, and the right to practice that belief, insofar as possible. That last line may have shocked some of you. Yes the opposing view has the right to practice their belief. This means that if a union conference refuses to ordain women to the pastoral ministry, they have that right, and no one can force them to ordain women. Likewise, if a union conference chooses to ordain women to the pastoral ministry, they have that right, and no one can force them to stop ordaining women. I say it is the union conference's decision because according to the General Conference Working Policy, ". . .decisions regarding the ordination of ministers are entrusted to the union conference/mission . . ."2

The agenda item for the 2015 General Conference Session
The question currently on the Session's agenda is, "Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry?"3

Just as what took place at the 1995 General Conference Session, the current agenda item is a political question, not a doctrinal one. It is an attempt to allow the majority to violate the rights of the minority by imposing its view without settling the question. What you do not seem to realize is that the attempt cannot succeed, because, if the delegates do reject the motion, it in no way abrogates the unions' authority to decide whom they can ordain. Therefore, rejecting the motion does nothing to stop the unions from ordaining women.

The fair and right course of action is to replace the current Session agenda item with the following statement, submitted for the delegates' approval:

"At the present time, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has not made a final doctrinal determination as to whether the Church can ordain pastors without respect to gender. Until this is done, the church affirms that members can believe either 1) that both men and women are qualified to serve in the pastoral ministry, or 2) that only men are qualified to serve in the pastoral ministry. The church further affirms the right of church members to practice either of these beliefs, insofar as possible. The Church recognizes that this may result in different practices in different church territories. One territory may ordain pastors without respect to gender, while another territory may restrict ordination to men."

This Church wants unity. Sometimes unity means that the two sides agree to disagree until God provides more light, and the Church can settle the matter.

Sincerely,

John B. Heczko

Cc. Daniel R. Jackson, President NAD

 

________________________________
1Adventist Review, July 13, 1990, pg. 15.
2General Conference Working Policy 2007-2008 B O5 statement 6. [This is the most recent edition of the policy I could find online.]
3http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/03/23/editorial-esther-gamaliel-and-elder-wilson

 

John B. Heczko, MD is a retired physician living in the Los Angeles area. He is a third generation Adventist, a graduate of Pacific Union College, and Loma Linda University School of Medicine.

Inline Images: 

Death Before the Fall: A Review

$
0
0
"Ron Osborn's book, "Death Before the Fall" (IVP Academic; 2014), is just one more doomed attempt to meld evolution with Genesis.

Despite our differences, I have always liked Ron Osborn, still do, and I hope we can get together in San Antonio. I can relate to his struggle, but from the opposite side: anger at how my whole young life I was dogmatically taught as true something, i.e., Darwinian evolution, that I now see as false. He says the same thing, only from the perspective of rejecting the creationism that he had been dogmatically taught in his young life.

But his book, "Death Before the Fall" (IVP Academic; 2014), is just one more doomed attempt to meld evolution with Genesis.

Venting Sessions
For starters, he should have called it My Beef with Those Narrow-Minded Fundamentalists. He goes page after page, lambasting the ignorance, the shallowness, the fear, the intellectual vacuity, the rigidness, the lack of self-criticism,  “the spirit of censure,” the intolerance, the irrationality, the “foreclosed identities,” et cetera and et cetera that he claims characterize conservative creationists.  He applied some psychology on us as well (surprised we didn’t get a Freudian, Jungian, or Adlerian scan to boot).  He wrote an imaginative chapter conjuring up parallels (“Anxiety,” “Alienation and Suspicion,” “Nostalgia,”  “Elitism,” “Salvation by Knowledge,”  “Surrealism,”  “Authoritarianism and Absolutism”) between creationists and the gnostic heretics of antiquity.
With all due respect, his philippic on the motives, character and intellect of creationists sounded more like venting sessions than serious debate. Let’s hope Ron at least felt better afterwards.

The Creation: A Plain Reading
He titled his first chapter “The Creation: A Plain Reading.”  He must have found the Nagelian “view from nowhere,” which enabled him to read the texts “plainly.” In fact, he assures us that “My interpretation of Genesis . . . is strictly textual and in no sense dependent upon modern scientific models . . .”

Yet the “modern scientific” model of evolution dominates everything in this work.

Early on he writes: “The key refrain Let—‘Let there be,’ ‘Let the waters,’ ‘Let the earth’— should serve as a clarion signal that God’s way of bringing order out of chaos involves not only directly fashioning or controlling but also granting, permitting and delegating . . .. Rather than simply dominating the world, in the very act of bringing the world into existence God is in a certain sense already withdrawing himself from it— or perhaps better, limiting himself within it— in order for it to be free.”

The word “free” is theistic evolutionary Newspeak for rocks, germs, lions, all the earth, animate and inanimate, given the freedom to evolve, without divine intervention.  According to Osborn’s “plain” reading of the text, the phrase “Let the earth bring forth living creatures” conveys “a strong impression or organic emergence.”  Read: millions of years of evolution. 

Yet he faces an exegetical problem with the Hebrew jussive “let.” Though acknowledging that it appear in Genesis 1:3 (“Let there be light”), which means God’s total control as opposed to allowing the light “freedom,” he focuses only on the few verses with the jussive (Gen. 1:11, 20) that he thinks makes his point, while ignoring its use in Genesis 1:6, 9, 14, 15, which clearly doesn’t. 

Each of his “lets” is also followed by the refrain, “and there was evening, and there was morning, day” one, three and so forth. How a “plain” reading of these phrases fits his evolutionary interpretation, he doesn’t say.

Osborn’s incorporates into Genesis one the violence, predation and death central to the “modern scientific” model of evolution, and one way he tries is through the phrase tob meod, “very good” (Gen. 1:31). He argues that “very good” might not be as “good” as we have traditionally thought.  He picks a few places in Scripture where the phrase, or those similar to it, are used in anything but perfect situations.  But biblical words or phrases must be interpreted in context, and to take for instance a use of tob (“good”) from Ecclesiastes (as he does) and read it back into Genesis 1:31 does nothing for his case.

He claimed that other Hebrew words “closer to the English sense of  ‘perfect’” could have been used, such from the root tmm, meaning “finished, completed,” as well “perfect” along with other terms. Again, we have to be careful when reading the sense of a word as it appears in one context back into a different one. At the same time, when Jacob (Genesis 25:27) is depicted as tam, he might be better off sticking with tob meod to make his point for a less than perfect original creation.

Modern Science
Why turn the biblical paradise into a Darwinian jungle?  Because, despite his assurance that he’s not “dependent upon modern scientific models,” that’s precisely what he’s dependent upon.  Even with his railing against creationist foundationalism, he’s guilty of his own version—foundationalism grounded in “modern science.” Only problem? One hundred and twenty years ago they were doing “modern science” too, even if much of that science has been discarded today. And if time should last another 120 years, much of the “modern science” so foundational to his hermeneutics will be discarded as well.

Osborn fulminated against “creation science” and “intelligent design” but said nothing about the epistemological problems with science in general.  I just came across an oft-cited article by a Stanford epidemiologist named John P. A. Ioannidis titled “Why Most Published Research Findings are False.” And Ioannidis was dealing with research about what’s alive and kicking now, as opposed to what happened supposedly 250 million years ago when—in its God-given freedom to work out “its inner principles according to its kind”— the Coelurosauravus evolved a pair of wings before vanishing into the Paleozoic ether.  Nevertheless, so sure of his highly speculative evolutionary model, Ron has no choice but to try to fit it into the Genesis account.

Why?  Because when the world’s greatest thinkers, the best and brightest, the feted experts, the Nobel Laureates in biology, chemistry, economics, physics, literature, and medicine; when the most educated, knowledgeable and informed among us, the PhDs, the fellows, the postdocs, the Rhodes scholars, the renowned, the famous, the brilliant—when all they believe in evolution, teach evolution, promote evolution, and just assume evolution, Christians like Osborn think that they must do the same.

Why don’t theistic evolutionists (or, as they now call themselves, “progressive creationists”) just say what they really think? We respect the Genesis account as the traditional means of expressing to the ancients God’s creative power—but given modern science—the Genesis account is useless for teaching us about human origins.  Wouldn’t that be more honest than these futile attempts to jerry-rig billions of years of evolution into the biblical six-day creation?

The Fall
Despite the title, Death Before the Fall, Osborn doesn’t have much to say about his own views on the “fall.” Maybe, given his model, there’s not much to say. If death, suffering and predation were part of allowing creation the “freedom of its own being,” where’s the need for the fall? 

In the chapter “Creation & Kenosis,” he argues the following: “The creation was never a static golden age but always an unfolding story with an eschatological horizon.” And this: “One can be a strict literalist on Genesis without possessing a trinitarian understanding of the divine nature and without any reference to the God who walked among us, whose power and glory are paradoxically revealed in his weakness and agony.” And this: “God’s way of creating, in this understanding, cannot be separated from God’s way of redeeming and never could be separated from the beginning. God creates as he redeems and redeems as he creates so that the two are always part of the same act . . .”

If I am reading him right, he’s saying that an unfallen creation would have given us a Christ only as Creator, not Redeemer. A perfect, pristine, sinless world would have revealed an incomplete picture of God.  Therefore, the need for redemption in a suffering Saviour on the cross was built into the creation from “In the beginning.” And what better vehicle for that end than the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, but only with God stepping back and allowing “free processes within a divinely ordered but not rigidly deterministic framework”?

If that’s what he is saying, then Osborn’s approach differs greatly from fellow traveler Des Ford, whose new book, despite the title—Genesis Versus Darwinism (Des Ford; 2014)—attempts to meld evolution and creation.  Desperate to keep the fall in his paradigm, Ford argues that the Adam of Genesis 1-3:24 is a different man—separated by thousands of years—from the Adam in Genesis 4:1 onward (even if both Adams have wives named Eve!). Way too sophisticated to go that route in order to retain the fall, Ron just seems to ignore it instead. 

Theodicy
In his most powerful chapter (“Stasis, Deception, Curse”), Osborn admits “that there are no tidy answers to the theodicy dilemma of animal suffering.” I agree. In fact, some issues raised in this chapter could, arguably, be answered easier by his evolutionary model than by the one I hold.  Doesn’t mean that he’s right, or that his arguments are defeaters; it mean only that even we literalists have to admit that our view of creation doesn’t come problem free, either.

Yet to argue that suffering, even animal suffering, is better explained as part of how God created our world from the start, as opposed to this suffering being one result of the fall, still doesn’t make God look so good.  How does that view answer the difficult question of animal suffering any better than a creationist model does?

And though quoting everyone from Maimonides, to Slavoj Žižek, to Wendell Berry, he never quoted Ellen White, who, in one depiction of the earth right after the fall, presents a picture antithetical to Ron’s death-before-sin model:  “As they witnessed in drooping flower and falling leaf the first signs of decay, Adam and his companion mourned more deeply than men now mourn over their dead. The death of the frail, delicate flowers was indeed a cause of sorrow; but when the goodly trees cast off their leaves, the scene brought vividly to mind the stern fact that death is the portion of every living thing.” 

Yes, “death is the portion of every living thing,” not because death was built into the creation as Osborn’s book (given the model he’s working from) must teach.  Instead, death, including animal death, arose because of the fall of a being made “in the image of God” on the sixth day of creation (Genesis 1:31), an event later fleshed out like this: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7).  And this living soul, according to Genesis 3 (Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15:22), fell into sin.   

Isn’t that as “plain” a reading as one could get?

 

See Also: "Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering: A Review of Ron Osborn's New Book," published in February, 2014.

 

Clifford Goldstein is Editor of the Adult Bible Study Guide. The views expressed in this article are his own.

Pacific Press Publishes New Collection of Essays on Ordination

$
0
0
John Reeve, professor at the seminary at Andrews University, talks about a new book he has edited, representing 50 years of the conversation about ordaining women in Adventism.

John Reeve, professor at the seminary at Andrews University, talks about a new book he has edited, representing 50 years of the conversation about ordaining women in Adventism.

Question: You are the editor of a new book called Women and Ordination: Biblical and Historical Studies, which has been put together at Andrews University and is being published by Pacific Press. Why do we need another book about women's ordination?

Answer: We need another book about women's ordination because the conversation within Adventism, which has been changing rapidly over the last five years, has reached a temporary stasis point. This book stands as state of the question (status quaestionis) on the pro-ordination side. It represents 50 years of the conversation that has helped shape the studies that make up the chapters. Many of these studies have been published in journals or web-published by the Theology of Ordination Study Committee, but this book pulls them together in one place. (11 of the 19 chapters are adaptations of TOSC papers.) Whatever happens at the General Conference session this summer, a new conversation will begin. This book is poised to be the starting point of that conversation.

I have talked to hundreds of Adventists who are very interested in the topic, but have not navigated the web to find the TOSC papers. This book provides them a convenient package of some of the best studies that have shaped the ongoing conversation.

The statement put out by the Andrews University Theological Seminary last year called "On the Unique Headship of Christ in the Church" was clearly in favor of ordaining women to the gospel ministry. Is this the view that all of the authors represented in the book subscribe to, or does the book contain alternate views?

This is a pro-women's ordination book. The authors of this book are in favor of allowing women to be ordained in the Seventh-day Adventist Church wherever doing so would enhance the mission of the church.

How did you choose which essays to include?

Studies were chosen for inclusion based on scholarly merit and to show the breadth of the biblical and historical merit for the pro-women's ordination arguments.

The book is being published just a few weeks before the General Conference Session in San Antonio, where women's ordination is due to be discussed and voted on by the world church. I assume the timing was intentional. Do you hope that the book will influence and inform delegates?

I have been wanting to get a book out for some time. In fact, Karen Abrahamson and myself wanted to publish a revised edition of the 1998 book edited by Nancy Vhymeister, Women in Ministry, over three years ago. However, the conversation was changing so rapidly that there was no opportunity to get that book out. 

I also wanted to publish a book from the presentations made at the 2012 annual meetings of the Adventist Society of Religious Scholars, but there were not enough chapters to make a complete picture. Many of those papers have been published in Andrews University Seminary Studies and in other journals. 

This book, however, could not be published until the conversation had reached a stasis point, which really makes it too late to heavily influence delegates except in one way. It may influence the delegates to know that the faculty at the SDA Theological Seminary are overwhelmingly in favor of allowing the ordination of women.   

How will the book be marketed and distributed? How many copies are being printed? 

Pacific Press is the publisher and is responsible for marketing. I think that the initial print run is 3500 copies, but that is up to the press. I do know that I am sending copies to every Adventist college and university library so that they will be available to students and faculty around the world as a starting point for the next conversation that will inevitably take place.  

Why is the book being published by the Pacific Press instead of by Andrews University? I believe it was Andrews University Press that published 1998's Women in Ministry edited by Nancy Vyhmeister (which is out of print, I believe). 

I asked AU Press to consider publishing the book, but they were not in a position to handle the work load at that time. I am pleased to be published by Pacific Press; they have been responsive to the needs of the book, but I am sure that I would have also been pleased with AU Press had they been in a position to take on the project. 

How did this book come about? Was it your idea? Give us a sense of how it came to be, and how you got involved as editor.

I gave minor help in research and editing with a couple of chapters in Women in Ministry while working as a graduate assistant in the seminary back in 1997. I was very happy to be useful toward something that I am convicted is needed. So when — after TOSC was over —I found many people who had not read the papers even though they were publicly available on the web, I wanted to make sure all this excellent scholarship was not lost. I wanted to honor the scholars who I have learned to appreciate and trust, and I wanted to be useful in making this scholarship available for the long-term.

What do you believe the outcome of the discussion of women's ordination at the General Conference session will be?

It seems to me that the way to unity in the Seventh-day Adventist Church going forward is to have policies that allow each area to build the ministry team that would be most effective in its own setting. I believe each locale must allow the Holy Spirit to give the gifts needed for ministry to those whom God chooses to use. 

I am optimistic that many other Adventists from around the world can see that the biblical concept of ordination is based on function, and wherever it is functionally feasible, women can be ordained.

What do you feel is the primary obstacle to ordaining women in the Adventist church?

In the latter part of the 19th century I think it was concern to not have our Adventist reform movement too far outside of what society could handle. The concern was apologetic. We did not want our Adventist women in leadership to be an obstacle to evangelism in a society that was rejecting women in leadership. 

In the last part of the 20th century, I think it shifted to a concern for the brothers and sisters within Adventism who had followed the societal rejection of women in leadership and continued to hold onto that as a religious tradition. 

Now the concern is not offending our own members.  

What is your personal background and experience with the ordination of women in ministry?

My mother was a nurse who decided to take a theology major in her 50s as a way of enhancing her ministry to her patients. She would have made a great pastor. 

Unfortunately, she joined the church in the 1930s when there was a stark cutback on women in leadership in the church. This left her without models of what a woman could do in the church, so she became a nurse.

Women and Ordination: Biblical and Historical Studies is available at your local Adventist Book Center, or from www.adventistbookcenter.com for $19.99.

John W. Reeve, PhD, is assistant professor of church history at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He teaches early church, middle ages, and reformation history. John is also editor of Andrews University Seminary Studies and co-author of the book The Trinity. John’s wife, Teresa L. Reeve, PhD, is associate professor of New Testament as well as associate dean of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan, where they live with their daughter Madeleine.

An Invitation to a Road Trip (An Open Letter to Clifford Goldstein)

$
0
0
Dear Cliff, It comes as no surprise that you are unhappy with my book, "Death Before the Fall." You have declared that evolutionary biology is less compatible with Christianity than Nazism.

Dear Cliff,

It comes as no surprise that you are unhappy with my book, "Death Before the Fall."  You have declared that evolutionary biology is less compatible with Christianity than Nazism.  You have defended the idea that dinosaurs are the “amalgamated” creations of evil scientists who conducted genetics experiments in technologically advanced laboratories prior to Noah’s flood.  You have denounced in strident language the many careful biblical scholars, theologians, and scientists who reject “scientific” creationism and rigid literalism when it comes to Genesis.  My book is a sustained and I hope vigorous critique of ideas such as these, which you have confidently asserted in your opinion pieces in the Adventist Review over many years.  As difficult as it might be for those who share your views to hear a strongly worded critique of their ideas, however, careful readers will find that I strive throughout the book to avoid unnecessary harshness.  I have made a sincere effort to extend greater civility and charity to those I disagree with than many of them have been willing to afford others.  For example, near the end of my chapter dealing with the philosophy of science I write:

Contrary to popular stereotypes, creationists can count among their ranks some very serious scientific thinkers, and one cannot but admire the tenacity and persistence—indeed, the faith—of scholars who hold fast to a failing line of investigation decade after decade—provided only that they do so with intellectual integrity in their methods, with full acknowledgment that the challenges they face are not only scientific but theological and biblical as well, and without any prevarications about how little progress they have actually made in the face of the obstacles.”

I refer to my reading of Genesis as a “plain reading” not because I claim a “view from nowhere” as you strangely assert in your review.  As I write in the book, “We all bring important background experiences and beliefs about the structure of reality with us to our readings of the text, and this means there are no ‘plain’ or purely ‘religious’ readings of Scripture untainted by philosophical perspectives or by our culturally embedded worldviews.”  The reason I have called my reading “plain” is to highlight an important but often overlooked fact in Adventist contexts: by any plain reading, Genesis is not “plain” at all.  It is filled with insoluble riddles, mysteries, depths, and tensions that pose grave challenges for self-described “plain” readers who insist that the creation narratives are a straightforward historical and “scientific” account.  What is more, the “plain reading” hermeneutic itself arises from complex philosophical and cultural assumptions about the nature of truth.  These typically unexamined assumptions are, ironically, thoroughly infected by the tenets of a modernist scientific rationalism.

In his preface, John Walton notes that beyond any debate we might have about the meaning of Genesis my book is at heart a pastoral intervention that is concerned with the way in which we debate.  It “calls us to be better conversation partners; better people.”  I am sure that you will agree that the Adventist church is in need of individuals who model more gracious ways of talking across deeply held differences, at times without resolution of their disagreements.  I would therefore like to extend an invitation to you.  Rather than engaging in a back and forth argument in print, which I think tends to bring out the worst in all of us, let’s take a road trip together across the country.  We can visit several Adventist colleges and universities and engage in a series of public conversations about creation and evolution in which we try to model a more authentic, more Christian dialogue.  I will strive to listen to you as carefully and openly as possible if you are willing to extend the same courtesy to me.  If your position is as strong as you believe it is, and if my ideas are as transparently false and easily refutable as you have suggested, the event would only help to confirm Adventist students in their commitment to strict biblical literalism and young earth or young life creationism.  We can share our playlists with each other in the car and search out classic diners along the way.  From what I know of you personally, I am sure you would prefer the fresh air of the open road over yet another week at the office.

 

Ronald E. Osborn is an Andrew W. Mellon postdoctoral fellow in the Peace and Justice Studies Program at Wellesley College and a visiting professor at Mandalay University in Burma/Myanmar as a U.S. Fulbright Scholar.  He is the author of "Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering" (IVP Academic, 2014) and "Anarchy and Apocalypse: Essays on Faith, Violence, and Theodicy" (Cascade Books, 2010).

How to Talk to Young People: Guide Editor Explains

$
0
0
In an interview with Spectrum, Guide Editor Randy Fishell talks about how 10 to 14-year-olds have changed, the power of humor, and why caveats find their way into his stories. Bonus: A cartoon just for Spectrum readers.

In an interview with Spectrum, Guide Editor Randy Fishell talks about how 10 to 14-year-olds have changed, the power of humor, and why caveats find their way into his stories. Bonus: A cartoon just for Spectrum readers.

Question: You have served as editor of the church's Guide Magazine, aimed at 10 to 14-year-olds, since 1999. That's the longest any of the seven editors have served except for the magazine's first editor Lawrence Maxwell, from 1953 to 1970. How has the magazine changed during your 16 years at the helm? How has your thinking about the magazine changed?

Answer: I’ve actually been with Guide since 1989, starting as assistant editor. Twenty-six years later, it’s still hard for me to believe that God would grant me the privilege and joy of being associated with this publication. By the way, I was able to spend some time with Lawrence Maxwell a few weeks before his death. He really set a grand trajectory for what was then Junior Guide. The Adventist Church is indebted to the strong foundation he built for the publication.

The magazine has changed in several ways since 1953, not the least of which was changing the name from Junior Guide to Guide in 1964 — the year earliteens officially became a part of the publication’s target audience.

It’s also been interesting to observe the slow shift from what I would call a rural, primarily Caucasian emphasis to a more urban multicultural tone. This can be seen in both artwork and story line.

I’ve also seen a gradual shift from stories rooted in behavior modification to stories that more overtly affirm a personal relationship with Jesus. There will always be a place for character-building stories in Guide, but as editor I’ve tried to ensure that stories of relationship — both interpersonal and spiritual — are given ample space in the magazine.

On a more personal level, I may go down in Adventist publishing history as the "editor of the caveat.” This stems from my strong conviction that God is often quite unpredictable. Too often we’ve provided to Adventist young people a spiritual paradigm that leans heavily in the direction of cause and effect. While this is a sound principle in general, it’s not always true of God’s ways. I’ll use Psalm 34:7 as an example: “The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them.” That’s a great Bible verse, but in reality, it doesn’t always work out that way. My best friend’s parents were both killed by robbers while they served as missionaries in Africa. A former college religion classmate was slain by a bandit in South America. The list could go on and on, but my point is that I very often add a sidebar caveat to help readers understand that just because a story went this way in Guide doesn’t mean it will turn out the same way in every circumstance. In some ways, I wish I didn’t have to do this; it would be simpler to send kids into adulthood with a sure-fire spiritual formula. But as editor, I feel that it’s my responsibility to not put God into a box of human construction. Complicating the matter is the reality that our target ages of 10-14 encompasses readers of both concrete and abstract reasoning abilities. It’s quite a balancing act!

How do you think today's young people are different than young people were in the 1950s when Guide was launched? How does Guide attempt to reach young teens today? How do young people think differently about the Adventist church than older people?

Electronic media has dramatically reshaped young people since Guide’s inception, first with television and later with digital media. The latter has reshaped the actual physical brain structure, as Dr. Linda Caviness of La Sierra University and others have so powerfully demonstrated. While digital media has unleashed a whirlwind of good, it has also desensitized many young people to the noble traits mentioned in Philippians 4:8. 

It seems to me that today’s young person is also subjected to much more personal and societal stressors than in certain past generations. Divorce, changing definitions of marriage, terrorism, and more all converge to make life considerably more complicated for twenty-first century kids.

Among other things, we try to reach today’s kids by providing stories that (1) connect to and reflect their experience, (2) engage them visually, and (3) contain a practical application. We also have a very robust website: GuideMagazine.org.

I am incurably optimistic about today’s young people. Studies show that today’s young person is considerably more altruistic, environmentally conscious, and at least on paper, often smarter than their parents. Combine this with the power of the Adventist message and lifestyle, and these kids can soar! 

Unfortunately, I’ve noticed that far too many Adventist churches do not appear to take ministry to juniors and earliteens terribly seriously. There may be ample felt boards in the church building, but are there wall-mounted TV screens and other media that can be so wonderfully employed in taking kids to the next level of spiritual experience? Are local leaders taking advantage of the Adventist Church’s robust children’s ministry online training courses? There is much work to be done. Still, nothing can substitute for a spiritually-mature adult befriending a young person. Because that does in fact often happen, today’s juniors and earliteens are still open to spiritual pursuits. (Sadly, in too many instances I cannot say the same for high schoolers.)

What do you most enjoy about editing Guide? What do you find the most challenging?

First, I should qualify the term “editor.” While I like to think I have some skill with words, I do not consider myself to be a hardcore line editor. Rather — and this is far and away what brings me the greatest joy — my leadership at Guide has revolved around a never-ending quest to find creative yet substantive ways to share the beauty of the gospel and the benefits of the Adventist message and lifestyle in the magazine. 

As part of this pursuit, I often rely on the “smile factor.” You don’t need to occupy an office on Madison Avenue to know that humor communicates. So along with more serious stories and features, I like to make kids laugh. My column, “The Good Humor Guy,” has been written with this goal in mind. I also draw cartoons and run them as “Smile File” features.

In the end, along with painting an accurate portrait of God’s love, I want Guide to be viewed as a “Sabbath boredom buster.” Incredibly, too many Adventist young people still have a lackluster Sabbath experience. If Guide can in some small way disrupt this tragic state of affairs, so much the better.

Perhaps the most challenging part of being Guide editor is trying to meet a wide diversity of readers’ preferences. Well, actually, that’s not the most difficult part. The hardest part is meeting a wide diversity of readers,’ parents,’ and Sabbath School leaders’ preferences. One particularly gracious adult summed up my editorial leadership with these exact words: “I’d hate to be you on Judgment Day.” Enough said.

As a writer and a cartoonist, you have certainly have brought a lot of humor to Guide. But how do you know what young teenagers find funny? 

I try to be aware of what makes middle schoolers and junior highers laugh by snooping around their territory a little bit. Much of this is done online. For example, I would have never known the huge impact such role models as “Captain Underpants” was making on today’s young person were it not for such research. I’ve also stumbled across such stellar literary works as “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” during these sessions. Seriously, it’s not hard to know where kids are at if you pay attention to their media preferences. 

Of course, having three boys of my own didn’t hurt either.

How do you think of new things to say after all this time at Guide?

The beauty of this job is that everyone has a story. No, not everyone has a story suitable for Guide, but kids and adults are always experiencing God and His involvement in their lives in fresh ways. We’ve published nearly 15,000 stories since 1953, and I don’t see the story tub emptying anytime soon. But again, it is the challenge of discovering new stories and creative ways to present them that keeps my editor-ship sailing.

Over the years I’ve devoted a significant amount of time to developing ancillary Guide products. These include the Guide’s Greatest book series, Trouble on the Blue Planet (The Great Controversy) and Running on Empty (The Desire of Ages) graphic novels, Guide FACTory Quiz Game dvds, and many books. I’ve never had trouble finding something to do at Guide!

I should also mention that I’ve always made it a point to hire assistant editors whose line editing skills are stronger than my own. These wonderful compatriots include Helen Lee Robinson, Rachel Whitaker Cabose, and Laura Sámano. Having world-class designers onboard such as our current designer, Brandon Reese, hasn’t hurt either!

What purpose do you feel Guide fulfills for the Adventist church?

Our mission statement probably says it best: "Guide’s mission is to show readers ages 10-14 how to walk with God now and forever."

To the best of my knowledge, Guide is the only weekly Christian publication for 10-14 year olds. This is nothing short of astonishing, and is a remarkable reflection of the priority the Adventist Church placed on nurturing its young people. The Youth’s Instructor had its time, but church leadership knew it was now time for a new approach in connecting with juniors and ultimately earliteens as well. 

I suppose Guide’s readers are concentrated in North America. Would the same content fit readers in other parts of the world?

Yes, at least much of it. Indeed, it has been a long-held dream of mine to make Guide available and affordable to a global audience. I am hopeful that this can happen digitally sooner than later. I have encouraged the “bundling” of Guide, i.e., make Guide available as customer needs demand. 

I would love to see Guide offered as part of a powerful lineup for juniors and earliteens that would include Guide, PowerPoints and/or Real-Time Faith Sabbath School quarterlies, print and/or digital, along with other similar products. 

Along other lines, why not make arrangements for all Adventist publishing houses around the globe to use Guide’s digital files and then tailor and deliver the magazine either digitally or in print to the children in their region of the world, in their language?

Right now the circulation is about 20,000. The potential is much higher.

What was your previous experience before becoming Guide editor?

I attended the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary before serving as a pastor to youth and university students in Seattle, Washington. I have coauthored and authored several books and many articles. 

With the closure of the Review & Herald, the publisher of Guide, have you had to relocate?

I declined the invitation to join the Guide team at Pacific Press in Nampa, Idaho. Currently I am serving as Guide editor from my home in Maryland. I have a one-year contact that expires in January, 2016.

What do you plan to do next? 

I am waiting for God to hit me over the head and spin me around, pointing me in the direction of a meaningful future. At present I have no definite post-Guide career plans.

Will you draw us a cartoon — one just for Spectrum readers?

 

 

 

See Randy Fishell's personal website at http://www.randyfishell.com.

Inline Images: 

Andrews University Architecture Students Build Tiny House

$
0
0
In an interview with Spectrum, Carey Carscallen, Dean of the School of Architecture, Art & Design at Andrews University, talks about the recently completed Tiny House Project and what it means for the Andrews community and beyond.

In an interview with Spectrum, Carey Carscallen, Dean of the School of Architecture, Art & Design at Andrews University, talks about the recently completed Tiny House Project and what it means for the Andrews community and beyond.

Question: What exactly is a “tiny house”?

Answer: A tiny house is a place for people to live who want a simpler life. You don’t need a lot of land or personal possessions, so it allows you to scale back and live more economically.

What first got you interested in tiny houses? I heard a rumor that you did your thesis on tiny houses, is that correct?

I did my thesis on the small house, which isn’t the same as a tiny house but they are similar. Living with a smaller footprint has been a long-held interest of mine, and I wanted to have something that’s hands-on in house construction for our students, so this was a good fit. We have classes in furniture design, and model making, and things like that, but to do something that’s directly related to architecture and to have something that the students can do clear through the process – from design to construction – was the goal. In Michigan, with our extreme winters, to do it on a regular building site is problematic. Doing a tiny house on a trailer, in the warehouse, where they could work year-round just made sense. And the students can still learn most of the aspects of house construction that way. Of course, you don’t do concrete foundations and footings, and that kind of thing, but from there on up, it’s the same.

Can you describe a bit about the students’ process for designing and constructing the tiny house?

We started out having them do research, which included zoning information and the legal issues surrounding owning a tiny house. What kind of restrictions there are for moving and transporting one, and all of those different aspects. Then, when it came to the design, the students had pretty much free rein. Building it on a trailer restricted the footprint, so they had to keep that in mind. They also had to work within the parameters of keeping it able to pull behind a truck without a special permit. Within these guidelines, they were able to have complete control of the design.

Did you run into any challenges or surprises that you weren’t expecting while the students were working on it?

Not really any surprises, but some of the challenges were that the students tended to want to build before they finished designing. Then they’d run into problems that they had to work through. Whereas if the design had been there first, it would have been more efficient in the construction process. The designs ended up being very original and well done as far as the space use and aesthetics.

I’ve heard there’s actually two tiny houses, but only one of them is completed, correct?

Right. This was a project for our fifth year students who are in their final year of the program completing their Master of Architecture degree. So, we had the students split into two groups and each group designed and built a tiny house. The first tiny house is complete and we’re going to finish the second one over the summer. We ended up with two very different designs. The one that’s finished used more traditional house-building technique with stud walls, whereas the other one used structural insulated panels, which is plywood with Styrofoam sandwiched between. That means the walls and ceilings are all just big panels and that gave the students a lot of challenges as far as attachments and wiring. Each tiny house had such a different process; it was a great opportunity for the students to learn about various construction techniques.

What are your plans for the tiny houses, especially the one that’s already complete?

The one that’s complete is currently for sale for $30,000. As soon as we finish the other one, we’ll be putting it up for sale too. We really want to sell them and put the money back into the project and do it again with the new group of fifth year students next year.

You posted several photos of the completed tiny house on the School of Architecture’s Facebook page, and it has been getting quite a bit of attention on social media ever since. I noticed several people have been suggesting donating the tiny house to the homeless. Is that something you’d consider, or something that’s even feasible at this point?

That was part of our talk right from the beginning. We wanted to build one to give away and build the other to cover the costs of both. Then repeat that process. But when we did our initial investigations in Benton Harbor, Michigan, which is an impoverished town a short distance from Andrews, to see how and where they might be used, we found that Benton Harbor, like many other towns, doesn’t have zoning that permits year-round use of a tiny house. Typical zoning requires a minimum lot size and a certain square footage for the house. And of course, tiny houses will never meet that minimum square footage, which is usually around 1,000 sq. ft. There’s going to have to be an adaptation to the ordinances before we can continue with that plan.

How many square feet is the completed tiny house?

The footprint is 148 sq. ft., so not anywhere near the 1,000 sq. ft. that the zoning laws require. Sometimes you are allowed to treat a tiny house like an RV and park it in your backyard, but you still can’t live in it year-round. It can’t be your primary residence.

Do you know which states are tiny house friendly?

It’s not so much states as cities. There are a few around the country. Portland, Oregon and Milwaukee, Wisconsin are a couple, and there are more and more cities that are beginning to allow for tiny houses.

I noticed one of the other comments online was suggesting a tiny house community on the Andrews campus, as an alternate housing solution for students. Does that run into the same zoning issues as you have in Benton Harbor?

You do run into similar issues, though I think it would be most feasible on a private university campus because we’re zoned differently which gives quite a bit of latitude. At this point, we haven’t made that proposal to the university yet, but it is something I’d like to do. However, that would require that we come up with additional funding to cover the costs of that endeavor. Right now, we just don’t have that kind of money. All of our plans will be greatly aided by selling these first two tiny houses.

What are some more ways you’d like to see this project evolve in the coming years?

One way would be that it doesn’t always have to be a tiny house on wheels. It could be a tiny house that we take and put on a piece of property somewhere. Or, something that’s done for some other type of purpose but that’s still on the same scale as a tiny house, like creating a mobile mission clinic out of a shipping container. There are many possibilities available with this type of concept.

Tell me more about the mobile mission clinic idea. How would that work, and is it something that’s already being utilized in some places?

As far as I know, it’s not currently being used, at least not the way I’m thinking about it. I was talking to one of our friends who is a medical missionary in Chad, Africa and the idea is that we’d convert two shipping containers – one as a clinic and one as a house. Then, you decide which village you’d like to start working in, and in one day you can set up both your house and clinic. Typically, when you go into a new village, there’s nothing there for the missionary. You have to build it up. So this way, you go in with your house and clinic ready to set up, and you’re providing services from day one.

I’ve heard that the School of Architecture has received several distinguished awards over the years. Can you tell me a little bit about these awards?

We have an Urban Design Studio class for our fifth year students, and for the last 15 years or so, we’ve done a project for a community. The communities have been everywhere from Alaska, to the Bahamas, to Honduras, and several local communities as well. One year we did the master plan for the university. We submit these projects to the Congress for New Urbanism, and we’ve received five national awards over the years. We also won one award from the State of Michigan.

What do you feel sets the Andrews University School of Architecture apart from other architecture programs that are out there?

Part of it is our curriculum. It is well-rounded, and it’s laid out in a sequence that takes the students from knowing absolutely nothing to being very well-versed in architecture. Another aspect of our program that makes us unique is that we teach our students that every aspect of architecture is valuable. It’s not just the design that’s going to make them a star that matters. Every piece of design has value. At a lot of schools it’s all about the “wow” factor of the design, but we’re not that way. Our students are very capable designers, but our focus is on the bigger picture. We try to instill in our students the importance of civic responsibility and we integrate community service and service to the church throughout the projects we do. Even the tiny house is another way to make the community and living resourcefully a priority.

It sounds from what you’re describing as though Christian values are entwined throughout the program and what you’re teaching the students.

Yes, absolutely. In everything that we teach, we try to instill that in the students and create that atmosphere. When we go on our Europe tour and our Waldensian tour, each day of those trips, we tie in aspects of faith that relate directly to architecture. Students come on the Waldensian tour and see that these people lived in these simple little stone huts on the mountainside and were killed because of their faith and it makes you wonder, would I be willing to die for my faith? It has a profound effect on our students.

What else would you like people to know about either the Tiny House Project specifically or the School of Architecture in general?

We want people to know about the great things our School of Architecture students are doing, both while they’re here and once they graduate. One of our recent grads, Caleb Johnson, just won the national Best New Home award by Fine Homebuilding Magazine. Another alum, Chantel Atkinson, had her house design featured on the most recent cover of New Homes Magazine.

As for the Tiny House, for people who are interested in supporting this project, they can do so on the Andrews giving site. And of course, anyone interested in purchasing the Tiny House can contact me at 269-471-6003 or ccarey@andrews.edu.

 

Photos used throughout the article are of the completed Tiny House, which the students have nicknamed "Bay View." Photos are by Derek Peters and Lavon Kotanko. Main photo: The student crew that built the "Bay View" Tiny House - Trevor Eller, Be'Anna Clark, Dassia Mejia, Perla Durndis, and Joey Osborne.

Alisa Williams is Spirituality Editor for SpectrumMagazine.org.

Inline Images: 

The Peace of Christ or the Peace of the World

$
0
0
In the Gospel of John, Christ tells his disciples that the peace that he brings is not of this world. This is no doubt a puzzling statement. If God's peace is not of this world, how is it different from the peace of the world?

The following is a manuscript of a sermon given at the Hollywood Seventh-day Adventist Church on May 30, 2015, as that congregation celebrated its Annual Peace Sabbath. -Ed.


Description: In the Gospel of John, Christ tells his disciples that the peace that he brings is not of this world. This is no doubt a puzzling statement. If God's peace is not of this world, how is it different from the peace of the world? If God's peace is not of this world, is it then otherworldly and thus irrelevant? This sermon explores how a Christ-centered conception of peace might be different from the peace of the world. It also suggests that, far from being an otherworldly reality, Christ's peace should be understood as the unexpected in-breaking of God's peaceable reign.


In the 14th chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus said to his disciples, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.” John’s Gospel is well known for its emphasis on the not-this-worldliness of Jesus’ message. Unfortunately, this has led many to falsely assume that the kingdom Jesus lived and died for is an otherworldly reality. Others, who are attracted to the unequivocally earthly character of the Gospel of Luke and the fiery Old Testament prophets of justice, tend to downplay passages, such as the one I just quoted. They downplay these passages in order to shed the gospel of its more seemingly more spiritualistic and superstitious elements. Both are gravely mistaken. So, what are we supposed to make of Jesus’ claim that his peace is not of this world?

Toward the end of John’s Gospel narrative, at the climax of the story where heaven and earth finally come into head-on collision, Jesus complicates things further. When finally confronted by Pilate, the quintessential embodiment of this world’s principalities and powers, Jesus cryptically retorted, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent me from being arrested by the leaders.” “So you are a king, then!” Pilate shot back. He was notably just as confounded by Jesus’ answer as we are this morning. If Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, why was his message so threatening to the religious and political establishment of his time? Why were the religious and political oligarchy so determined to pin every possible petty crime on Jesus in order to put him to death? After all, who would care about what Jesus believed and what religion he practiced on his personal time, even if they were somewhat unique and peculiar? After all, religious diversity was widely celebrated and tolerance commonly practiced in the ancient world. Yet, if the kingdom is a this-worldly reality, why did Jesus say that his kingdom is not of this world? What are we missing?

The answer could only be that the kingdom is at once this-worldly and other-worldly. It is the paradoxical nature of the Christian gospel that confounds both the conservatives and the Social Gospelers. Here, the more skeptical among us might start to think, “Here comes another theologian who likes to speak in riddles.” Perhaps you are right. But I must in turn blame, not theology, but the faith that we proclaim. Our faith is neither simple nor easily comprehended. This is not something many pastors want to say to their congregations, because our culture of speed and brevity pressures us to often communicate in simplistic and digestible bits. By digestible, of course, I meant below 140 letters.

Although I do not frequent my Facebook page, I like to occasionally post passages from books by authors who I believe deserve our attention. The passages I post are often lengthy, because important points can only be understood in context. Careful thinking demands us to move beyond the everyday utilitarian concern of efficiency and productivity and sit quietly with ideas and meditate on their possible implications and applications. However, this requires us to be sufficiently informed about what we are thinking about, which unfortunately means struggling through a difficult book or two once in a while.

Yet, this is precisely what our culture trains us to despise. Instead, we are taught to pay attention to celebrity gossip and other trivialities. In order to keep up with our culture and to prevent people from drifting away from the congregation, the church has done what it has always done in fear: it accommodated. The church simplified its message and packaged it into digestible sound bites. This is why atheism, fundamentalism, and other forms of shallow religious consumerism flourish, while rigorous, thinking, and prophetic Christianity is on the decline.

Very often, people would tell me that theology is too complicated for “normal” people. Many of these so called normal people are lawyers, doctors, accountants, bankers, college students, graduate students, scientists, and, to my surprise, pastors. Most of us have the time and the intellectual capacity to study the technicalities of a piece of legislation, the progression of a particular disease, the ups and downs of the stock market, and biblical languages, but absolutely none for the consideration of the meaning of existence, the moral fabric of our society, and the profound wisdom of the faith that we supposedly profess. Instead, we are content to settle for a sound bite culture that compels us to compress essential and complicated arguments about healthcare, economic wellbeing, globalization, and God into 140 letters. It is no wonder that our social, political, and intellectual life is entirely reducible to entertainment, which mainly consists of gossip, hearsay, drama, pseudo-science, celebrities, and brands. If you don’t believe me, just turn on your television.

It may seem that I have gone on a tangent that has nothing to do with Jesus’ message of peace, but—as I hope it will become clear—things are not quite that simple. The struggle between heaven and earth is not one between a worldly and other-worldly reality. Rather, the struggle is between two different ways of being in the world. The contradiction between Pilate and Jesus is between two opposing patterns of life: one that is defined by the inertia of the flesh, the other by the spirit of freedom. One pattern leads to death, the other to abundant life. Reminiscent of God giving Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew’s Gospel instituted this pattern. When I said that the kingdom of peace is at once worldly and other-worldly, I meant that the kingdom is a present reality that runs counter to the status quo or the world as it is. There is more to the story. The kingdom is also other-worldly in another crucial sense. The kingdom is a reality established by God, not human efforts. It is a reality that will only become fully actualized at the end of history. Therefore, it is important to remember that in whatever manner the kingdom is present today, it is fragile, elusive, and often mixed up with its opposite. Perhaps, this is the reason that while Paul calls the church the body of Jesus Christ, the first fruit of the new creation, he cautions his congregations to stay vigilant and “work out their salvation with fear and trembling.” Christians are called neither to cynicism nor optimism.

We see the same contest in Paul’s epistles. Paul’s terminology, however, is a little different. The contest, for Paul is between flesh and spirit. He said, “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” Contrary to the Gnostics of his time, however, flesh does not mean body. Paul does not say we should abandon this life and our bodies in favor of inner spiritual liberation. Rather, flesh and spirit are two different ways of being in the body. In 1 Corinthians, we see Paul make the distinction between a natural body and a spiritual body. One is defined by bondage and the other freedom. Both are bodies, but they run on different fuels. This still begs the question of how Jesus’ pattern of life differs from the worldly pattern of life. How can we distinguish one from the other? Furthermore, how is this new life made possible by Christ and not our efforts?
Indeed, the new life instituted by the spirit of Christ has many identifying markers, but I will speak on only one, one that is especially crucial for us today: patience. Recall our culture of speed, efficiency, and acquisition. What we completely lack as individuals and as a society is patience. The culture of the “now” is driven primarily by fear and, more specifically, the fear of death. Seasoned journalist, activists, and preacher Chris Hedges aptly observes that “It is death we are trying to flee. The smallness of our lives, the transitory nature of existence, the inevitable road to old age, are what the idols of power, celebrity, and wealth tell us we can escape.” Escaping death entails the rejection of the contingency of our transitory lives. This rejection is the original sin against God’s divinity. It is through the perceived power of the idols of power, celebrity, wealth, and, I might add, nation that we strive to master our own existence. Today, we are mostly concerned about trying to master our bodies with fashionable diets, avoiding the risk of meeting strangers through online dating, bypassing the drama of friendship via social media, evading a hollow and meaningless life by watching reality T.V., ducking the costs of solidarity using political status updates. Through these instruments, we are promised all the benefits without the risk, while these same instruments covertly, but swiftly dismantle the basic fabric of our existence.

In the political sphere, this fear of death translates into xenophobia, permanent war, imperialism, political and economic centralization, the censorship of rebellion, the national security police state, total surveillance, demagogy, bureaucracy, political celebritism, and economic oligopoly. It is in this culture that Captain America’s romantic individualism and House of Card’s nihilistic cynicism appear to be the only two alternatives: either we fantasize that someone like Oprah will eventually notice us and inject us with the serum of unlimited opportunity in a world of hopeless poverty, or we prepare ourselves to lose our souls for the sake of wealth and power. Our desire to master our lives—and therefore, by implication, everything else—is kindled by the denial of our contingency. But this will to mastery is, ironically, what enslaves us to the principalities and the powers. The will to power is what keeps us trapped in the inertia of the flesh. If we submit to this culture, we would lose our freedom. In an attempt to save our own life, we will have lost it, as Jesus told us we would. Isn’t religious individualism just another manifestation of the will to power, a way to secure the benefits of faith without the baggage of tradition and community? Is not the love of God without the love of neighbor just a religious form of narcissism?  Are we not simply creating God in our own image, if we refuse to let our understanding of God be challenged by the great theological traditions? It is not surprising that a church that is marinating in this culture—and is helpless before it—is particularly prone to sectarianism, conspiracy theories, self-obsession, which are symptoms of collective narcissism, as my close friend Matt Burdette prophetically pointed out long ago.

The gospel of Jesus Christ, I say, turns this picture upside down. Our faith teaches that the one who is truly free is the one who has lived his life solely for others to the point of losing it and in so doing was resurrected from the dead by God. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that the path to life is living for others. It teaches that happy is he who was nailed to the cross for the sake of our salvation. As Christians, we are supposed to believe that this brutalized, disfigured, and bloody man who was powerlessly nailed to the cross is the most blessed man on earth and that the happiest place on earth is not Disneyland, but at the foot of this man’s cross. Weekend after weekend, our pastors tell us that the spirit of the man who ate with sinners, preached the good news to the poor, and had no place to lay his head, while everyone else was plotting to assassinate him is the same spirit that now animates his church. We are told that this man, by losing everything, has conquered death itself. Therefore, we, as the church, are given unlimited time and eternal life.
Christians live in a different time zone: the eschatological time zone. We perceive time differently, and thus our pattern of life is defined by the spirit and not the flesh. According to the world, we must save our own lives in order to avoid death, which is the termination of time. Therefore, we are always in a rush. We rush, because if we don’t, we are afraid that we might miss something---perhaps an opportunity to get rich or a chance to counter a threat. Rushing makes the world seem black and white, because quick decisions must be made. It makes us suspicious of strangers. It compels us to sacrifice the truth in the name of pragmatism. It makes us unresponsive to the needs of others. According to our faith, however, our lives are already lost, lost to the one who has conquered death, not by rushing through it, but by taking the time to tend his flock. Christians live according to eschatological time.

In faith, we are enabled to take our time. We are, in other words, empowered to be patient. Patience is not passivity. Most of the most satisfying and worthwhile things we do require patience, like learning a new language, playing an instrument, building a political movement, and, dare I say, understanding our faith. We are freed, by the resurrection of our lord, to take the time to learn, think, to tend to the needs of others, to confront the messiness of life with confidence and grace, to bear the cost of solidarity, to have a heated argument with our adversaries, and to avoid turning to violence to resolve our differences. We are free, because Christ is risen. This serenity, beloved, is the peace that Christ gives. It is a peace that the world cannot offer, an eschatological peace that is already breaking into our world. Therefore, we must daily pray that God will grant us the strength to hope against hope so that we might be made worthy for the kingdom that is and is still to come. So let us heed our lord’s commandment: be not afraid, for the kingdom of God is near.

Amen.

 

Yi Shen Ma is Volunteer Development Director for the Adventist Peace Fellowship.

A Review of Desmond Ford's "Genesis Versus Darwinism"

$
0
0
In several ways "GENESIS versus DARWINISM: The Demise of Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is a very unique book, beginning with the author, Desmond Ford, who is a theologian, not a scientist.

In several ways "GENESIS versus DARWINISM: The Demise of Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is a very unique book, beginning with the author, Desmond Ford, who is a theologian, not a scientist. That someone with his background would write a book attacking Darwinism is not unique; what is unique is his honest engagement with the science and uncommon objectivity as a nonscientist. Most theologians who write books that are pro-creation and anti-Darwinist consistently refute scientific facts on the slimmest of evidencethe “evidence” itself often being based on a misunderstanding of the science, or at best, on a very narrow facet of the scientific evidence that is problematic, as if any hard-to-explain evidence from science proves that science has failed to properly interpret the natural world.

Ford succinctly states the book's purpose in the Foreword:

The traditions I refer to have to do chiefly with the early chapters of Genesis. University professors usually ridicule the creation story of Genesis chapter 1 and the stories concerning Adam and Eve, the serpent, and the Fall. But these chapters are the foundation of the whole Bible, and if they go the whole edifice of revelation crumbles. When that happens, for most, life threatens to become a meaningless affair based on chance. . . 

“This book is an attempt to help parents and young people with these tremendous issues. It discusses Genesis chapters 1–11 in considerable detail and also the challenge of Darwinism—that scientific giant which often threatens young Christians—and a Goliath calling upon them to surrender their faith. And this, despite the fact that the most well-known evolutionist of the twentieth century, Stephen Jay Gould, declared that neo-Darwinism is ‘effectively dead.’”

Ford appears to have carefully considered his audience, which will most likely be laypeople concerned about the inroads that Darwinism has made into Christian beliefs about creation. He spends the first part of the book emphasizing the theological importance of the creation story in Genesis, including the theological significance of the Noachian flood narrative. I doubt that most fundamentalist believers would find much problem with this section, since Ford effectively ties the Genesis narratives together with the Plan of Salvation, showing how many of the details in these stories foreshadow Gospel truths not made clear until the New Testament narratives make them more explicit. He also vigorously defends the 7th-Day Sabbath, while at the same time laying the groundwork for its theological imperative, regardless of whether the days of creation in Genesis are literal or not. He also spends considerable space reviewing the significance of the occurrence of the number seven throughout Genesis and elsewhere, showing how carefully constructed these narratives are:

There is a marvelous precision in Genesis one. It is characterized by what some have called “the seal of seven.” The first sentence has seven Hebrew words and four times seven Hebrew letters. The three nouns: “God,” “heaven,” and “earth” have a combined numeric value of 777. (Each Hebrew letter stands for a number—see any Hebrew Grammar). There is a Hebrew verb “created,” and its numeric value is 203—seven times twenty-nine. According to some researchers there are at least thirty different numeric features in this verse.”

At times, Ford’s enthusiasm for compiling the numerical references and other parallels in Genesis with Christ’s life and role in our salvation gets tiring, but I think he has a point in doing this. He shows a great reverence for the text and its embedded meanings. This should serve as a reminder to the reader that as Ford progresses through the book revealing what Genesis has to tell us, in light of modern scientific findings, He considers the Bible an inspired document, and its theological truths must be taken seriously.

From chapter nine onward, Ford gets into the meat of the book. His primary assumption while wrestling with the problems of interpreting Genesis in light of modern science is that God has revealed Himself equally in the Bible, and in His second book, nature. This is not a new idea and is one that was often repeated by Ellen G. White, but Ford has the courage to confront these issues head-on, assuming that these two books should have equal weight. In order to do this, he makes the case that the Bible is not intended to be a science book, so that when God’s message from nature appears to conflict with God’s message in the Bible, it may well be that we have incorrectly used the Bible to interpret nature. This runs counter to the long Seventh-day Adventist tradition of assuming that, at least when it comes to the first chapters of Genesis, the Bible explicitly defines how nature works, so that when data from the Bible and nature disagree, there is always assumed to be something wrong with our interpretation of nature.

This is where many Fundamentalist readers will become uncomfortable. Ford is simply approaching the topic honestly, and is recognizing a glaring problem that many Christian scientists have long recognizedthat what modern science knows about nature is in direct opposition to Fundamentalist interpretations of Genesis when it comes to issues like age of the earth, the age of life on the earth and the universality of the Noachian flood. He minces no words in making this point:

“THE BIBLE cannot rightly be used to establish even an approximate date for the age of the earth. It is nowhere interested in that topic. When genealogies are used, the years are never totaled, and there are many omissions, as anyone can prove by comparing Matthew 1 with the chronology of 1 Chronicles. “Begat” and “fathered” do not have in Scripture the precise meaning we give them. The terms are often applied to ancestors.1 Archbishop Ussher was a fine Christian and an excellent scholar, but when he fixed upon 4004 B.C. for the birth of the world he made the biggest mistake of his life.

“Today, there are about fifty methods for calculating the earth’s age, and these yield results that approximate each other. That the world is about four and a half billion years old is now an axiom for scientists. Most of the evidence is drawn from the geologic column, astronomy, continental drift and plate tectonics, radiometric, radiocarbon, and amino acid dating. The evidence for the great age of the earth is overwhelming and fully valid for all who really want to know.”

These points are no surprise to those who know the scientific evidence, and are even fairly well accepted by many theologians, but Ford does not stop here. As he progresses through the book he also points out that the fossil record is very dependable and shows signs of vast time spans, and that the geologic record does not give any evidence of a worldwide flood. Ford does not suggest that we must reconcile these problems, but he does believe we should not reconcile them by “pretending” there is scientific evidence to support Fundamentalist interpretations of Genesis when there is no such thing. This will only insult the intelligence of well-educated believers. Ford suggests that these apparent inconsistencies between the Bible and nature be treated as mysteries that may have no complete solution:

“Christians should take very seriously all that can be learned from God’s second book—the book of Nature. If our understanding conflicts with either of God’s books the fault is with us and not with them. Meanwhile let us ask God to help us to be fully committed to the truth of Romans 8:28: ‘All things work together for good.’”

This is not a copout, but rather a clear recognition of the difficulties associated with these topics.

A central thesis that Ford believes may help make sense of the problems of interpretation in Genesis is recognition that the first 11 chapters are distinctly different in character from the remaining chapters:

“Most scholars see Genesis 1-11 as a different genre to chapters 12-50. It covers an unknown vista of time whereas chapters 12-50 encompass only about five centuries. Genesis 1-11 is a global introduction to the history of one localized unknown tribe. And it begins with the Creation of the universe—about 14 billion years ago. Anyone who reads both sets will see the difference immediately.”

At this point in the book the reader may get the impression that Ford is advocating some sort of theistic evolutionary model, but as should have already been apparent, he thoroughly rejects Darwinism, the very mechanism that drives evolution. He more than once refers to Stephen Jay Gould’s pithy comment that “neo-Darwinism is ‘effectively dead.’” Although this makes a valid point, that the fossil record is not adequately explained using the gradualist process of neo-Darwinian natural selection, he is overplaying his hand a bit. Such statements by Gould, and a few others that Ford quotes, must be taken in context. Since the 1970s, paleontologists such as Gould and Niles Eldridge have attributed the distribution of fossils in the geological record to “punctuated equilibrium.” Punctuated equilibrium, though, is more a description of what is found in the fossil record than a mechanism for causing the observed distribution.

In brief, paleontologists have long known that species in the fossil record often persist for millions of years, apparently changing little, if at all, until they go extinct, often being replaced by new species that seem to suddenly appear in the record with no clear ancestors. This pattern is typical of the vast majority of fossil sequences, long periods of equilibrium followed by periods of rapid appearance of new organism types, and thus the coining of the term, “punctuated equilibrium.” Neo-Darwinist theory predicts that gradual, steady changes over time, due to natural selection, is what leads to the origin of new organism types, but the pattern of the fossil record simply does not support such a model, except in sparse, isolated cases.

So, based on the fossil record, natural selection does not seem to be sufficient to account for the evolution of life. In fact, not only does neo-Darwinism not adequately account for the origin of new kinds of organisms, it has no answer for how life itself would have arisen from non-living material. Many neo-Darwinists do not agree with this assessment, arguing that the fossil record is too incomplete (an argument used since Darwin’s own day, which is much less true today) and that natural selection could still be the primary driving force, such assertions being followed by various complex arguments that have some relevance, but actually leave the challenge from paleontologists little better than deflected.

Given these grave failures of neo-Darwinism, Ford sees the naturalistic origin and evolution of life as scientifically untenable, so that even a theistic evolutionary model is inadequate to account for the fossil record. Consequently, Ford sees progressive creationism as the only viable alternative.

“May I repeat in a nutshell what the preceding paragraphs endeavor to say? The idea of an Adam who lived ages ago is very hard for us to comprehend, but the fact that Genesis 1 is telling of a creation that took place over thirteen billion years ago should help us. The Adam figure follows after the ancient creation with its progressive creation of ascending life forms and thus his great antiquity is not to be wondered at. When one reads very thoughtfully the first three chapters of the Bible, they convey a consciousness that what we have here is suprahistorical. These chapters are elevated far above anything we know in human history. They belong to a pristine era with which we are uninformed. Consider the tremendous difference between these chapters and the civilization presented in the chapter that follows (chapter 4). In chapter four we have a city, technology, culture, music, and so on—see the last verses of the chapter. What a tremendous gap this creates between itself and the preceding chapters! It was God’s intention that the meaning of this gap should become apparent only when it was needed—in the era dominated by modern science.”

Of course, this sort of interpretation of the Genesis narrative immediately brings up the question of death before the Fall. Ford uses a lot of space on this issue, but in sum, his conclusion is that nothing in the Bible clearly says that no death of any sort occurred prior to the Fall, and those texts that have been used to suggest such he claims have been misinterpreted.

“We know that the well-intentioned efforts of Creationists to prove a young earth and a universal flood have failed. The view of earth’s history so offered is false. Ours is the duty of acknowledging as truth all that God has made clear in both Scripture and nature. If our view of one contradicts our interpretation of the other we have erred and must look again. They agree. The geologic column is a fact that no one can deny and it proves beyond all doubt the great age of the earth, and the progressive unfolding of life’s forms with man at the summit. Death is implicit in the record—otherwise there would have been overcrowding and subsequent recurrent universal starvation. When Scripture in Romans 5 says that death entered our race with Adam, it is referring to human death. No one could even walk among Eden’s bowers without inflicting death on microscopic forms of life, and the daily diet meant death to plants and fruit. Did not the elephant’s descending feet wreak havoc among the minute lives in the dust? A child or an ignorant man without education can grasp the lessons of Genesis. It is not necessary that they understand science. But if that child and man ultimately must encounter unbelievers they will need to know more than they presently do. And that knowledge is readily available. God does all things well, and both nature and Scripture testify of his love and power and wisdom. Alleluia!”

Lots of ground is covered in this book, and Ford crafts his arguments skillfully. Since he is not a scientist himself, Ford quotes extensively from the writings of a plethora of scientists to buttress his interpretations of what nature has to tell us. Many lay readers will no doubt question many of the ideas presented in the book, but as a scientist myself I can say that Ford paints a very clear picture of where science currently stands on issues such as the age of the earth and the geological and paleontological record. Yes, there are Adventist creation science arguments used to support a more Fundamentalist view of a young earth, but the evidence used is little more than the cherry-picking of geological anomalies that cast doubt on some aspects of geological science. The argument is often made that, although creation scientists have slim evidence, at best, for things like a short term chronology or a worldwide flood, they are hard at work on the problem and a breakthrough is imminent. This approach has been around for more than 100 years, and instead of the evidence in favor of creation science growing, it has just become ever more difficult to counter the consensus of the majority of geologists.

The remainder of the book, a good half of the total, is under the heading “Miscellany.” Numerous of the topics discussed in the first half of the book, and others that are tangential, are covered here, primarily with extensive quotes from other sources. Ford has clearly been mulling over these issues for many years, and felt he could not leave out the extensive material he has amassed. This portion of the book could be safely skipped, but to a reader who wants more support for the various ideas presented in the first half of the book, this is a treasure trove. The book also contains a useful glossary, for those not acquainted with some of the scientific terminology used, and an extensive bibliography.

If nothing else, I think this book makes a good argument for a continuing, open discussion about interpreting Genesis. Instead of closing ranks and shouting ever more vociferously that our traditional beliefs about Genesis are the only acceptable way to interpret the creation and flood narratives, we need to humbly admit that we do not have all the answers. It should also prod us to consider that we can and should allow a plurality of views concerning these issues, since, as Ford amply displays, the theological truths of Genesis need not be lost just because new data from nature challenges some of the contexts for these stories. The creation narrative, however interpreted, still proclaims God as the creator of the universe, it still proclaims the holiness of the Sabbath and why God still expects us to honor the 7th day, and the story of Adam and Eve still instructs us about the origin of sin and God’s solution to this problem. Even the flood story, however interpreted, as global or local, still teaches us God’s abhorrence of sin and human depravity, as well as His desire to save mankind, and nature, from the pit into which we have fallen.

I will close this review with two quotes from the book that I think point to the spirit in which this book should be read:

Genesis is not anti-scientific nor pre-scientific, but non-scientific. Scientific views change from generation to generation, but holiness, the reflection of God, never changes. And there can be no lasting happiness without holiness. Sin is suicide and insanity, but purity is paradise. How very practical Scripture is! History can be interpreted in many different ways, and historians differ in their opinion, but holiness is so clearly identified in the person of Jesus Christ that all unanswered questions have little weight.

Though historical and scientific questions may be uppermost in our minds as we approach the text, it is doubtful whether they were in the writer’s mind, and we should therefore be cautious about looking for answers to questions he was not concerned with. Genesis is primarily about God’s character and his purpose for sinful mankind. Let us beware of allowing our interests to divert us from the central thrust of the book, so that we miss what the Lord, our Creator and Redeemer, is saying to us.”

 

Note: The author of this review changed British English spellings to American English spellings in quotations. Title image from the cover of the abridged version of the book. See also, "Abridged Version Especially for Adventists."

 

Bryan Ness is a professor of biology at Pacific Union College in Angwin, California.

One Foot in Angwin, One Foot in the Rest of the World

$
0
0
PUC student Joshua Tobing balances schoolwork with work for ADRA and other NGOs.

PUC student Joshua Tobing balances schoolwork with work for ADRA and other NGOs.

Question: When the earthquake in Nepal hit on April 25, you helped start an Indiegogo campaign to aid earthquake survivors. What made you want to start another campaign, rather than donate to earthquake victims through an existing campaign? What specifically is it being used for?

Answer: The Indiegogo campaign was actually something my friends and I were doing for a class, “Fundraising for Nonprofits,” that is required for our communications degrees. Initially, we were assigned 3 Angels Nepal as our nonprofit and we had to do things like create a social media strategy, do a needs assessment, and ultimately launch and run an online fundraising campaign for the organization.  Our fundraiser was supposed to only be raising money for 3 Angels Nepal’s anti-human trafficking aspect, but the night before we were planning to launch our campaign the first earthquake hit.  

There were a couple days of radio silence from all of the 3AN staff who we had been getting emails from in Nepal, but we eventually all received an email from Rajendra Gautamthe organization’s founderinforming us that everyone in the 3AN team was safe and that they were rushing immediately into emergency-response mode.  

After talking with my partners for the group project, we decided to completely restructure and rebrand our fundraising effort to include emergency relief, as well as having a portion of the funds raised go to funding a long-term anti-human trafficking operation in the affected regions. 

How successful has the campaign been so far? How have you got the word out? Is there still a need?

The campaign was wildly successful by the standards of the class. Our teacher, Michelle Rai, initially said that she was only expecting students to raise a couple hundred dollars for their assigned organizations.  We raised over a thousand — not a whole lot from a professional fundraiser’s standpoint — but to be raising money that’s going to have a tangible impact in a disaster zone as part of your homework is a really great thing. 

The money that we’ve raised is funding emergency food, medical, and shelter relief projects, as well as safe housing for trafficked girls and women, education and job training, and border patrols between India and Nepal that rescue girls who are being trafficked.  

My group members and I started by just talking to our friends and family, asking for “seed money,”and from there we posted our campaign on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram where many of our friends picked it up and shared it themselves.  We were able to raise plenty of money to our cause, and it helped us all to build meaningful connections with the area and survivors.  Being able to raise money that we know is going to have a tangible impact on the ground of a disaster zone as part of your homework is something that really made this quarter special.

The earthquakes in Nepal this year caused a horrifying amount of destruction, and the close timing and impact of the subsequent aftershocks have only added more strain on survivors.  While our campaign has now ended, there is still a massive need for emergency relief and long-term support in the area.  Organizations like 3 Angels Nepal, ADRA Nepal, SOS Children’s Villages, and Global Communities are doing everything they can to pave the way for long-term development and rehabilitation projects that are equally as important as immediate relief.

You are a student at PUC right now, right? Tell us what you are studying. When do you graduate? Why did you choose PUC?

I’m currently pursuing a B.S. in marketing communications as well as a B.A. in English writing. I plan to graduate in two years.  I transferred out of Washington Adventist University (where I had been for a year and a half) last year when all of my teachers kept mysteriously disappearing.  It’s honestly ended up being one of the best decisions I’ve made in a long time, the teachers and academic environment at Pacific Union College are so incredibly rich and student-friendly.  

Why these degrees, instead of something like international relations or development?

When [Vogue editor] Anna Wintour addressed the Oxford Union this year, one of her warnings to the current generation on surviving in today’s world was to “avoid becoming overspecialized.”  I think that’s one reason why I leaned toward these programs, as they both leave you with skill-sets that are applicable to every aspect of life and work.  While I would have loved to pursue something as interesting as international relations or development, I felt that I might be overspecializing in a sense and wouldn’t be getting all the skills needed to succeed in my career.

My personal philosophy is that undergraduate studies are just a way to get your toe in the water, and graduate school is the best place to really dive into a particular area of study.  I’m currently debating between a master’s in international development and integrated marketing communications, but there’s still a while before I have to make that decision.

Additionally, the communications and especially English departments at PUC are so incredibly strong.  You can really tell the difference when you see students coming out of those departments compared to others, just in how they speak and carry themselves.  

What would be your ideal job someday?

I really want to be working for some sort of foundationahem, leadingsomething big like the UN Foundation.  Humanitarian workespecially things like women’s rights and economic empowerment issues  is so important to me that I can’t imagine stepping away from it.  I always laughed on the inside when I heard people talking about “being called to serve,”but now I think I finally understand the feeling.

I believe you worked for ADRA China last summer. Where were you based? What were some of the projects you worked on?

I did!  I was based out of Hong Kong, where ADRA China has its fundraising headquarters.  While I was there I did a lot of work with the ADRA Angels, which is a volunteer group in Hong Kong that does fundraising and awareness in churches and communities all over the area.

I also developed a program for ADRA China called “ADRA-cation.”  That was a seminar-style curriculum designed for high school-aged kids in Hong Kong and Macau to teach them not only about ADRA’s work, but humanitarian and development work in general.  The program teaches kids how to get involved, and how to start small-scale community-based fundraising projects of their own.  

I also worked with the Hong Kong government with a multi-million dollar grant that had been given to ADRA China to do a disaster response project in the Philippines following typhoon Haiyan. 

Can you tell us about your experiences with ADRA Indonesia?

After my work stint in Hong Kong, I hopped over to Indonesia for a couple of months as I was invited to observe some assessments that were being done by some of the field staff there.  We went to several project sites where ADRA had responded to disasters in the past years. One of these disasters was a massive series of floods that wiped out several rural communities in the Bekasi regency of Java.  We also traveled to the Karo regency in Northern Sumatra where we did another assessment of an ADRA response to a volcano eruption in the area.

The goal was to train a team of local surveyors to enter their communities and gain information that we could later use to assess the effectiveness of ADRA’s emergency response efforts and from there determine the best way to improve these efforts in the case of future disasters.

It was such a great experience, because when you’re behind a desk doing fundraising work you don’t always get to see the impact of your work.  Being able to meet some of the beneficiaries and hear what their experiences were firsthand, as well as see the gratefulness on their faces, is honestly an experience that can’t be fully described.

You seem to have worked in a lot of amazing jobs for someone who is still an undergraduate! How have you managed to land these jobs? How do you have time to do all these extra projects? What motivates you?

It’s always really entertaining to see people’s reactions when they find out that I’m running around the world working on various projects while I’m only nineteen and still finishing up my undergraduate degrees.  

As for getting the jobs, I would have to say that the most important thing is being completely fearless when you approach various organizations.  I think people really notice two things above all else in interviews: confidence and passion.  

I was recently speaking with the founder and board chairman for an organization working in Kenya and because of my age, his immediate assumption was that I was looking for an internship.  I have to be totally honest, it took a level of fearlessness to let him know that I actually wanted to interview for an open board seat.  I actually just finished interviewing, and I sent off my nomination last night so we’ll see how that turns out!

In terms of finding time, I let go of my 4.0 a long time ago.  I initially tried keeping my work to just during the summer, but I realized that I felt really bored and empty without something like that on my plate.  I ended up picking up a consultancy for ADRA China last term that kept me sane, so to speak, for when I needed a break from academia.  I don’t consider myself one of those people who is“designed”for university or academia, but I understand fully the importance of higher education; so for me it’s all about finding ways to keep school interesting.

Honestly, I have the most amazing and supportive partner in the world; he is constantly motivating me to do more and do my best.  Between him and my family, I have a really incredible support system I don’t think I would have been able to achieve half the things I have without their support.  On top of that, I just always try to motivate myself as much as I can.  I always try to set my goals high, so that when I accomplish them I feel goodbut even when I don’t, I’m still ahead of the curve. 

Would you consider yourself more aware of social concerns, both in the US and internationally, than most of your classmates? If so, what do you think prompted this awareness?

I don’t want to say yes, because I think to a degree everyone is aware of social issuesespecially ones that are demographically important to them, such as police brutality, LGBT rights, or women’s ordination.  However, I think that because of the work that I’m involved with, it is important to stay up to date on international happenings.  

I think you really notice things like poverty and women’s rights a lot more when you engage in humanitarian work.  Things like female genital mutilation, refugee rights, and systematic poverty were things that I had in front of my face growing up because both of my parents were aid workers and missionaries.  

I think I’m more in tune with disasters than anything.  When I was around 10 or 11, my parents started taking me out to the field with them.  I traveled to Sri Lanka and Indonesia following the 2007 tsunamis, and that was my first major exposure to the horrifying realities of life in the developing world.  While I was living in Sri Lanka I remember having an armed guard that had to escort me between the compound where I lived and the ADRA office that was literally right next door. That was when a lot of conflict was going on between the government and the Tamil Tigers, a separatist group.  It was as a result of those conflicts that some people close to my nanny in Sri Lanka were killed in some of the more violent riots.  

After that I traveled with my parents again to Jogjakarta, in Indonesia, following the earthquake there.  After that it was the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan, which was the first time I remember seeing dead bodiessomething I don’t think you ever really come back from.  

I was just living in those disaster zones for short periods of time, but there are other kids my age and much younger who are stillliving in the ruins of those disasters.  Those frightening realities were just a snapshot for me, but for a lot of those kids it’s what they experience their entire lives, and I think coming to that realization makes things like the Nepal earthquake, the Ebola virus outbreak, and the refugee situations in Europe and Africa just really personal to me, which is a big motivator for my work.

Where are your parents originally from, and where were you born? Who did your parents work for when you lived in all those places as a kid?

My mom is American, and my father is Indonesian —he moved to the United States after meeting my mother and attended graduate school here. I was born at Washington Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park, but moved to Addis Ababa after 6 weeksmy mother only came to the States to deliver.

Initially both of my parents worked for ADRA. My mother is currently at ADRA International, and my father is consulting between various organizations in the United States, Indonesia, Sudan, Lebanon, and China.

How do you feel about living in California after spending a lot of your childhood in such exotic places?

I don’t have anything against California, but being in Angwin in particular is a massive challenge to adjust to. When I was living in D.C., Hong Kong, Beijing, and Jakarta I got really used to being super mobile. But here, you’re not going anywhere unless you have a car –and even if you have a car you’d better be prepared to drive two hours to the closest anything. I was just joking with someone who had worked with ADRA in Afghanistan about how terrible even the cell reception is here; I had better internet and cell reception in the Tibetan highlands.

What is the worst job you have ever had to do?

When I was an intern I had to pick up someone’s lunch order once, and there’s something weirdly degrading about having to do that.  But in the end it pushed me to work harder, and it was nice to see that I eventually reached a point of indispensability so that other interns and staff members were being sent out instead. 

What specific experience in your work so far have you found the most rewarding?

When I was working at SOS Children’s Villages one of my workmates taught me how to use a Keurig [coffee machine], and I remember that being a really monumental moment in my life.  I’m really embarrassed about this, but office technology is really intimidating for me.

On a more serious note, any opportunity you can get to see firsthand the impact of your work —especially fundraising work— is seriously rewarding and motivational.  When I traveled out to Garzê TAR (Tibetan Autonomous Region/Prefecture), to watch a neonatal health project assessment, that was the first time I really made the connection that the boring work writing proposals and making phone calls and hounding prospective donors has this tangible and very vital outcome.  Projects like that have ended up saving countless lives, and bettering entire communities for generations to come.

Viewpoint: Why Californians Should Oppose Proposed Assisted Suicide Legislation

$
0
0
California’s proposed assisted-suicide bill does not require psychiatric evaluations which would rule-out depression, fear or anxiety as a primary motive for requesting assisted suicide, and does not provide adequate checks and balances to ensure that the disabled and elderly are protected.

California’s proposed assisted-suicide bill does not require psychiatric evaluations which would rule-out depression, fear or anxiety as a primary motive for requesting assisted suicide, and does not provide adequate checks and balances to ensure that the disabled and elderly are protected. It could also lead to an increase in non-therapeutic suicides as it becomes socially acceptable. Since it costs only $35-50 for life-ending "medication" as opposed to hundreds of thousands of dollars for terminal healthcare the cost-saving incentive is significant.

For the seventh time since 1994, the California state legislature is considering a bill (SB 128) that would authorize mentally competent adults who are diagnosed with terminal diseases to request and receive life-ending "medication." Although the  language of the bill purports to include safeguards against insurance companies soliciting patients to obtain aid-in-dying information by requiring the request to come from the individual, physician, or designee, according to some experts the bill lacks key protections that could leave the elderly, disabled, or those suffering from anxiety or depression vulnerable.

According to University of Irvine Psychiatry Professor, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, MD who wrote to members of the legislature on April 28, 2015, the bill "does not require physicians to refer patients for psychiatric consultation to rule-out common mental disorders or other causes that contribute to suicidal thinking and the wish to die."

According to Dr. Kheriaty, the desire to commit suicide is "almost always a cry for help" and a "distress signal" which may relate to untreated clinical depression, fear, anxiety, under-treated pain, and other stressors.  He points out that in Oregon, where psychiatric consultations are not required, only 5% of individuals who died by assisted suicide were seen for psychiatric evaluations before making the decision to end their lives.

Under the proposed legislation, doctors would only need to meet a minimal "good faith" legal standard which, according to Dr. Kheriaty, is much lower than the higher "medical standard of care" that is required in other medical situations, and the law seems to be designed more to protect doctors from liability than to ensure that patients receive proper medical treatment and evaluation before they are provided life-ending treatment.

The California bill is closely patterned after Oregon’s assisted suicide law was passed in 1997. After a decline in Oregon’s suicide rates in the 1990s, non-medical suicides began to rise between 2000 and 2010. Today, according to Dr. Kheriaty, Oregon now has a 35% higher suicide rate than the national average, and preliminary data in Washington state which also legalized physician-assisted suicide shows a similar trend.  Nationally, suicide is currently the 3rd leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults.

Most major disability rights groups also oppose bills to legalize physician-assisted suicide. According to Marilyn Golden, a policy analyst for Disability Rights, Education, and Defense Fund, an organization that opposes the legalization of assisted suicide, there is a clear cost incentive for health insurance companies and HMOs to back assisted suicide. The cost of lethal medication is $35-50, which is not even comparable to the cost of treatment for most long-term medical conditions. Per Golden, there is already pressure on medical providers not to prolong life, and the legalization of assisted suicide would create a "significant danger."‘

In an opinion piece published in the Syracuse Post-Standard, Diane Coleman, president and CEO of Not Dead Yet, a national disability organization that opposes legalization of assisted suicide, writes in the Syracuse Post-Standard that, "The 17 years of reports on medically assisted suicides from the Oregon Health Authority offer a clear window into motivations behind hastened deaths. The top five reasons doctors give for their patients’ suicides are not pain or fear of future pain, but psychological issues that are all-too-familiar to the disability community: ‘burden on others’ (40 percent), ‘loss of autonomy’ (91 percent) or ‘loss of dignity’ (79 percent)."

"[S]o-called safeguards in assisted suicide bills are hollow," writes Coleman.  "An heir or abusive caregiver can suggest assisted suicide to an ill person, sign as witness to the request, and pick up the drugs. No independent witness is required at the death and in half of Oregon’s cases no such witness was present. So how would anyone know if the lethal dose was self-administered, or even if the person consented at the time? Oregon’s law looks the other way, with no evidence of what happened at the end."

Coleman calls on state lawmakers to "consider the dangers to the many elders, ill and disabled people who are not safe from mistake, coercion and abuse."

Unlike previous attempts at legalization, California SB 128 is well funded and has passed through several key committees. If the legislation fails, it will likely be place on the ballot as an initiative in the near future.

 

Michael Peabody, Esq. is the editor of ReligiousLiberty.tv, where this piece first appeared. It is reprinted here with permission.

Faith in Our Streets

$
0
0
It's harder to quantify the role faith plays for people expressing their values through fighting for justice, but it's an important piece of the current puzzle of faith in America that we won't find in the Pew study.

There may be fewer people in the pews but faith is playing a powerful role in our streets.

Those of us who care about faith in America might find Pew Research Center's recent Religious Landscape Study depressing—Pew said that overall the number of people who identify with a religion is declining in America. But our experience gives us hope, because we don't think Pew is necessarily looking in the right places.

The two of us—a Christian minister working at a Jewish nonprofit and a Muslim community organizer—see people every day experiencing their faith outside the walls of a church, synagogue, or mosque. It's harder to quantify the role faith plays for people expressing their values through fighting for justice, but it's an important piece of the current puzzle of faith in America that we won't find in the Pew study.

This fits with another finding of the Pew study: a broadening perspective of who is considered one's "neighbor" among people of faith in America. Christians are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse, switching religion is a common occurrence, and religious intermarriage is on the rise. As demographics change and religious plurality rises, there is a groundswell of people working together across faith lines, mobilizing around social and economic issues. Personal faith is impacting public life.

Last fall, faith leaders joined ranks with peaceful protesters in Ferguson to demand justice for black lives and capture the stories of heartbreak and hope lost in the news. This past Hanukkah, Jews and Muslims demonstrated together in New York City to decry police brutality. An interfaith rally led by Pastor Jamal Bryant united the Baltimore faith community in hopes of healing after the death of Freddie Grey in police custody. These voices made an impact and the other week, President Obama announced banning military-grade weapons at local police departments.

Sacred texts and religious traditions provide narratives of hope and justice that are a powerful counter to our everyday experiences of growing economic inequality and exposed systemic racism. The contradiction between the world as it is and the world as it should be catalyzes people to put their faith into action. This week, 40 Jewish, Muslim, and Christian community organizers from around the country came together in Los Angeles for the first time, to organize across racial, ethnic, and religious divisions and build on the success of the Black Lives Matter movement and the Fight for 15 campaign to work for racial and economic justice.

When we express our faith in the streets, we are working towards personal transformation as well as social transformation. Last November, California voters passed Proposition 47 by 60 percent of the vote, taking a small step towards ending mass incarceration of communities of color by downgrading some non-violent felonies into misdemeanors. Proposition 47 largely passed thanks to the volunteer work of faith leaders from California's biggest faith-based community organizing network, PICO California. As part of that effort, we had a chance to meet Debbie, a community leader with PICO affiliate LA Voice and Homeboy Industries. Working alongside fellow community members led Debbie to her own personal transformation and filled her with hope. "We can do anything together!" Debbie exclaimed after Prop. 47 passed statewide.

Too many people associate faith activism with those who abuse faith language to promote exclusionary and regressive policies. We saw that recently in the language used to promote Indiana's so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which promoted discrimination against the LGBT community. People in power often abuse faith to divide and keep communities separate from one another. However, as the American landscape of faith becomes more diverse—racially, ethnically, and religiously —we can expect to see more diversity in how faith is expressed and the impact it has—personally, communally, and in our streets.

 

Geoffrey Nelson-Blake is Director of interfaith Community Organizing Residency at Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice.  Sarah Jawaid is an organizer, writer and artist. This article originally appeared on Huffington Post Religion, and was reprinted here by permission.

Open Letter: A Call for Unity and Upholding Our Doctrines

$
0
0
As leaders, we say that our doctrines are not optional nor should we allow cultural settings to prevent us from adherence to the doctrines by our members.

June 8, 2015
An Open Letter To:
Church Leaders
Delegates to the 2015 GC Session
Church Members

RE: A Call for Unity and Upholding Our Doctrines

Dear Leaders, Delegates and Church Members:

As we move closer to the 2015 GC Session in San Antonio and the vote on the issue of Women's Ordination (WO), I have been thinking and praying about this upcoming vote and the concern that some have that this issue may split the Unity of the Church and have a major negative impact on some members of God's Church.

I was pleased to see that in the study by the Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC), the majority came out clearly in favor of permitting WO and in reality they claim that "ordination" is not a theological issue. While I agree about "ordination" not being a theological question from the biblical perspective, I do have concerns how we as leaders of the Church seem to be able to divorce ourselves from the theology of our 28 Fundamental Beliefs (FBs) and are unwilling to apply these doctrines in our personal and corporate lives as we administer the SDA Church.

As leaders, we say that our doctrines are not optional, nor should we allow cultural settings to prevent us from adherence to the doctrines by our members. We say that the Sabbath is to be observed, even if the majority of the people and cultures in the world do not accept the Sabbath and choose to worship on Friday (Muslims) or Sunday (most Christians). If you are an SDA, the Sabbath doctrine is not optional! Similar positions are urged by the church on other doctrines such as Creation, Salvation by Grace, Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; in fact, the church does not teach that any of our doctrines (28 FBs) are optional.

However, when it comes to following the teaching of our 14th Fundamental Belief—Unity in the Body of Christ, and our 17th Fundamental Belief—Spiritual Gifts and Ministries, the Church has chosen to permit cultural biases from around the world to influence how we relate to the issue of allowing God through His Holy Spirit to call women into ministry and also the writing of our GC Policies. We treat these two FBs as though they are optional for our members and leaders in the Church.

The 14th FB reads as follows: "The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred, tongue and people. In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality; and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve, and be served without partiality or reservation. Through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures we share the same faith and hope, and reach out in one witness to all. This unity has its source in the oneness of the triune, God, who has adopted us as His children." (Rom. 12:4,5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14; Matt. 28:19, 20; Ps.133:1; 2 Cor. 5:16, 17; Acts 17:26, 27; Gal. 3:27-29; Col. 3:10-15; Eph. 4:14-16; 4:1-6; John 17:20-23.) [Emphasis is mine.]

In our 17th FB—Spiritual Gifts and Ministries: we state "God bestows upon all members of His church in every age spiritual gifts which each member is to employ in loving ministry for the common good of the church and of humanity. Given by the agency of the Holy Spirit, who apportions to each member as He wills, the gifts provide all abilities and ministries needed by the church to fulfill its divinely ordained functions. According to the Scriptures, these gifts include such ministries as faith, healing, prophecy, proclamation, teaching, administration, reconciliation, compassion, and self-sacrificing service and charity for the help and encouragement of people. Some members are called of God and endowed by the Spirit for functions recognized by the church in pastoral, evangelistic, apostolic, and teaching ministries particularly needed to equip the members for service, to build up the church to spiritual maturity, and to foster unity of the faith and knowledge of God. When members employ these spiritual gifts as faithful stewards of God's varied grace, the church is protected from the destructive influence of false doctrine, grows with a growth that is from God, and is built up in faith and love." (Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 12:9-11,27,28; Eph.4:8,11-16; Acts 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; 1 Peter 4:10,11.) [Emphasis is mine.]

Given that our Fundamental Beliefs #14 and #17 give us clear guidance on how we as members and leaders are to relate to each other and also makes it clear that it is God through His Holy Spirit who apportions to each member as He wills the gifts and talents needed for the church, who are we, to say we will not recognize God's calling of women to ministry, administration, or leadership? We should not be in the business of trying to tell God whom He is allowed to call into ministry, especially when our 17th Doctrine clearly states that God pours out His Spirit as He wills.

I plead with the leadership of the Church and all the delegates to the 2015 GC Session to vote in favor of upholding the theological principles of our doctrines as voted by the 1980 GC Session and to permit God to be God and act through the Holy Spirit as He may choose, to call individuals (both men and women) to serve as ministers, administrators and leaders at all levels of the Church. If God does not choose to pour out His Spirit on Women in every Division of the World Field because for cultural reasons He knows that they would not be accepted in ministerial positions at this time, then that is His choosing, but let us as delegates not vote to limit God and His choice to call women into ministry anywhere in the world if He so chooses.

It is obvious that in Europe, North America, China, and some other Divisions of the World Field, God has chosen to pour out His Spirit on women who are faithfully serving and following God's call to ministry. How dare we as ministers, administrators, and delegates to the 2015 GC Session, think that we can forsake our 14th and 17th FB's and tell God that we know best upon whom He may choose to pour out His Sprit in these last days.

I urge you, as leaders, to stand up at the GC Session and strongly urge the delegates to uphold our FBs and vote in favor of the proposed motion to allow Divisions to decide on the issue of WO. Even better would be if the Session would vote to allow the ordination of women in the whole world field just as we voted in 1980 to adopt our FBs and have them apply to the entire church in all areas of the world, even though we knew in 1980 (and still today) that not all areas and cultures of the world field were ready to accept and fully implement our 14th and 17th FBs in their personal lives nor in the corporate church. It is time that we stand up and tell the world that we are no longer willing to consider the 14th and 17th FBs as optional!

Then, I would also urge you as leaders to encourage the delegates to return to their home fields and teach all of our beautiful 28 FBs to their members and help them to understand the true meaning of all our doctrines and to live them out within their personal lives and the corporate life of the church.

There is a gospel song that says "Our Talk Talks and Our Walk Talks, but Our Walk Talks Louder than Our Talk Talks!" Let's show the world that the Adventist Church stands by all our doctrines and that we practice what we preach and teach.

I am praying that our leaders and delegates will uphold the Word of God as expressed in our FBs #14 and #17 as the rule of thumb for administering our church in these final days. Yours for a finished work under the power of the Holy Spirit!

Sincerely

Assistant to Administration

PS. I give permission to each person who may see this letter to publish and share this letter in whatever medium (digital, email or print) you may choose.

 

James A. Greene is Assistant to the Administration and Director of Planned Giving and Trust Services for the New Jersey Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

Inline Images: 

An Adventist Story of Switching Sexes

$
0
0
A church employee talks to Spectrum about her decision to transition from the male to the female gender, her relationship with her wife and family, and her relationship with the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

A church employee talks to Spectrum about her decision to transition from the male to the female gender, her relationship with her wife and family, and her relationship with the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Question: You are an employee of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and in the process of transitioning from the male to the female gender. Is it possible to remain an employee of the church?

Answer: I am currently an employee of the SDA church, yes, but only for a short time more. I have chosen to leave of my own accord, and gave my notice to my employer nearly six months prior to my planned departure. 

The senior executive I gave my notice to responded in a way that I will always cherish. After I told her that I would be leaving, her first response was to ask why. I told her that I was a transgender person, and that my journey at this time in my life was to move forward with the transition that I had begun nearly four years earlier. 

Her response was: “My, I wouldn’t have guessed. Do you have a support network?” 

I said that I did. She then asked whether my wife had a support network. I said that she did. 

The next question was whether my children had a support network. Again I responded in the affirmative. 

Over the next 15 to 20 minutes we worked out the logistics of how the information of my departure would be managed. Twice more she asked me the same three questions about a support network. I said that I hoped I would be able to continue to contribute to the institution and eventually join conversations on the subject of being transgender and Seventh-day Adventist. She said she thought that would be good.
You asked whether I could stay on as an employee. The answer is not simple. If the only constraints were at the specific institution where I work, I think the answer would be that I could transition and stay. But given the broader church politic and influence, I don’t believe it is possible at present.
Finally, given the connectedness of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the thinking in some areas of the church, I believe staying is not worth the potential damage it would cause my family.

So you have not been asked to leave? 

No.

How about remaining a church member? Will you continue to attend a Seventh-day Adventist church? Do you hold Adventist beliefs?

I have no intention of leaving the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I would say that I and my wife are progressive Adventists and as such we see the church as having a lot of room— more than what some would allow for. 

The next question is not so easy. Finding an Adventist church that will accept a “same sex” couple will not be easy, and we will not attend a church on a regular basis that will not be affirming. So the answer is that it depends on where we end up settling and whether that place has an SDA church that will be a loving, fully accepting community. (Not that every member has to agree, but we should be able to hold a church office etc.)

As I said, we are progressive in our beliefs, and I have gone so far as saying that I am a cultural Seventh-day Adventist. That said, at the core of my belief I am a disciple of Christ and live my walk based on Christ’s statement of the law in the gospels when He states: The greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart, and the second is like it; love your neighbor as yourself. I connect that to Matthew 25 and the scene of the judgment with its call to treat those on the fringes as God’s children. 

I am not saying that there are no bounds or limits, but they must be based on principles of love that create positive, faith-building relationships. 

I guess the simple answer is to the question is: In large part I accept the teachings of the SDA church and its fundamental beliefs. The community of the church is something that I am deeply a part of, based on both family and personal history, and in large part my experience with the Church has been very good.

Have you told any of your colleagues about your transgender experience?

Yes, and to a person they have been kind, supportive, caring and concerned. They would like to see me stay, but they also understand Adventist communities and the broader forces that presently prevail within the church on this and the broader questions of LGBTQI issues. 

At this point all of my close colleagues know and have known for several months. Their support continues to be there. 

Can you tell us more about how your wife feels about your decision to switch genders? How long have you been married?

I  have been married for over 30 years. 

I will not attempt to speak for her, but I will reflect on what she says and what I believe she thinks and feels. 

First, she would not choose this. But our marriage has been based on a deep and enduring friendship and commitmentone grounded in love and faith. We have been faithful throughout our marriage to each other, always keeping our vows. 

We are both, by nature, rather non-confrontational in how we relate to others, and we both look for the best in others. This outlook has created the path that allows us to move forward together as a couple even now. 

She has known for nearly a decade that I am transgender and has made a conscious decision to stay with me and to keep our relationship alive. 

My wife has experienced what is commonly felt by spouses and families of transgender people: when someone transitions there is a sense of the person dying before your eyes. But then the person who emerges is in most ways the same, so the reasons you loved that person are still there and in those key ways the person has not changed.

As my wife and I have discussed my transition in the past few weeks, she said something that really struck me, and shows what an amazing person she is. I had expressed how amazing it was to just be me, mostly not worrying about keeping up appearances. I talked about how a burden that I have carried for some forty years was finally lifting. She responded that she could understand and that she was so glad to see how free and happy I was. She went on to say that she still loved me and can’t picture growing old with anybody else. Then she said: “I appreciate that you have carried this burden for so long; now it is my turn to carry the load.”
This is as deep a commitment as anyone could ever ask, and as great a gift as anyone could receive. 

We do hope to grow old together.

Do you know other Adventists who are transgender? What has their experience been like?

Yes, I know several Adventists who are transgender and several former Adventists who are as well.

The experience of each is different, but the key is how family relates to them. For those who have supportive families who are within the church, they have continued their connection to the church to varying degrees. Some are regular participants and members of their local churches. One is even a local church elder. For those that have family who are not accepting, most have left the SDA church and in some cases even the larger Christian religion. 

Acceptance by one’s family is a very powerful thing, and when your family is there for you in positive supporting ways, even it they don’t understand, life is worth living.

Tell us a little bit about your family. Did you grow up in the Adventist church?

I grew up in an Adventist family. I am a 4th generation Adventist on both sides of my family. One of my grandfathers was a pastor/administrator in the church, the other was the head elder of a large congregation for 30 years or more. My parents both worked the majority of their professional lives within the Adventist educational system, with my father a university professor/administrator and my mother teaching every thing from kindergarten to college. I have three siblings. Two have spent most of their professional lives within the Adventist healthcare system as managers and leaders. One has held positions as president and CEO of several organizations. My third sibling is a very successful author and publisher. 

My home life was a wonderful upbringing in a loving, caring family in an Adventist community. Virtually all of my friends were Adventists and their parents were active in the church and community. I was never abused by anyone as a child. My mother’s area of professional expertise is in the area of family and early childhood development and so she was very engaged as a parent, and my father was an equal partner in the task of raising the four of us. They are still active in their church community and truly cannot go anywhere in the Adventist world without encountering someone they know. 

We are still a closely connected family, and I talk regularly with my parents and siblings. We vacation together about once every 12 to 18 months and these gatherings are always fun and enjoyable. 

My wife and I have children who are young adults who we raised in the Adventist church, with most of their schooling in SDA schools. They are both Christians, but they now question the Adventist church because of the basic tone of the church and how it views LGBTQI issues. They find an incongruence to how the church views people they know who are LGBTQI and Christian.

When did you begin to feel more comfortable as a girl or woman?

My journey to understanding started in elementary school. Before the age of 9 I realized that I would rather be a girl to the world, but feared the consequences of telling anyone— so I didn’t. Sometime in the mid 1970s my brother, who is fouryears older, came home and announced that the artist who created the album “Switched on Bach”had “changed sexes” and he wanted to know what my parents thought. I don’t remember the specifics of that dinner table conversation, but I do know that it was clear that they didn’t think you could switch, and that likely it wasn’t “right.” This insured that I stayed deeply in the closet. 

I came to realize that I was a “transsexual”sometime in the course of middle school when I happened across an article in one of the local daily news papers. There was an article about a young transsexual woman who had transitioned,; she had the surgery commonly referred to as Sexual Reassignment surgery (SRS). (Preferred terms to today are Gender Reassignment surgery, GRS, or Gender Conformation surgery, GCS). With this article I realized that there was actually a way to change how one’s genitals appeared from male to female, and I knew that somehow that is what I needed— that indeed I could become a woman. About the same time Renée Richards became the first “out” professional athlete to play in a major sporting tournament and series (women’s tennis). With this and a few other things I realized that there were indeed other people who were similar, but within the culture and conversation of the community, it was clearly viewed as bad.
Due to the conflict with my religious upbringing I struggled to reconcile what I felt, and so I did what any good young Adventist male would do: I got married just out of college. My wife and I were young, and I was sure that this was the cure. 

The realization that it wasn’t was quick to arrive, and in less than a year, I knew it hadn’t changed that part of me. I continued to struggle in silence and in the closet. I struggled with God about it until finally, after two children, I realized that God accepts me the way I am. I realized that it wasn’t my choices that led to the way I am; I just am, for whatever reason, and I don’t get to know“why me?” until heaven. 

With that realization, I became comfortable with the idea of seeing myself as a woman, but due to my military career, and my family responsibilities I stayed closeted until my wife happened to find my boxes of clothes and accessories. By this time I was in my early 40s and I was ready to live with integrity in my marriage, and so I told her. That was nine years ago.

The emergence of the internet was a powerful thing for transgender people, as suddenly there was information out there that you could find from the privacy of your home. Suddenly I realized that I was not alone. This created hope that there might be a chance at “life.”

To summarize, I felt comfortable as a girl when I was somewhere between six and nine years old. Like everyone else I moved through life with its accompanying doubts and fears, but I did it to the world as a guy, and internally as a girl. In adulthood —once I resolved the spiritual conflict —I was good with being a woman. In fact I was great with it. The more I have moved through transition, the more comfortable I am.
Now I’m a rather sporty 50-something woman who loves fitness and fashion and trying to figure out how things work. I love to create images of the world (through photography). I love woodworking and cooking for my family.

What do you like about the Adventist church? What do you dislike?

The greatest strength of Adventist churches, I believe, are the sense of community they foster, and the Sabbath. The connectedness of the faith is powerful and inviting and has been very rewarding to me and my family. The Sabbath and the rest and the coming apart have given me a connection with God and family that I believe is of divine design and intent. 

What I struggle with in the institutional church is that we have become a church of rule, much like the Pharisees. These rules —although well intended —have become more important than the principles that underlie them. 

The second thing I struggle with is that we have failed to live out the gospel as it is set out in Matthew 25. We make attempts, but we are more concerned with appearance than we are about actual practice. I fear that many will be on the on the right side of the “rules,”but the wrong side of the judgment. 

The final thing that concerns me within Adventism is the recurring rise of perfection doctrines within the church. The Last Generation Theology (LGT) is the latest iteration. This type of theological thinking creates this drive to create rules so that we can define perfection, and can “know” that we are indeed progressing toward salvation or are in fact saved.

Where do you see yourself in five years?

I hope that I will be working full time at whatever the Lord leads us to do. Given my skills and work experience I expect it will be in the area of aviation operations, doing something such as flying for a major air carrier or in the more technical part of the flying business: flight test. I could end up back in government working on issues related to transgender inclusion, but I doubt that will be full time.
In five years I will have been living full time with the world seeing me as the woman I am, married to the same beautiful and amazing lady I am today. I doubt we will have grandchildren yet, but it certainly could happen.  I hope that I will have been a positive, loving voice in a challenging discussion in the church and the broader society. 

How have you seen the church’s attitudes towards gay, lesbian and transgender individuals change in your lifetime? How do you anticipate them changing further? 

Clearly within the church you can find those who have moderated their tone and even their stance on LGBTQI people, but the official position stands as it does, with non-inclusion unless you are celibate as the stated policy. 

If, as I suspect, the US Supreme Court rules in favor of “same sex marriage”the church will likely have to moderate its stance to at least accommodate those who come to Adventism already married, just as we have accommodated those who came to the church already in polygamous marriages from cultures where that is acceptable. 

On the issue of transgender acceptance, the church has not taken a formal stance, although the Biblical Research Institute did issue a paper earlier this year. If the BRI paper is adhered to, we will end up in much the same place as we are with the LGB portion of the group— which is really a very unaccepting position. 

If you look to the millennial generation, I believe that there is hope for radical change: that our church forms a doctrine that is based on monogamous committed relationships. 

On the transgender front, we could save ourselves much grief and bring a great deal of healing by simply following the biblical lead as patterned for eunuchs of old. Although many in the transgender community don’t like the association, in a careful reading of the relevant scriptures one can, without manipulation, include what we today call transgender people. We can find it in both testaments, even spoken directly by Christ. Finally we see an apostle act on it by baptizing a eunuch.

The subject of this interview has requested to remain anonymous at this time, because of her current employment at an Adventist institution, and the employment of family members at Adventist institutions. She hopes to speak publicly in the future.

Perspective: Stephen Bohr Quotes Ellen White Selectively

$
0
0
I found Mr. Bohr’s arguments unconvincing. Certainly, his body language seemed to indicate that, if he could not convince me, as his listener, he would like to force the issue.

Stephen Bohr recently spoke at a symposium on women's ordination in Bakersfield, California. I cannot offer a full critique. However, I can make a few observations. First of all, I found Mr. Bohr’s arguments unconvincing. Certainly, his body language seemed to indicate that, if he could not convince me, as his listener, he would like to force the issue. At other times, when apparently satisfied that people were finding him very convincing, he seemed to gloat.  At times I felt that the lack of logic was being supplied by sheer persistence, that I was being beaten into submission by endless repetition.

I should say that Mr. Bohr was successful in making one point against his critics. He established that there can be other heads (or leaders) under Christ, the one Head of the church. Having gained this seeming advantage, Mr. Bohr spent a great deal of time “rubbing it in.” Yet, in my view, he failed to establish that those leaders must be male. He read quote after quote after quote, emphasizing what he alleged to be gender-specific language. To me it seemed like an endless repeat of the “husband of one wife” fallacy. That is, he was making a point which the inspired writer never intended to make, in an approach which could only be convincing to those who (at least implicitly) believe in verbal inspiration (i.e. to fundamentalists). I think we all know what Ellen White had to say about that.

“It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts...” {YRP 225.5}

From this I can see that the mere supposition, on the part of an inspired writer, that a leader will be male, falls far short of being a directive to that effect, even in those limited instances where the language truly is gender specific. (Notice that the inspired writer, in the above quotation, is called “the man himself.” Yet we have to know that Ellen White was including herself in this.)

Now let’s take a brief look at a few details in Mr. Bohr’s presentation. His entire thesis hangs on establishing:
1. That Christ was subservient to the Father prior to the incarnation, and
2. That Eve was subservient to Adam prior to the fall of mankind.

In order to establish the first of these points, Mr. Bohr cites 1 Corinthians 11:3, as well as a passage from Patriarchs and Prophets, page 36. The Bible text itself merely states that the head of Christ is God. It says nothing about their relationship prior to the incarnation. Thus we see that Mr. Bohr’s first assertion stands or falls on the Ellen White quotation alone.

Now, personally, I believe that Ellen White exercised the prophetic gift in the highest sense. I do not believe that she was somehow less inspired, or less authoritative, than the Bible writers themselves. However, I do understand that the “testimonies,” as her writings were called, were given for a different purpose than were the Scriptures – I see that their glory is a mere reflection of the glory of the Bible, as the moon reflects the sun. They were never intended to be canonical, and we are not to adopt any doctrinal position without Scriptural support. We are “sola scriptura” Protestants, after all. So Mr. Bohr’s thesis is already in trouble.

Then, when we look at Patriarchs and Prophets itself, we find that the information shared there was given to the angels by God the Father in order to “set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings.” In other words, it was about the relationship between the Son and His created beings, not about the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is apparent to me, from the context, that the latter question would have been nobody’s business, as the Father and Son shared the throne. Therefore, Mr. Bohr fails to establish his first point.

In order to establish that Eve was subservient to Adam before the fall, Mr. Bohr commits a similar error. He quotes Ellen White numerous times, showing that Adam was placed over the “human family.” He seems to be hoping that his listeners will infer, from this, that Adam was also placed over Eve, rather than her standing by Adam’s side as his equal (as a co-regent). But this is where things really get interesting. Can it be that Mr. Bohr is unaware of the following statements from Patriarchs and Prophets?

Eve was created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal…” {PP 46.2}

In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God—in harmony with His great law of love—they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband.” {PP 58.3}

Could language be any plainer than that? Ellen White, whom Mr. Bohr so frequently quotes for his own purposes, clearly tells us that the subjection of Eve to Adam was in consequence of sin, and took place only after the fall. Furthermore, she strongly suggests that God’s choice to make Eve subservient, rather than Adam, is not due to any inherent differences between the two. Someone has to submit, so it might as well be the one who transgressed first.

Mr. Bohr is correct in stating that Paul made something of the fact that the man was made first, and that the woman was taken from the man. However, when it comes to finding just what Paul was making of these facts, Mr. Bohr cites a “context” which is nowhere apparent to me. He even suggests a “context” in which Paul is talking about teaching with “full ecclesiastical authority,” so that women can still teach Sabbath School. Aside from the total lack of support for this, it raises a very serious question. If women are allowed to teach us the Scriptures, on which we Protestants say the authority of the church is based, then just what more are men allowed to do, beyond that, with their “full ecclesiastical authority?” To my ear, this strongly suggests some kind of papal doctrine. Maybe Mr. Bohr doesn’t realize that the papacy attempts to place far more than just “one man” between Christ and the believer.

 

Ronald G. White is a former preacher's kid who writes from Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada.
 

An Open Letter to the General Conference Delegates from Africa

$
0
0
My teenage children often ask me with genuine puzzlement when we have conversations about such past issues as criminalization of interracial marriages, fights in favor of desegregation, or the massive undertaking to preserve Jim Crow: why? And no matter how often they ask, I always get stumped by that question.

Dear Delegates from the Motherland:

In about two weeks, our church will be voting on a motion regarding the acceptability of division executive committees in each territory ordaining women to the gospel ministry. And somehow, all eyes are on the delegates from our part of the world, because there is a growing sense that our three divisions, comprising roughly 23% of the delegates to San Antonio, will determine whether the motion is accepted or rejected. Ordinarily, to be in this position is a cause for celebration, but not this time. So how did we get here?

We are here because, during the years’ long Theology of Ordination Study Committees (TOSC) deliberations, it became clear that, unlike the transparent and thoughtful discussions that were characteristic of the TOSC meetings in other divisions, the discussions in the TOSC gatherings in all three African divisions were notable by their inaccessibility. Yet when the final documents were released, all divisions were unanimous in their opposition against ordaining women in the church.  Also conspicuous about the three African divisions has been the eerie public silence of individual church members, pastors and theologians--on speaking, preaching, or writing papers, in favor of women ordination. What happened to the typing fingers of all the budding young Adventist theologians on the continent? Is there such clarity on this issue that a continent of almost seven million Adventists cannot spare a single discordant voice in support of women’s ordination (WO)?

I am perplexed by this unprecedented show of agreement by the church apparatus and the seeming acquiescence by the membership at large, because this behavior goes against our very nature as Africans. We are not ones for matching in concert as though headed or minded. We are a disputing bunch. Ordinarily we take every opportunity to speak our mind, and often do so just because someone else is advocating our preferred position. But on this issue, an issue that speaks to fairness or the lack of it; suddenly, strangely, all our talking drums are peeling a cacophonic monotone as though all the drummers are hamstrung and have lost their improvising instincts and are only awkwardly going along with a non-native scripter’s orchestration. What has happened to us?

Yes, we’ve been told that we are the “saviors” of the world church from the “decadent” west. That the Lord is entrusting the future of His enterprise to us, and us alone, to steer to port. That WO is a Trojan horse that will usher into the church other more terrible things if we don’t stand firm against it. When I hear this I am reminded of an incident I witnessed in the fall of 1984 during my first year as a college instructor.  I was teaching at the Adventist Seminary of West Africa, Nigeria, now Babcock University.  The school was at the time affiliated with Andrews University, so every year, three or four Andrews University professors descended on the campus for affiliation evaluation meetings. Every year, on Sabbath during the visits, the head of the delegation preached during divine service. This arrangement had gone on for years. It turned out that in the year in question, the head of the delegation was Dean Ogden, a woman. This was first time during this arrangement when the leader was a woman. So what to do? Well, after a lot of hand ringing on the side of the local school and church officials, the decision was made to break the tradition of not allowing women to preach from the pulpit on Sabbath. Dean Ogden preached a delicious sermon based on Walt Whitman’s “A Noiseless Patient Spider”. When she finished there was a thunderous affirmation of amens. The sky did not collapse on us. And a year later, women were accompanying men to the pulpit on Sabbaths, and have been preaching from there since 1986. That was a long digression, I know, but it speaks to fears about change that often never materialize.

What we have not discussed among ourselves, because our leaders have shirked that responsibility of preparing us, is that what is happening regarding the WO debate is the normal process of change. Change in any form is almost always difficult. As a block, we lean “conservative” in social outlook compared to our fellow Adventists from the West, and consequently are more likely to view any impactful change with both suspicion and apprehension. But the Bible is littered with enough examples to guide us in approaching change, especially the kind of change that has the potential to further the Lord’s work.

The Bible might not have actively promoted slavery in some distant past, for example, but it certainly tolerated and regulated the dehumanizing practice.  After the accounts leading to the proclamation of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, the highlight in Exodus 21 is negotiating the rules about what is allowed and what is not when we sell our daughters into sexual slavery.  Paul would advise Onesimus to go back to his master, Philemon, and for Philemon to take him back, Onesimus still a slave.  When Samuel told the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, including women and children, he spoke at God’s command. Today we will take any leader who does this, God’s command or not, to The Hague and charge them for the crime of genocide.

The point I am making here is that at some point in time, as the Bible attests, a lot of objectionable things were routinely done in the name of God. But over time we as a community of humans, Christians and non-Christians alike decided such actions can no longer be justified or condoned. Neither in the case of slavery nor genocide do we conclude that we humans are better than our God. What these examples and others like them in the Bible illustrate is that over time, as humans become well exposed to the Christ ethic, we come to understand God better than our forebears and champion God’s higher causes in our different generations.  A William Wilberforce comes around and notices the incongruence of a God of love and one that justifies slavery and concludes that the God Jesus reveals in the Bible would not condone slavery and so he goes about fighting against slavery.  Similarly a Martin Luther King sees the injustice of Jim Crow around him, and armed with the same Bible his distractors used to decry his “agitation”, did something about it. Every generation is presented with the opportunity to right some long enduring wrong or injustice, and it is that generation’s response to this opportunity that defines it.

My teenage children often ask me with genuine puzzlement when we have conversations about such past issues as criminalization of interracial marriages, fights in favor of desegregation, or the massive undertaking to preserve Jim Crow: why? And no matter how often they ask, I always get stumped by that question. Because from their perspective, aided by what has happened since these events were “resolved”, it all seem such a waste of resources devoted to things that in hindsight is so plain to them.

As you vote on the issue of WO next month in San Antonio, think about the future generations of African Adventists who in 30 years may be looking at this history and asking why? Why did they think voting against the ordination of women to gospel ministry was advancing the ministry of God? Our debt to our children and our children’s children requires of us to give careful consideration to this question recognizing that, voting to deny other divisions the ability to ordain women in their territories would not stop unions from churches in the West from continuing to ordain women in their field. That ship has sailed and will not be recalled to port. What you can control is how history will evaluate your vote.

Sincerely,

Matthew J. Quartey, PhD
Berrien Springs, MI

Inline Images: 

Lessons from a Feminist Father

$
0
0
I’m an Adventist today because of my father. He retired this year at 72. Through the years, he’s been a missionary, teacher, minister, and storyteller extraordinaire. He has also raised two daughters who are both still in the church and who both like to hang out with him. I don’t think the two are unconnected.

I’m one of those notorious PKs. You know how we are. My teen years were one long stretch of baking apple turnovers, babysitting at Revelation seminars, cross-stitching gifts for grandmas and aunts, and reading James Herriot. What gives?  One could argue that I was too dorky to rebel, but this hypothesis only works for so long. Eventually, I grew up. I traveled. I studied. I’m now a vocal feminist who belongs to a church that is about to vote on whether women pastors can be ordained. It’s 2015. And yet, here I am: faithful, committed. 

I could give doctrinal reasons for why I’m still an Adventist. I could write about my commitment to pacifism, to social justice, to Sabbath rest. But the squishy truth is that Adventist young adults largely leave or stay based on relationships. 

I’m an Adventist today because of my father. He retired this year at 72. Through the years, he’s been a missionary, teacher, minister, and storyteller extraordinaire. He has also raised two daughters who are both still in the church and who both like to hang out with him. I don’t think the two are unconnected.

Now that I’m a parent and raising an Adventist daughter, I’m thankful to have his parenting playbook. Here are seven lessons he’s taught me.  

1.) Model Equality
When I was growing up, my father kept our kitchen floor mopped, while more often than not, my mother mowed the lawn. He also baked bread, made school lunches, and one ambitious summer, canned 30 jars of peaches. 

My parents never used the word feminist to describe themselves, but he and my mother modeled the principle throughout their marriage. Chores weren’t gendered. Neither was leadership or spirituality. 

2.) Lean In 
In 1995, I was a student missionary in Thailand, teaching English as a second language. In a rare call home, I complained to my parents that instead of traveling during break, I had to register new students. “Well,” my father said, “what did you expect? You signed up to be a missionary, not a tourist.” 

Throughout my childhood, I’d seen my father lean into his role of pastor. He preached sermons, created puppet shows for VBS, and led board meetings. He also arrived early to prayer meetings so that he could clean the sanctuary bathrooms. 

After that phone call, I leaned in. I did what needed doing, some of which was tedious (Sunday mornings tutoring, for example), but having a cheerful heart freed up so much emotional energy. That year, the other student missionaries and I started a sport’s club, created a newsletter, planned overnight field trips for our students, built up the vespers program, and yes, even took a few trips of our own. 

3.) Have Fun 
“Are we having fun yet?” my father asks when we’re plodding up a mountain or paddling into a strong wind. It’s a mischievous question—as he likes to ask it when the going is especially tough—but it’s also how he has lived life: full tilt. He started running in his 50s and has now run in the Boston Marathon twice. He’s climbed Mount Whitney, Mount Rainier, and Mount Kilimanjaro. He’s inspired a love of adventure in both his daughters. 

When I attended graduate school in Minnesota, I naturally wanted to canoe the Boundary Waters, and I naturally invited my father to join me. Neither of us had carried a canoe previously, but I wasn’t worried. I knew we’d have fun.  


From left: The Author, her father and her sister.

4.) Share Your Children’s (and Grandchildren’s) Interests
A few years ago, my nephews fell into a serious dinosaur mania; my father joined them. He read up on the latest scientific discoveries, took them to natural history museums, and bought them dinosaur books. These days, dinosaurs are (mostly) out and softball is in. And my father? Well, if he’s not chaperoning a school field trip, you can find him at the baseball diamond. He’s the tall guy wearing a dinosaur t-shirt. 

5.) Be Authentic 
When I was eleven or twelve, I washed the grill of my grandfather’s car. He gave me $5 and told me I’d done a fantastic job. I pranced about the house, waving the money, and bragging about what a spitfire I was at car detailing. “Oh, now,” my father finally said. “He’d have given you money if you’d spit on the grill and rubbed it around.” 

My father keeps it real. In an era where every child is a winner, perhaps one of my father’s best gifts is the truth. As an adult now, I still trust him and value his opinion.

6.) Welcome Questions
Growing up, I had opinions about everything, including Christianity and Adventism. I’d bring up theological heresies at breakfast. “Great question,” my father would say. Instead of providing a canned answer, he’d ask me what I thought. I came to see Adventism as a good home for the thinking Christian, as a church that had space for curiosity and uncertainty.  

7.) Live Your Faith
My father reads books on evolution, and he reads the Bible, theological texts, devotionals. He prays every night. He buys motorcycles for pastors in Uganda. He buys groceries for people who hold signs that say they are hungry. He visits people in prison. My father doesn’t talk much to his daughters about his personal faith, but we know. We see it. 

This Father’s Day, I want to give a shout out to all the fantastic fathers, particularly my own. Because of the many lessons my feminist father instilled in me, I’m a better Adventist and a better parent. 

 

 

Sari Fordham teaches creative writing at La Sierra University. She lives in Riverside, CA with her husband Bryan Bradford and her daughter Kai.

Inline Images: 

Book Review: Bertil Wiklander's "Ordination Reconsidered"

$
0
0
In this context the short referral to the various cultural milieus in which the Bible originated (and to similarities in other cultures) is very helpful. Wiklander argues that many aspects of these cultures were contrary to God’s original missional plan. Although God temporarily ‘tolerated’ certain aberrations among his people (such as patriarchy and other forms of male dominance, and such phenomena as polygamy and slavery), he never abandoned the ideal of full equality of all people and, in particular also, of full gender equality—in the home, in society and in the church.

Dr. Bertil Wiklander
Ordination Reconsidered: The Biblical Vision of Men and Women as Servants of God
Newbold Academy Press, June 2015
Available through Amazon (in print and as e-book)


Ordination of men and women
in the light of the mission of God


This book about ordination in general and of female pastors in particular, breaks new ground in the debate that for decades has been raging in the Seventh-day  Adventist Church and has greatly intensified in the months before the General Conference session in San Antonio. But the author, Dr. Bertil Wiklander, is not just providing a well-argued answer to the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, whether women may be ordained as pastors. Wiklander looks at the topic of ordination in a much broader perspective—more than most (or all?) other studies have done thus far. The publication of this work is, therefore, an important contribution to the ordination-discussion in the church. It will help the readers to see this wider context, which many may thus far have missed. The overall context is, according to the author, the mission of God.

Wiklander was asked by the Executive Committee of the Trans-European Division of Seventh-day Adventists to undertake a detailed study of the Women’s Ordination (WO) issue, which might, after approval by the Committee, be submitted to the GC-initiated, international committee that studied the question of women’s ordination (TOSC). This was done, but, due to the length of the originally report (over 800 pages), the author decided re-write it a much shorter verse in a more easily accessible form. The fascinating page book (with a little more than 300 pages) that has now been published by The Newbold Academic Press is the result. No doubt, it will serve as an important source in the discussion about ordination issues, that certainly will not end with the forthcoming session in San Antonio.

Bertil Wiklander recently retired from the presidency of the Trans-European Division, after having served in that capacity for nineteen years. He has a scholarly background, with particular expertise in Old Testament studies and biblical languages. He was rewarded his PhD in 1983 by the famous Swedish Upsala University. This fact, and his gift to write methodically, but lucid, qualifies him, no doubt, to write a book such as this. He deals in his book with the issue of Women’s Ordination by thoroughly exploring the general topic of ordination—biblically, theologically, linguistically and historically (general church history and Seventh-day Adventist history). He concludes after carefully looking at all relevant evidence that ordination, as it is practiced in contemporary Adventism, actually has rather poor biblical credentials. Wiklander pays close attention to the biblical instances of the laying on of hands. He is convinced, that the findings do not point in the direction of something that is linked to what church officials do in the context of choosing and appointing people to a particular church office. In most cases it had other connotations. In fact, calling people to a particular position is primarily a charismatic occurrence and the divine call may be affirmed by the church, without any biblically prescribed ceremony. This is a thread that runs through the entire book.

Another thread is the Bible’s unambiguous support for gender equality as a principle that is basic for the fulfillment of God’s mission. It rejects any difference, in principle, in status between clergy and laity. All together—men and women—form the New Testament priesthood of all believers. The ‘problem’ texts that some feel suggest an unequal status (‘submission’ of the woman,  ‘headship’ of the man, etc.) are dealt with thoroughly and convincingly. Many details of Wiklander’s arguments hinge on linguistic choices. Bertil Wiklander’s expertise as a scholar in these areas is everywhere apparent and, therefore, his arguments should receive due—and wide—attention. His explanations are quite easy to follow and are quite convincing.

In this context the short referral to the various cultural milieus in which the Bible originated (and to similarities in other cultures) is very helpful. Wiklander argues that many aspects of these cultures were contrary to God’s original missional plan.  Although God temporarily ‘tolerated’ certain aberrations among his people (such as patriarchy and other forms of male dominance, and such phenomena as polygamy and slavery), he never abandoned the ideal of full equality of all people and, in particular also, of full gender equality—in the home, in society and in the church.

His study of the biblical and all other evidence leads the author to the logical conclusion that the ordination of women should not only be permitted in the Adventist Church, but is actually  required, in view of the mission of the church, and in view of the fundamental, and eternal, biblical truth that all believers are ‘a kingdom and priests’, regardless of gender. This leads Wiklander in an appendix to suggest a number of ways in which the current ordination practice in the Adventist Church might be revised, in order to make it more biblical.

A statement on the back of the book cover is a concise but fitting description of this interesting, thorough and well-structured study, that, in spite of its academic level, is very readable—also for readers without any advanced theological and linguistic background:

For many decades the Adventist theology of ordination has been in desperate need of a biblical revision and clarification. Dr. Wiklander’s book offers a comprehensive and innovative discussion and a thoughtful re-assessment of the current theology and practice of ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The newly founded Newbold Academic Press is to be congratulated with this superb publication. Unfortunately, the book comes a little late, in view of the fact that the General Conference session in San Antonio is now only days away. But it will be available in the GC Book Center and in various other places (e.g. the Newbold College booth) in the exhibition hall at the conference center.
 

Reinder Bruinsma is a retired pastor and administrator, who remains active with teaching and writing assignments. He has written numerous books, his most recent being "Present Truth Revisited."

Viewing all 519 articles
Browse latest View live