Sermon for North Hill Adventist Fellowship, Sabbath, July 24, 2010
The shortest book in the Old Testament begins: “The vision of Obadiah. This is what the Lord says . . .”
Nothing particularly surprising so far. Then comes the bomb: This is what the Lord says . . . concerning Edom.
The entire prophecy of Obadiah is about a small insignificant country southeast of Judah. Sure, the prophet makes references to the Jewish people and the temple, but the primary focus of Obadiah is Edom. What's up with that?
The people of Edom were relatives of the Jews, in a sense. The founding ancestor of the Edomite people was Esau. The founding ancestor of the Jews was Jacob. Jacob and Esau were twin brothers. (This is going back hundreds of years before Obadiah wrote his book.)
The Edomites were never a super power like Babylon, Persia, the Assyrians or Egyptians. They were not major players on the world stage. While we would probably call them heathen, since they did n ot worship Yahweh, the God of Israel, they were not famous (or infamous) for their idols or their worship practices.
So what's up with an entire book in the Bible devoted to this obscure desert nation of distant relatives of the Jews?
The first and most important idea highlighted by the book of Obadiah is explicitly stated by the Prophet Malachi in his own prophecy about Edom. He announced a dreadful judgment on the nation of Edom, then concluded his message with these words: “You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the Lord—even beyond the borders of Israel.'”
The Bible focuses on God's work among the Jewish people. King David and his descendants, Jerusalem and the temple, the history of the Jewish people and the visions of the prophets recorded in the sacred scrolls, these things form the great foundation for Jewish and Christian theology. There would be no Messiah and no gospel apart from the foundation of God's special work among the Jewish people. But God's work in the earth was not limited to the Jewish people. It was not limited to Palestine. It was not “contained” in the temple or the Jewish royal line or the Jewish nation. What God did among the Jews was a lesson for the world. What God promised the Jews, was promised, in effect, to the world. The warnings God gave the Jews applied to all humans, not just a particular group.
Obadiah's message concerning Edom is a dramatic illustration of God's engagement with the whole earth. All peoples are God's people. Which sometimes is good news and sometimes is bad news.
Obadiah's message, at least on the surface was bad news for the Edomites.
It began with an announcement of an approaching invasion.
“An envoy was sent to the nations saying, “Rise. Let us go up against Edom.”
God goes on to say through the prophet, “Look, I'm going to make you small among the nations. You will be utterly despised.”
Ouch!
The prophet continues, “Your pride has deceived you. You thought you were impregnable, invincible. Fact is, even if you soar like an eagle . . . even if you make your nest among the stars . . . God will bring you down.”
Just how bad is it going to get?
“If thieves raided your house, they would take only what they wanted. They wouldn't take EVERYTHING! But when judgment comes, you will indeed lose everything.
“What's more, your allies, the very people you have counted on for protection and cooperation, the people you yourself have helped, they will join the attackers. They will take part in the looting.”
Why was God pronouncing such a severe judgment on Edom? What crimes were they guilty of? Primarily this: Callous disregard of the desperate straits of their relatives.
The prophet speaks of the Edomite pride. Their pride was what got them into trouble. It appears that it was their pride that somehow allowed them to be sucked into the cruelty and treachery for which they were going to be punished. They were not punished for their pride. They were punished for the damnable evil their pride opened the door for.
When the Jews marched out of Egypt headed for the the land of Canaan, their natural route went through the land of Edom. God told the Jews, “Do not give any offense to the Edomites. They are your brothers. Buy any food you need. Pay for any water you use. I will not give you an inch of the Edomite territory” (Deuteronomy 2).
When Moses asked the Edomites for permission to cross their territory, promising to pay for everything they used or damaged, the Edomites refused. God told the Jews to go around instead of fighting.
Over the next couple of hundred years there were wars between the Edomites and the Jews but the prophets never allowed the Jews to forget the Edomites were relatives and had their own special relationship with God. That special relationship with God required a special respect for the Edomites.
The special relationship the Edomites had with God and with the Jews became the basis for stern judgment by the prophets when the Edomites acted badly toward the Jews. Special relationships never bring only privileges. They always also confer responsibilities.
Obadiah the prophet announced terrible disaster for Edom precisely because they failed to act in harmony with their special relationship. The Edomites failed to carry out the duties of relatives. When foreign forces attacked Jerusalem and broke through their defenses, the Edomites cheered. When Jewish refugees came looking for sanctuary, the Edomites captured them and sold them as slaves. The Edomites even joined the foreigners in looting Jewish homes.
In view of this cruelty, Obadiah thundered, God was going to act. “As you have done, it will be done to you. Your deeds will return on your own head.”
God would eventually rescue Jerusalem. God would turn back the foreign occupiers. God was going to restore the fortunes of the Jews. But because of their cruelty to their Jewish relatives, the Edomites were doomed.
It is a sober message.
One of the most recurrent themes in the Bible concerns God's response to evil and injustice. Bad things will happen. There is no glossing over this fact. There will be bad times and conflict and trouble and injustice and suffering. Then God will step in. Judgment day is coming.
The kingdom—the authority and power to order the world—will be turned over to God. God will rule. Bad news for the bad guys. Good news for the good guys.
The prophet Daniel described the ups and downs, in and outs of human political sytems. Kingdoms come and go, come and go. Then God steps in. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, a kingdom that will never be destroyed.
Hannah spoke of the grand reversal that is the hope of oppressed people through the ages: “The Lord will raise the poor from the dust and lift the needy from the manure pile, giving them seats among the nobility, and a legitimate claim to the throne.”
Mary sang of the same great reversal: “God will bring down the rulers from their thrones and lift up the humble.”
In the grand climax of Scripture, the Book of Revelation, the Apostle John writes that God will eliminate pain and grief. He will put an end to evil and evildoers and seat his people with himself on the eternal throne. God wins. And we with him.
In harmony with this symphony, Obadiah ends his book with these words: The kingdom will be the Lord's.
God wins. Justice wins. Faithfulness wins. Compassion wins.
How does this apply to our lives? First, remember, God is watching. If you are breaking faith, watch out.
Do not steal from your family. Don't shame your children. Don't disrespect your parents. Don't mock your spouse. Don't neglect your relatives. Don't cheer when annoying people get the trouble they deserve. God was watching the Edomites. Even though they were an insignificant nation hiding in the desert mountains in a remote part of the world, God was watching. And God is watching us. There are no free passes when we gain our pleasure at the cost of other's pain.
A second implication of the truth that God is watching: Take courage. If you have been wounded by others breaking faith with you, be sure that God was watching and he will see justice done. God saw what was done to you and God makes himself the guarantor of justice. Which frees you to go and live. Don't waste your life resenting those who have done you wrong. Don't allow evildoers to define your identity through engaging you in lingering hatred.
There are a couple of very different ways to use the doctrine of judgment. One is try to join God on the bench. When he points at people and pronounces them guilty, we are right there beside him, pointing with our crooked little fingers and squealing in our puny voices, “Guilty.” Then we busy ourselves looking for ways to make sure the guilty pays.
When we do this, the doctrine of judgment becomes an unbreakable chain tying us forever to our miserable past and our tormentors. As long as we hold ourselves responsible for making sure they experience justice our minds and hearts are possessed by our enemies.
This view of our connection to judgment is actually pictured here in the book of Obadiah. The prophet writes that the house of Jacob and the house of Joseph will be a fire burning up the house of Esau. Which is poetic language for warfare by the Jews against the Edomites. Over time Jewish writers and then supremely, Christian writers, moved away from this vision of human participation in judgment. It does not lead to happiness, fulfillment, satisfaction, health or, paradoxically, even to justice. We cannot create justice by punishing evildoers.
To be sure, in human society there is a place for punishment. Some actions must be met by forceful reaction. But even in civil society we have found it is better to have systems do this instead of individuals. That is why we have police and courts and prisons and fines. When individuals or families try to bring about justice by imposing sanctions on evil doers, usually what happens is that evil multiplies.
A much better use of the doctrine of judgment, at least on the personal level, is to turn over the business of judgment and enforcement to God and get on with living the rich life God intends for us. You are not a victim of abuse. You are not a neglected spouse. You are not an unloved child. You are not a betrayed lover. You are not a victim of robbery. In the eyes of God your identity does not come from the evil that happened to you. Instead you are nobility. You are the daughter or son of God. You belong to a family of winners, lovers, artists, scholars, saints, missionaries, doctors, saint-makers (i.e. parents and teachers).
Abuse, neglect, betrayal happened. They were evil events. They are not the definition of who you are. They are not guides for how you are to use your energy, creativity and mental power. Leave the evil ones to God. Your job is to live. To love. To thrive. To create. To worship and take delight in God and God's world.
Obadiah (speaking for God) is clear: Breaking faith. Gloating over the misfortune of others. Failing to practice compassion in the face of human suffering. All these things are wrong. They are evil. And God IS WATCHING. No one gets a free pass. Ever. So let God take care of it and you get on with doing what God created you for—loving, caring, growing, creating.
Letting go of evil, releasing it into the care of God applies in our personal lives and in the world of politics. Do not get caught up in the cultivation of rage that appears to be the common characteristic of both the political left and right. Rage is not a wise guide.
If you cultivate fury at political parties or political personalities, you are giving them too large a place in your life. Where you can voice an opinion about what policies you believe should be adopted by government, do so. Write your senators. Give money. Make phone calls. But don't get sucked into the culture of rage and outrage.
In both our personal lives and the worlds of politics and business and international relations the bedrock truth is the final words of Obadiah's prophecy. The kingdom will be the Lord's.
Since Jesus is going to win, don't get too bent out of shape if the world doesn't operate the way you think it should. Since Jesus is going to win, if you yourself experience a loss, even if it is a serious loss, take courage. Truth and justice are still on the path to victory.
Our job is to cooperate with God in his work toward that goal. Engage in business with an eye toward making the world a better place. Go to school and acquire skills or insight or ideas that you can use to bless people, to help people, to advance the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus is going to win. So will you, if you work with him.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
True Prophet, False Info
(This is a first draft. There are probably errors in it that I will correct later. It's 8:00 Sabbath morning. I've got to go get ready to preach.)
Things were going pretty good in Jonah's world. He had prophesied that his nation would prosper. And his prophecy had come true. The king at the time was a man named Jeroboam II. Under his reign, Israel, the northern Jewish kingdom whose capital was the city of Samaria, (not to be confused with the southern Jewish kingdom of Judah whose capital was Jerusalem) experienced the greatest wealth and territorial expansion in its history. Times were good—for the nation and for Jonah, the prophet.
Then he gets this really weird message from God: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”
When God referred to Nineveh as “the great city,” he was not exaggerating. Nineveh was the largest city on earth at the time. It had probably twice the population of Babylon. It was rich, famous, powerful. It made Samaria, the capital of Israel look like Nowheresville.
Nineveh was wicked. So wicked, it had come in for special notice from God.
Go to Nineveh, God said, and preach against it. Imagine a prophet in Iran being told, “Go to New York and preach against it.” Or imagine someone from Taiwan being told, “Go to Beijing and preach against it.” Not exactly a plum assignment. It sounded like a potential death warrant. At minimum it sounded like a pointless mission. Why go to the largest city on earth and announce to the population they were going to be destroyed?
Jonah understood God's call and then did the only smart thing to do. He went to the port city of Jaffe and bought a ticket headed the opposite direction from Nineveh. (The location of Tarshish is not positvely known. Ancient histories and modern scholars point to several different possible locations. One possible location is a place in what is now Spain. No matter, wherever it was, it away from Nineveh.)
The ship set sail. It was lovely weather for sailing. Every hour takes Jonah farther from Nineveh, farther from God's call. Jonah begins to relax. He has escaped. Nothing more to worry about.
He heads below deck for a nap.
While he's sleeping, a terrific squall blows up. It is so fierce the sailors begin heaving cargo overboard to lighten the ship.
It's not enough.
The sailors were all praying to their respective gods. This was no ordinary storm. It was like a divine fury. The captain notices Jonah is not on deck. He goes below and finds his passenger sleeping. He wakes him.
Get up and pray. We're lost.
As the storm rages on, someone suggests casting lots to see who it is that has brought the divine rage down on them. The lot singles out Jonah.
Okay, they demand, what's up? Who's responsible for all the trouble? What do you do? Who are you? Where do you come from? What tribe do you belong to?
“I'm a Hebrew. I worship the LORD, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the land.”
When they heard this they were mortified. They knew something of the reputation of Yahweh. He was the one who had brought Israel out of Egypt. He was known to be a fierce defender of justice.
Jonah had already told some of them that he was running away from his god, but they had no idea which god. Now they knew and they were terrified.
The waves were piling higher and higher. They were desperate.
What can we to make the sea calm?
Throw me overboard the prophet says. This storm is all my fault. If you throw me overboard, the sea will become calm.
The sailors refuse. They go back to trying to save the ship.
They do not refuse because they don't believe Jonah. They are sure he is a prophet. They are sure he is telling the truth. The storm is because of him. If they will just throw him overboard, the storm will abate. They will be saved. But they refuse.
Finally, the crew face the inescapable fact: Either they heave Jonah or the ship goes down and they all die. They reluctantly agree to do what the prophet has said.
They pray, asking God to forgive them, even though they are doing what he ordered them to do. Then they pick Jonah up and heave him overboard. The storm abates.
A message here: Even highly merciful people sometimes reach the place where they have to take action. No more! Enough is enough. Heave ho.
This holds in families, churches and societies. Justice should not be the first response to human failure and wrong doing. It must, however, be an available answer.
When there is strain in a marriage, splitting should not be the first response. But if there is abuse, at some point, there comes a time to give the abuser the heave ho.
We should not be putting every young person who foolishly plays around with drugs in jail. It's crazy that our jails should be full of young men whose crime is providing product for rich people who want to use drugs recreationally. Like the crew we should do everything we can to keep young, foolish people out of jail. We should look for ways to keep their futures open, their lives full of hope. But there comes a time when we have to give the heave ho.
I remember a woman in one of my first churches who was constantly obnoxious, cantankerous and mean. She was mean to kids. She made every board meeting miserable with her pugnacity. She offended visitors. We talked to her. Warned her. Then finally removed her from office.
It was amazing. Instantly, after we gave her the heave ho, the entire church became a peaceful, tranquil place. We worked with her over a four year period. We didn't throw her overboard immediately, but there came a time when we had done everything we could. Then we tossed her overboard and there was a great calm.
The sailors threw Jonah overboard. There was nothing else they could do.
But God was not through with him.
A great fish swallowed Jonah, then three days later spit him out on the beach. As Jonah crawled up the beach, he here's a voice. Jonah!
I wonder, did he groan? Was he thrilled?
I don't know.
But whatever he felt, he recognized the voice.
“Go to Nineveh and deliver the message I give you.”
So Jonah heads to Nineveh. Once there,he begins preaching the message God has given him: Forty days and Nineveh will be destroyed.”
Then the most astonishing thing happens. People listen. They begin praying. And repenting. The King hears the message. Instead of having the prophet kicked out of town or strung up, he issues a proclamation ordering the entire population to fast. They are to make even their animals fast. He removes his royal robes and publicly wears sackcloth. He descends from his throne and sits in a pile of dust.
Who knows, the king says, God may yet repent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.
Because we are Christians we are not surprised at what happens next. Nineveh is not destroyed. God repents. That is he changes his mind. The city is saved.
Jonah complains. Look God, isn't just what I said when I was still at home. I knew you were a gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who repents from sending calamity and disaster. Now, just let me die. You've made into a false prophet just like I was afraid of.
So where are you in this story?
Adventists have traditionally been Jonah. God called us to announce to the world: Forty days and the world is going to be destroyed. Well, not exactly forty days. But soon. Not more than five or ten years. This generation. Surely before the turn of the century.
That's what my ancestors were saying in the 1800s. That's what I said in the 1900s. And now look at us. We're false prophets. It didn't happen.
We think of ourselves as false prophets only because we misunderstand the job of a prophet. A prophet's job is not to give people special information. The work of a prophet is not to serve as a conduit between God and people for specialized knowledge.
In Deuteronomy, Moses specifically cautioned the people of Israel,
What I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it? Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. Deuteronomy 30:11-14
There is a great debate going on now in the church about the respective role of prophets and science. On one side people argue we must look to the prophets for information. The information the prophets give us, that is the truth. Others argue, no, we must look to science for trustworthy information.
The story of Jonah highlights the foolishness of this debate.
In this story the words of the prophet were false—if you evaluate them merely as information. Nineveh was not destroyed.
The perspective of science would have proven useless. The routine of life in Nineveh would not have changed. There would have been no change.
Nineveh did not need information. They needed motivation and inspiration. The words of Jonah served that purpose perfectly. The city repented.
So today, Christians need to spend little time fighting over sources of information. What people need, people inside and outside the church, is not more information. It is motivation and inspiration. It is help to do the very things we are trying to do, the things we wish we were doing, the things that are already written deeply in our hearts and even in our mouths.
What does that mean, written in our mouths? It means we affirm the things we need to do. We give lip service. Everyone I know says, I need to lose five pounds. They do not need me to tell them they need to lose weight. They know it. They say it. They need help to do it.
How many people in your world do not know that we are supposed to tell the truth or honor our parents or focus our sexual desires or earn a living or help our neighbors?
Some people and some cultures are less aware of God's ideals for humanity than others, still the greatest challenge for nearly everyone is not acquiring information, it is practicing it, living it.
Twice in this story Jonah eloquently affirms God's mercy and compassion. Jonah knows God is merciful and gracious. It's just that Jonah doesn't like it when God's mercy costs him something. Jonah even would have been happy for God to show mercy to the Ninevites, as long as God left Jonah out of it. But being a prophet means Jonah cannot be left out of it. And being a prophetic movement, we as a church cannot be left out of God's intention to show mercy to the world. We must enter into God's mercy mission, even if it means we look like “false prophets.” Our goal must not be proving that we are “true prophets.” Instead, our goal must be to cooperate with God in leading people to repentance, thus setting up an opportunity for God himself to repent. (At least that's the way the old King James Version put it before more modern translators realized the indelicacy of attributing repentance to God.)
Another application of this story: Jonah's condemnation of the Ninevites and his radical commitment to being a “true prophet” is linked to his own self-evaluation. He runs from God. When God brings him up short, by sending the storm, Jonah writes himself off. “Throw me overboard.”
The sailors were closer to the heart of God than the prophet was. They refused to throw him overboard. They did everything in their power to save him. Even after they knew he was running from God. Even after they knew his rebelliousness had cost them a lot of money (all that cargo overboard). Even after they knew he was putting their own lives at risk.
When Jonah faced up to the fact that he had run from God, he saw himself as useless. The heathen sailors still saw him as a human being.
When the sailors were finally compelled to throw him overboard, after doing everything they could to save him, God confirmed their instincts. God sent a special submarine to rescue the miserable prophet. Then God gave him a second chance.
Are you ready to give yourself a second chance? I hope so.
I leave you with the final picture in the book of Jonah:
Jonah is sitting outside the city waiting to see if it is going to be destroyed. He already knows it's a pointless wait. He's observed the repentance of the people. /He knows God is going to repent as well. Still he sits there and mopes.
God, ever the gracious one, causes a vine to miraculously grow in a day to cover a shelter of sticks the prophet has made. Jonah is pleased. The vine gives him shade and pleasure. I think there is a hint as well that he takes pleasure in it as a living thing. Maybe he was a plant lover like me.
In any case a day after the vine has grown and Jonah has enjoyed its life and shade, God sends a worm to eat the root of the vine and it dies. Jonah gets mad.
God confronts him. “What's up with the anger?” You didn't make the vine, so why do you feel like you have the right to be angry if it dies? Jonah mutters back.
God has the last word. “You lament the death of a simple vine.
Nineveh has more than a 120,000 people—people who are so simple they can't tell their right hand from their left hand. They are mere children morally speaking compared to you. And besides all these precious children, there are countless cows as well.
If you are distressed at the death of a vine can you really wonder about my reluctance to destroy all these children? Is saving your reputation really more important than saving these people?
Things were going pretty good in Jonah's world. He had prophesied that his nation would prosper. And his prophecy had come true. The king at the time was a man named Jeroboam II. Under his reign, Israel, the northern Jewish kingdom whose capital was the city of Samaria, (not to be confused with the southern Jewish kingdom of Judah whose capital was Jerusalem) experienced the greatest wealth and territorial expansion in its history. Times were good—for the nation and for Jonah, the prophet.
Then he gets this really weird message from God: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”
When God referred to Nineveh as “the great city,” he was not exaggerating. Nineveh was the largest city on earth at the time. It had probably twice the population of Babylon. It was rich, famous, powerful. It made Samaria, the capital of Israel look like Nowheresville.
Nineveh was wicked. So wicked, it had come in for special notice from God.
Go to Nineveh, God said, and preach against it. Imagine a prophet in Iran being told, “Go to New York and preach against it.” Or imagine someone from Taiwan being told, “Go to Beijing and preach against it.” Not exactly a plum assignment. It sounded like a potential death warrant. At minimum it sounded like a pointless mission. Why go to the largest city on earth and announce to the population they were going to be destroyed?
Jonah understood God's call and then did the only smart thing to do. He went to the port city of Jaffe and bought a ticket headed the opposite direction from Nineveh. (The location of Tarshish is not positvely known. Ancient histories and modern scholars point to several different possible locations. One possible location is a place in what is now Spain. No matter, wherever it was, it away from Nineveh.)
The ship set sail. It was lovely weather for sailing. Every hour takes Jonah farther from Nineveh, farther from God's call. Jonah begins to relax. He has escaped. Nothing more to worry about.
He heads below deck for a nap.
While he's sleeping, a terrific squall blows up. It is so fierce the sailors begin heaving cargo overboard to lighten the ship.
It's not enough.
The sailors were all praying to their respective gods. This was no ordinary storm. It was like a divine fury. The captain notices Jonah is not on deck. He goes below and finds his passenger sleeping. He wakes him.
Get up and pray. We're lost.
As the storm rages on, someone suggests casting lots to see who it is that has brought the divine rage down on them. The lot singles out Jonah.
Okay, they demand, what's up? Who's responsible for all the trouble? What do you do? Who are you? Where do you come from? What tribe do you belong to?
“I'm a Hebrew. I worship the LORD, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the land.”
When they heard this they were mortified. They knew something of the reputation of Yahweh. He was the one who had brought Israel out of Egypt. He was known to be a fierce defender of justice.
Jonah had already told some of them that he was running away from his god, but they had no idea which god. Now they knew and they were terrified.
The waves were piling higher and higher. They were desperate.
What can we to make the sea calm?
Throw me overboard the prophet says. This storm is all my fault. If you throw me overboard, the sea will become calm.
The sailors refuse. They go back to trying to save the ship.
They do not refuse because they don't believe Jonah. They are sure he is a prophet. They are sure he is telling the truth. The storm is because of him. If they will just throw him overboard, the storm will abate. They will be saved. But they refuse.
Finally, the crew face the inescapable fact: Either they heave Jonah or the ship goes down and they all die. They reluctantly agree to do what the prophet has said.
They pray, asking God to forgive them, even though they are doing what he ordered them to do. Then they pick Jonah up and heave him overboard. The storm abates.
A message here: Even highly merciful people sometimes reach the place where they have to take action. No more! Enough is enough. Heave ho.
This holds in families, churches and societies. Justice should not be the first response to human failure and wrong doing. It must, however, be an available answer.
When there is strain in a marriage, splitting should not be the first response. But if there is abuse, at some point, there comes a time to give the abuser the heave ho.
We should not be putting every young person who foolishly plays around with drugs in jail. It's crazy that our jails should be full of young men whose crime is providing product for rich people who want to use drugs recreationally. Like the crew we should do everything we can to keep young, foolish people out of jail. We should look for ways to keep their futures open, their lives full of hope. But there comes a time when we have to give the heave ho.
I remember a woman in one of my first churches who was constantly obnoxious, cantankerous and mean. She was mean to kids. She made every board meeting miserable with her pugnacity. She offended visitors. We talked to her. Warned her. Then finally removed her from office.
It was amazing. Instantly, after we gave her the heave ho, the entire church became a peaceful, tranquil place. We worked with her over a four year period. We didn't throw her overboard immediately, but there came a time when we had done everything we could. Then we tossed her overboard and there was a great calm.
The sailors threw Jonah overboard. There was nothing else they could do.
But God was not through with him.
A great fish swallowed Jonah, then three days later spit him out on the beach. As Jonah crawled up the beach, he here's a voice. Jonah!
I wonder, did he groan? Was he thrilled?
I don't know.
But whatever he felt, he recognized the voice.
“Go to Nineveh and deliver the message I give you.”
So Jonah heads to Nineveh. Once there,he begins preaching the message God has given him: Forty days and Nineveh will be destroyed.”
Then the most astonishing thing happens. People listen. They begin praying. And repenting. The King hears the message. Instead of having the prophet kicked out of town or strung up, he issues a proclamation ordering the entire population to fast. They are to make even their animals fast. He removes his royal robes and publicly wears sackcloth. He descends from his throne and sits in a pile of dust.
Who knows, the king says, God may yet repent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.
Because we are Christians we are not surprised at what happens next. Nineveh is not destroyed. God repents. That is he changes his mind. The city is saved.
Jonah complains. Look God, isn't just what I said when I was still at home. I knew you were a gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who repents from sending calamity and disaster. Now, just let me die. You've made into a false prophet just like I was afraid of.
So where are you in this story?
Adventists have traditionally been Jonah. God called us to announce to the world: Forty days and the world is going to be destroyed. Well, not exactly forty days. But soon. Not more than five or ten years. This generation. Surely before the turn of the century.
That's what my ancestors were saying in the 1800s. That's what I said in the 1900s. And now look at us. We're false prophets. It didn't happen.
We think of ourselves as false prophets only because we misunderstand the job of a prophet. A prophet's job is not to give people special information. The work of a prophet is not to serve as a conduit between God and people for specialized knowledge.
In Deuteronomy, Moses specifically cautioned the people of Israel,
What I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it? Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. Deuteronomy 30:11-14
There is a great debate going on now in the church about the respective role of prophets and science. On one side people argue we must look to the prophets for information. The information the prophets give us, that is the truth. Others argue, no, we must look to science for trustworthy information.
The story of Jonah highlights the foolishness of this debate.
In this story the words of the prophet were false—if you evaluate them merely as information. Nineveh was not destroyed.
The perspective of science would have proven useless. The routine of life in Nineveh would not have changed. There would have been no change.
Nineveh did not need information. They needed motivation and inspiration. The words of Jonah served that purpose perfectly. The city repented.
So today, Christians need to spend little time fighting over sources of information. What people need, people inside and outside the church, is not more information. It is motivation and inspiration. It is help to do the very things we are trying to do, the things we wish we were doing, the things that are already written deeply in our hearts and even in our mouths.
What does that mean, written in our mouths? It means we affirm the things we need to do. We give lip service. Everyone I know says, I need to lose five pounds. They do not need me to tell them they need to lose weight. They know it. They say it. They need help to do it.
How many people in your world do not know that we are supposed to tell the truth or honor our parents or focus our sexual desires or earn a living or help our neighbors?
Some people and some cultures are less aware of God's ideals for humanity than others, still the greatest challenge for nearly everyone is not acquiring information, it is practicing it, living it.
Twice in this story Jonah eloquently affirms God's mercy and compassion. Jonah knows God is merciful and gracious. It's just that Jonah doesn't like it when God's mercy costs him something. Jonah even would have been happy for God to show mercy to the Ninevites, as long as God left Jonah out of it. But being a prophet means Jonah cannot be left out of it. And being a prophetic movement, we as a church cannot be left out of God's intention to show mercy to the world. We must enter into God's mercy mission, even if it means we look like “false prophets.” Our goal must not be proving that we are “true prophets.” Instead, our goal must be to cooperate with God in leading people to repentance, thus setting up an opportunity for God himself to repent. (At least that's the way the old King James Version put it before more modern translators realized the indelicacy of attributing repentance to God.)
Another application of this story: Jonah's condemnation of the Ninevites and his radical commitment to being a “true prophet” is linked to his own self-evaluation. He runs from God. When God brings him up short, by sending the storm, Jonah writes himself off. “Throw me overboard.”
The sailors were closer to the heart of God than the prophet was. They refused to throw him overboard. They did everything in their power to save him. Even after they knew he was running from God. Even after they knew his rebelliousness had cost them a lot of money (all that cargo overboard). Even after they knew he was putting their own lives at risk.
When Jonah faced up to the fact that he had run from God, he saw himself as useless. The heathen sailors still saw him as a human being.
When the sailors were finally compelled to throw him overboard, after doing everything they could to save him, God confirmed their instincts. God sent a special submarine to rescue the miserable prophet. Then God gave him a second chance.
Are you ready to give yourself a second chance? I hope so.
I leave you with the final picture in the book of Jonah:
Jonah is sitting outside the city waiting to see if it is going to be destroyed. He already knows it's a pointless wait. He's observed the repentance of the people. /He knows God is going to repent as well. Still he sits there and mopes.
God, ever the gracious one, causes a vine to miraculously grow in a day to cover a shelter of sticks the prophet has made. Jonah is pleased. The vine gives him shade and pleasure. I think there is a hint as well that he takes pleasure in it as a living thing. Maybe he was a plant lover like me.
In any case a day after the vine has grown and Jonah has enjoyed its life and shade, God sends a worm to eat the root of the vine and it dies. Jonah gets mad.
God confronts him. “What's up with the anger?” You didn't make the vine, so why do you feel like you have the right to be angry if it dies? Jonah mutters back.
God has the last word. “You lament the death of a simple vine.
Nineveh has more than a 120,000 people—people who are so simple they can't tell their right hand from their left hand. They are mere children morally speaking compared to you. And besides all these precious children, there are countless cows as well.
If you are distressed at the death of a vine can you really wonder about my reluctance to destroy all these children? Is saving your reputation really more important than saving these people?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
What Now - Answering Fundamentalists, part 2
Sometimes we talk like the best days are in the past. The most glorious period for the Christian church was back in the days of the apostles. If only we could restore the church to its apostolic purity and power. Others focus on the Reformation. If we can just recover the theological purity and clarity of the Reformers, then everything will be all right. In some Adventist circles, it is common to pine for the church of the early Adventist pioneers. If people today were more like James and Ellen White, Joseph Bates, J. N. Andrews, Haskell and Loughboro, then we could finish the work God has given us to do and we could go home.
Listening to these laments for the better church of long ago, you can get the impression that the best theology is the oldest theology. The best music is the oldest music. The best habits for cultivating spiritual life are the oldest practices. The best moral and ethical standards are found in the oldest books. If only we could make ourselves more like those spiritual heroes of an earlier time, then all would be right. We would accomplish what God wants.
The problem with this view is that there is no golden age we can go back to.
While the Christians were still concentrated in Jerusalem and holding most of their large meetings in the temple, Ananias and Sapphira engaged in hypocritical posturing that was so bad God killed them (Acts 5).
In Acts 6 we read about problems in the church's structure. The inequities in the system got bad enough people began complaining loudly. Finally, the disciples called the church together and set up a new management system. Notice, this new management system was not prompted by prayerful strategic thinking. It was prompted by problems. By unhappiness with the present system.
In Acts 8, we read about a prominent convert trying to buy into the Apostolic power.
In Acts 9, we find out the church was not willing to accept Paul's conversion as genuine until Barnabas intervened.
In Acts 11, Peter was severely criticized because he had eaten dinner in the home of a Gentile.
In Acts 12, The church refuses to believe Rhoda when she reports that Peter has escaped from prison and is right that instant knocking at the front door.
In Acts 13, we read that John Mark who had come along on a missionary journey with Paul and Barnabas, dropped out of the trip. He couldn't handle the pressure.
In Acts 15, we read that Barnabas and Paul split up because Paul was unwilling to give John Mark a second chance.
To summarize, the apostolic church included hypocrites, complainers, critics, doubters, quitters and preachers who found it easier to preach grace than to live it.
The Reformers were, if anything, even more defective. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin approved the death penalty for Christians who disagreed with them. Both rejected Sabbath-keeping.
The early Adventist pioneers were hard-driven people who knew hardly anything of grace. They set dates for the second coming in contradiction of the explicit words of Jesus. Most of them rejected the deity of Jesus. They ate pork and squirrels and other unclean meat.
Now here is the good news. God used the apostolic church to give an explosive start to the spread of the gospel. God used the Reformers to help liberate Christianity from the tyranny of papal authority and Catholic soteriology. God used the Adventist pioneers to develop a more wholisitic theology that eventually brought to light a profound understanding of the love of God.
In each of these instances, the individuals and the church as a community had obvious flaws. And just as obviously God used them to advance his cause in the world. God has a work for us, too. Apparently, God does not need a perfect church to do his work.
Our job is not to “recover” some putative purity, integrity or orthodoxy of the past. Our goal is not to “get back” to some spiritual status achieved by our forebears. Rather, our job is to cooperate with Jesus in “doing even greater things” than he did (John 14:12). Our job is cooperate with God's mission in the world (Matthew 28:19; Acts 1:8). Our calling is to pay attention to God's plans for now.
I like to say that our proof texts are Micah 6:8 and Matthew 22:37. The value of these texts is in our acting them out. One of the positive characteristics of fundamentalism is a commitment to action, to implementation of belief. It is not enough to have an idea in your head, that idea is to be fully implemented in life. In this fundamentalists have it exactly right. We who think we have "larger" ideas ought to demonstrate those ideas in real world action. Then it will be true that the best days are now.
Listening to these laments for the better church of long ago, you can get the impression that the best theology is the oldest theology. The best music is the oldest music. The best habits for cultivating spiritual life are the oldest practices. The best moral and ethical standards are found in the oldest books. If only we could make ourselves more like those spiritual heroes of an earlier time, then all would be right. We would accomplish what God wants.
The problem with this view is that there is no golden age we can go back to.
While the Christians were still concentrated in Jerusalem and holding most of their large meetings in the temple, Ananias and Sapphira engaged in hypocritical posturing that was so bad God killed them (Acts 5).
In Acts 6 we read about problems in the church's structure. The inequities in the system got bad enough people began complaining loudly. Finally, the disciples called the church together and set up a new management system. Notice, this new management system was not prompted by prayerful strategic thinking. It was prompted by problems. By unhappiness with the present system.
In Acts 8, we read about a prominent convert trying to buy into the Apostolic power.
In Acts 9, we find out the church was not willing to accept Paul's conversion as genuine until Barnabas intervened.
In Acts 11, Peter was severely criticized because he had eaten dinner in the home of a Gentile.
In Acts 12, The church refuses to believe Rhoda when she reports that Peter has escaped from prison and is right that instant knocking at the front door.
In Acts 13, we read that John Mark who had come along on a missionary journey with Paul and Barnabas, dropped out of the trip. He couldn't handle the pressure.
In Acts 15, we read that Barnabas and Paul split up because Paul was unwilling to give John Mark a second chance.
To summarize, the apostolic church included hypocrites, complainers, critics, doubters, quitters and preachers who found it easier to preach grace than to live it.
The Reformers were, if anything, even more defective. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin approved the death penalty for Christians who disagreed with them. Both rejected Sabbath-keeping.
The early Adventist pioneers were hard-driven people who knew hardly anything of grace. They set dates for the second coming in contradiction of the explicit words of Jesus. Most of them rejected the deity of Jesus. They ate pork and squirrels and other unclean meat.
Now here is the good news. God used the apostolic church to give an explosive start to the spread of the gospel. God used the Reformers to help liberate Christianity from the tyranny of papal authority and Catholic soteriology. God used the Adventist pioneers to develop a more wholisitic theology that eventually brought to light a profound understanding of the love of God.
In each of these instances, the individuals and the church as a community had obvious flaws. And just as obviously God used them to advance his cause in the world. God has a work for us, too. Apparently, God does not need a perfect church to do his work.
Our job is not to “recover” some putative purity, integrity or orthodoxy of the past. Our goal is not to “get back” to some spiritual status achieved by our forebears. Rather, our job is to cooperate with Jesus in “doing even greater things” than he did (John 14:12). Our job is cooperate with God's mission in the world (Matthew 28:19; Acts 1:8). Our calling is to pay attention to God's plans for now.
I like to say that our proof texts are Micah 6:8 and Matthew 22:37. The value of these texts is in our acting them out. One of the positive characteristics of fundamentalism is a commitment to action, to implementation of belief. It is not enough to have an idea in your head, that idea is to be fully implemented in life. In this fundamentalists have it exactly right. We who think we have "larger" ideas ought to demonstrate those ideas in real world action. Then it will be true that the best days are now.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Answering Fundamentalists
Sermon for North Hill, July 3, 2010
The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, . . .”
Most Christians in America happily agree that all human beings are created equal. This is TRUTH beyond reasonable doubt. Most Christians even agree with the claim that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
We assume these “self-evident” truths are perfectly aligned with the clear teaching of the Bible. In reality, these words, however grand and eloquent, set forth a radical departure from the picture of government found in the Bible. In the Bible there is only one form of government recognized as legitimate: monarchy. (Theocracy is not an exception. In a theocracy, God is the absolute monarch.)
When the American innovators challenged the legitimacy of the reign of King George, they did not do so on the basis of the plain meaning of the Word of God. They did it on the basis of “self-evident truth” which contradicted the Apostle Paul who explicitly stated that any earthly authority system was set in place by God and the proper role of Christians was respect and obedience. (Paul did not qualify his statement to make exceptions for “unworthy” monarchs.
In short, the American founders dramatically rejected the claims of fundamentalism. They rejected the Bible as their sole source of authority. American Christians who celebrate their privileges and rights as citizens of “the greatest country on earth” are tacitly embracing a rationalistic, humanistic reading of the Bible. The United States was founded by men who insisted that we must interpret Scripture in line with human need and dignity. In their case, that meant rejecting a thousands-of-years-old understanding of the rightful authority of kings.
So, on this Fourth of July weekend, let's consider the right response to fundamentalists.
First, three stories:
Abraham
God told Abraham he was going to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their wickedness. God did not ask Abraham for his opinion. God did not invite Abraham to critique the destruction plan. Abraham did it any way. In fact, Abraham challenged God, accusing him of injustice if God went ahead with his plan.
God did not rebuke Abraham. God agreed with him. God even allowed Abraham to set the conditions that had to be met if the cities were going to be destroyed. When it turned out that the cities met even Abraham's conditions for destruction—fewer than ten righteous people—God honored Abraham's scruples by sending angels to evacuate Abraham's four relatives before the fire fell. At least this is one way to read the story. (Genesis 18, 19).
Moses
God gave Moses a direct command: “Get out of my way so I can destroy these miserable people and start over!”
Moses understood. God was not diffident or ambiguous. God gave Moses a direct, clear, explicit, personal communication, in his own native language. Moses heard what God said, then argued. “God, I don't think you really want to do that.” Later, Moses upped his protest. “I will not step aside. If you insist on taking out these people, you're going to have to go through me. If you're going to kill them, you've got to kill me, first.”
Curiously, Moses the man who defied God to his face, is celebrated as the human being who enjoyed the most intimate access to God. The Bible says no one can see God and live. It also says that in contrast to all other people, God spoke with Moses face-to-face. (Exodus 32; 33:11)
Peter
In Acts 15, the leaders of the church are having an intense debate over how to relate to the crowds of non-Jews who are flooding into the church. Should the church require these new believers to embrace all the rules God had given to the Hebrews? God had been quite explicit: the rules regarding food, clothes, circumcision, sacrifices, sexual purity, the Sabbath, the annual feasts were for all time. They were to last forever. (Multiple references in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. See particularly Dt. 29:29.)
You would think the explicit teachings of Scripture would have ended all discussion. God had spoken. That settled it. But not for Peter. Instead, Peter argued the system of rules should be abandoned, at least for new converts, for two reasons: 1. The system had proved to be an unbearable burden. 2. God had poured his spirit out on believers who did not practice the rules, showing divine approval for them as non-observant believers. Note, that Peter did not attempt to quote other Bible passages to support his views. Rather he advocated overturning the longstanding understanding of God's word by citing the history of God's people.
The church leaders, who were mostly very strict Jews, agreed with Peter. They did not themselves give up their classic Jewish practices. They did, however, agree that many of the specific requirements detailed in the Word of God should no longer be taught as obligatory for new believers.
It was a dramatic rejection of fundamentalism.
Definition of Fundamentalist
What is a fundamentalist? The term is used in various ways in different contexts. In this sermon, when I speak of “fundamentalists” or “fundamentalism” I have two dominant characteristics in mind. First, is a radical commitment to a single text as the only source of authority. In Christianity, this is exemplified by the slogan, The Bible and Bible Only. Or the bumper sticker, “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” The second characteristic of fundamentalists is their belief that the best religion is that which is most similar to the pure, authentic religion of their spiritual forebears. So Adventist fundamentalists want to “restore” the apostolic church. They want to “return” to the pure faith of the Adventist pioneers. For fundamentalists, any discernible change from the practices or beliefs of their spiritual forebears is necessarily a movement away from God's ideal.
I dissent from both of these convictions. Today, I will examine “The Bible and Bible Only.” Next week, I'll consider “The Faith of the Pioneers.”
Did you understand what God said? Are you sure?
Adventists have always been people of the book. That should always be true. But BBO is not realistic. It is not a prescription for spiritual or moral health. Here's why.
Fundamentalists couch their claim to authority as mere obedience to the plain statements of God. The Bible is God's word. Since God has spoken plainly in his Word, our only proper response is unhesitating acquiescence and obedience. But the examples of Abraham and Moses flatly contradict this approach to spiritual life. God spoke. Abraham and Moses argued. And God changed his mind!
God gave rules in Scripture. A thousand years or so later, Peter stood up in church council and said, “Let's change the rules.”
If Abraham and Moses honored their friendship with God by arguing with his direct, explicit, personal communication, why would we think the children of Abraham ought to be less active in their engagement with the written word of God. If Moses and Abraham advanced the cause of God by arguing with his direct, personal communication, surely we would do well to argue with the text, which given the passage of time, the change of culture, etc., is far more susceptible to misunderstanding. Mindless obedience is not what God desires.
If Peter demonstrated his sensitivity to the leading of God and the mission of Jesus by calling for the annulling of centuries-old rules, why wouldn't contemporary disciples raise questions about elements of the biblical text or its classic interpretation that appear to interfere with the present work of God?
When fundamentalists quote the Bible in support of ideas that contradict the wisdom that flows out of church history, science or mature human experience, our first question should be, “Why are you so sure you understand what God said?” This question is given a sharp point when we consider the relationships among fundamentalists. If the Bible was as unambiguous and clear as fundamentalists claim, we would expect BBO to produce unity. Au contraire.
BBO and Religious Conflicts
One curious feature of fundamentalism is the fierce conflicts that commonly characterize its proponents. Sunnis and Shias, both of whom regard the Quran as the inerrant, infallible revelation of God's will, bomb each other. People from Weimar and people from Hartland anathematize each other for misreading Ellen White. Southern Baptists and Adventists condemn each other for misinterpreting the Bible.
Koranteng-Pipim and Ratzlaff, a case study on the limits of The Bible and Bible Only (BBO)
Dale Ratzlaff used to be an Adventist academy Bible teacher. He was a devout, conservative Adventist. Then he changed his mind. Now he has a large ministry with a congregation, a web site and print journal all devoted to helping people “escape” the erroneous theology and unwholesome culture of Adventism. Dale proposes to help people shackled by Adventism by pointing them to a true theology that is based on the Bible and Bible Only. (This BBO theology just happens to be the theology of classic evangelicalism.)
Samuel Koranteng-Pipim earned his first degree in engineering. Later he earned an M. Div. and a Ph. D. in theology from Andrews university. His mission is to help Adventists rediscover the truthfulness and profound value of traditional, classic Adventism. The key to this discovery is BBO.
So both Dale and Samuel believe the remedy for all that ails Adventism is the radical embracing of BBO. Each believes that a genuine commitment to BBO will lead all Adventists to agree with him. Yet a devout commitment to BBO has led them to emphatically contradictory positions. Instead of leading to unity, BBO has fueled their mutual rejection. (I, of course, think Samuel is far closer to a "whole-Bible" theology than is Dale. But my point is, unless I'm willing to dismiss one of them as dishonest, I cannot distinguish between them by their relative commitment to BBO.)
Goldstein and Patzer, a second case study on the limits of BBO to produce unity.
Clifford Goldstein is a popular voice among Adventist fundamentalists. He bombastically calls for the preservation of the Church's classic teachings regarding Creation. Any theologian or church-employed scientist who denies the truth of the classic Adventist understanding of 6 days/6000 years should have the courage to resign. Clifford does not take this stand because he wants to be mean or harsh. He is fighting to protect the integrity and purity of his church. He is fighting to defend the single point source of truth—the Bible.
Goldstein's reverence for Scripture was shared by the late North Pacific Union president, Jere Patzer. Patzer wrote more than one editorial in the Gleaner detailing his convictions regarding creation. In one (March, 203), he gave special attention to “the fourth day.” On that day, God created the sun and moon and stars. This is the plain meaning of the text. Patzer was aware that some Adventists disputed this and instead believed God created the solar system billions of years before the events of creation week. Patzer worried that such a view was a dangerous compromise of Bible authority.
While I do not recall seeing Goldstein defend this view in the pages of the Adventist Review, I have personally heard him (and Davidson and Rodriguez) defend this “dangerous view” as the correct view. In fact, no conservative Adventist theologian I know of agrees with Patzer. So much for unity based on a commitment to BBO.
If Not Fundamentalism, Then What?
So if we don't define our view as BBO, what is our stance in regard to the Bible and living a godly life?
Mercy not Sacrifice
We who are not fundamentalists insist we are actually more faithful to the Bible than they are. We argue the continued pursuit of truth and justice is more in line what the Bible is about than attempting to impose in our world all of the specific strictures and ideas voiced in the Bible. We gladly honor the Bible as the Adventist constitution and case book. We never conduct our arguments in the absence of the Biblical text. But we deny that there is a single, incontrovertible meaning that all devout, reasonable people will recognize. Our interpretation of the text is shaped by our own histories and cultures, our temperaments and education. This does not remove the Bible from its privileged place as the greatest authority among us. It does make us hesitant to make our understanding of the Bible the basis of harsh action toward others. We unabashedly give priority to the Bible passages that highlight compassion, justice and humility as the greatest considerations of all. When obedience to the “plain meaning” of the text conflicts with compassionate regard for persons, we choose compassion over rigorous enforcement.
To quote Jesus (and Hosea): God prefers mercy not sacrifice (Matthew 12:7).
Our response to fundamentalists is to claim partnership with Abraham, Moses and Peter who discerned God's will by paying attention to what brought health, hope and healing to people. Abraham, Moses and Peter trusted more in their ability make sense of human need than they did in their capacity to understand the infallible word and will of God.
If our first response to fundamentalists is: How can you be so sure you understand perfectly what God has said, our second response is to cite Abraham and Moses as our case studies and declare, “Even if you do understand what God said, you are going to have to go through us to get at the people you wish to hammer.”
When fundamentalists clamor for the firing of professors, for the subjugation of women, for the spanking of children, for the demonization of homosexual orientation, we ought to stand squarely in their path. If Moses would interpose his own body between God and the miserable rebels in Israel, the least we can do is interpose our bodies between the devout fundamentalists who are concerned for the purity of the church and the various people groups who are their targets.
But we must not stop with merely interfering with the destructive aspect of fundamentalism. We must cooperate with its positive themes. All fundamentalisms strongly affirm the importance of morality and compassion. While this devotion to compassion may be obscured by other harsher elements, it is always there. And we who protest against the negative elements of fundamentalism must vigorously, actively engage in the very acts of compassion and creative love that fundamentalism's best people and ideas call for.
We who are not fundamentalists have our own proof texts: Micah 6:8 and Matthew 22:37-39. And if we do not actually live out the ideals voiced in these texts, our critiques of fundamentalists will be tragically misplaced.
Our final answer to fundamentalists is to invite them to join us doing justice, loving mercy, walking humbly with God. Or as Jesus put it, loving God with our entire being and our neighbor (including the fundamentalist) as ourselves.
The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, . . .”
Most Christians in America happily agree that all human beings are created equal. This is TRUTH beyond reasonable doubt. Most Christians even agree with the claim that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
We assume these “self-evident” truths are perfectly aligned with the clear teaching of the Bible. In reality, these words, however grand and eloquent, set forth a radical departure from the picture of government found in the Bible. In the Bible there is only one form of government recognized as legitimate: monarchy. (Theocracy is not an exception. In a theocracy, God is the absolute monarch.)
When the American innovators challenged the legitimacy of the reign of King George, they did not do so on the basis of the plain meaning of the Word of God. They did it on the basis of “self-evident truth” which contradicted the Apostle Paul who explicitly stated that any earthly authority system was set in place by God and the proper role of Christians was respect and obedience. (Paul did not qualify his statement to make exceptions for “unworthy” monarchs.
In short, the American founders dramatically rejected the claims of fundamentalism. They rejected the Bible as their sole source of authority. American Christians who celebrate their privileges and rights as citizens of “the greatest country on earth” are tacitly embracing a rationalistic, humanistic reading of the Bible. The United States was founded by men who insisted that we must interpret Scripture in line with human need and dignity. In their case, that meant rejecting a thousands-of-years-old understanding of the rightful authority of kings.
So, on this Fourth of July weekend, let's consider the right response to fundamentalists.
First, three stories:
Abraham
God told Abraham he was going to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their wickedness. God did not ask Abraham for his opinion. God did not invite Abraham to critique the destruction plan. Abraham did it any way. In fact, Abraham challenged God, accusing him of injustice if God went ahead with his plan.
God did not rebuke Abraham. God agreed with him. God even allowed Abraham to set the conditions that had to be met if the cities were going to be destroyed. When it turned out that the cities met even Abraham's conditions for destruction—fewer than ten righteous people—God honored Abraham's scruples by sending angels to evacuate Abraham's four relatives before the fire fell. At least this is one way to read the story. (Genesis 18, 19).
Moses
God gave Moses a direct command: “Get out of my way so I can destroy these miserable people and start over!”
Moses understood. God was not diffident or ambiguous. God gave Moses a direct, clear, explicit, personal communication, in his own native language. Moses heard what God said, then argued. “God, I don't think you really want to do that.” Later, Moses upped his protest. “I will not step aside. If you insist on taking out these people, you're going to have to go through me. If you're going to kill them, you've got to kill me, first.”
Curiously, Moses the man who defied God to his face, is celebrated as the human being who enjoyed the most intimate access to God. The Bible says no one can see God and live. It also says that in contrast to all other people, God spoke with Moses face-to-face. (Exodus 32; 33:11)
Peter
In Acts 15, the leaders of the church are having an intense debate over how to relate to the crowds of non-Jews who are flooding into the church. Should the church require these new believers to embrace all the rules God had given to the Hebrews? God had been quite explicit: the rules regarding food, clothes, circumcision, sacrifices, sexual purity, the Sabbath, the annual feasts were for all time. They were to last forever. (Multiple references in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. See particularly Dt. 29:29.)
You would think the explicit teachings of Scripture would have ended all discussion. God had spoken. That settled it. But not for Peter. Instead, Peter argued the system of rules should be abandoned, at least for new converts, for two reasons: 1. The system had proved to be an unbearable burden. 2. God had poured his spirit out on believers who did not practice the rules, showing divine approval for them as non-observant believers. Note, that Peter did not attempt to quote other Bible passages to support his views. Rather he advocated overturning the longstanding understanding of God's word by citing the history of God's people.
The church leaders, who were mostly very strict Jews, agreed with Peter. They did not themselves give up their classic Jewish practices. They did, however, agree that many of the specific requirements detailed in the Word of God should no longer be taught as obligatory for new believers.
It was a dramatic rejection of fundamentalism.
Definition of Fundamentalist
What is a fundamentalist? The term is used in various ways in different contexts. In this sermon, when I speak of “fundamentalists” or “fundamentalism” I have two dominant characteristics in mind. First, is a radical commitment to a single text as the only source of authority. In Christianity, this is exemplified by the slogan, The Bible and Bible Only. Or the bumper sticker, “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” The second characteristic of fundamentalists is their belief that the best religion is that which is most similar to the pure, authentic religion of their spiritual forebears. So Adventist fundamentalists want to “restore” the apostolic church. They want to “return” to the pure faith of the Adventist pioneers. For fundamentalists, any discernible change from the practices or beliefs of their spiritual forebears is necessarily a movement away from God's ideal.
I dissent from both of these convictions. Today, I will examine “The Bible and Bible Only.” Next week, I'll consider “The Faith of the Pioneers.”
Did you understand what God said? Are you sure?
Adventists have always been people of the book. That should always be true. But BBO is not realistic. It is not a prescription for spiritual or moral health. Here's why.
Fundamentalists couch their claim to authority as mere obedience to the plain statements of God. The Bible is God's word. Since God has spoken plainly in his Word, our only proper response is unhesitating acquiescence and obedience. But the examples of Abraham and Moses flatly contradict this approach to spiritual life. God spoke. Abraham and Moses argued. And God changed his mind!
God gave rules in Scripture. A thousand years or so later, Peter stood up in church council and said, “Let's change the rules.”
If Abraham and Moses honored their friendship with God by arguing with his direct, explicit, personal communication, why would we think the children of Abraham ought to be less active in their engagement with the written word of God. If Moses and Abraham advanced the cause of God by arguing with his direct, personal communication, surely we would do well to argue with the text, which given the passage of time, the change of culture, etc., is far more susceptible to misunderstanding. Mindless obedience is not what God desires.
If Peter demonstrated his sensitivity to the leading of God and the mission of Jesus by calling for the annulling of centuries-old rules, why wouldn't contemporary disciples raise questions about elements of the biblical text or its classic interpretation that appear to interfere with the present work of God?
When fundamentalists quote the Bible in support of ideas that contradict the wisdom that flows out of church history, science or mature human experience, our first question should be, “Why are you so sure you understand what God said?” This question is given a sharp point when we consider the relationships among fundamentalists. If the Bible was as unambiguous and clear as fundamentalists claim, we would expect BBO to produce unity. Au contraire.
BBO and Religious Conflicts
One curious feature of fundamentalism is the fierce conflicts that commonly characterize its proponents. Sunnis and Shias, both of whom regard the Quran as the inerrant, infallible revelation of God's will, bomb each other. People from Weimar and people from Hartland anathematize each other for misreading Ellen White. Southern Baptists and Adventists condemn each other for misinterpreting the Bible.
Koranteng-Pipim and Ratzlaff, a case study on the limits of The Bible and Bible Only (BBO)
Dale Ratzlaff used to be an Adventist academy Bible teacher. He was a devout, conservative Adventist. Then he changed his mind. Now he has a large ministry with a congregation, a web site and print journal all devoted to helping people “escape” the erroneous theology and unwholesome culture of Adventism. Dale proposes to help people shackled by Adventism by pointing them to a true theology that is based on the Bible and Bible Only. (This BBO theology just happens to be the theology of classic evangelicalism.)
Samuel Koranteng-Pipim earned his first degree in engineering. Later he earned an M. Div. and a Ph. D. in theology from Andrews university. His mission is to help Adventists rediscover the truthfulness and profound value of traditional, classic Adventism. The key to this discovery is BBO.
So both Dale and Samuel believe the remedy for all that ails Adventism is the radical embracing of BBO. Each believes that a genuine commitment to BBO will lead all Adventists to agree with him. Yet a devout commitment to BBO has led them to emphatically contradictory positions. Instead of leading to unity, BBO has fueled their mutual rejection. (I, of course, think Samuel is far closer to a "whole-Bible" theology than is Dale. But my point is, unless I'm willing to dismiss one of them as dishonest, I cannot distinguish between them by their relative commitment to BBO.)
Goldstein and Patzer, a second case study on the limits of BBO to produce unity.
Clifford Goldstein is a popular voice among Adventist fundamentalists. He bombastically calls for the preservation of the Church's classic teachings regarding Creation. Any theologian or church-employed scientist who denies the truth of the classic Adventist understanding of 6 days/6000 years should have the courage to resign. Clifford does not take this stand because he wants to be mean or harsh. He is fighting to protect the integrity and purity of his church. He is fighting to defend the single point source of truth—the Bible.
Goldstein's reverence for Scripture was shared by the late North Pacific Union president, Jere Patzer. Patzer wrote more than one editorial in the Gleaner detailing his convictions regarding creation. In one (March, 203), he gave special attention to “the fourth day.” On that day, God created the sun and moon and stars. This is the plain meaning of the text. Patzer was aware that some Adventists disputed this and instead believed God created the solar system billions of years before the events of creation week. Patzer worried that such a view was a dangerous compromise of Bible authority.
While I do not recall seeing Goldstein defend this view in the pages of the Adventist Review, I have personally heard him (and Davidson and Rodriguez) defend this “dangerous view” as the correct view. In fact, no conservative Adventist theologian I know of agrees with Patzer. So much for unity based on a commitment to BBO.
If Not Fundamentalism, Then What?
So if we don't define our view as BBO, what is our stance in regard to the Bible and living a godly life?
Mercy not Sacrifice
We who are not fundamentalists insist we are actually more faithful to the Bible than they are. We argue the continued pursuit of truth and justice is more in line what the Bible is about than attempting to impose in our world all of the specific strictures and ideas voiced in the Bible. We gladly honor the Bible as the Adventist constitution and case book. We never conduct our arguments in the absence of the Biblical text. But we deny that there is a single, incontrovertible meaning that all devout, reasonable people will recognize. Our interpretation of the text is shaped by our own histories and cultures, our temperaments and education. This does not remove the Bible from its privileged place as the greatest authority among us. It does make us hesitant to make our understanding of the Bible the basis of harsh action toward others. We unabashedly give priority to the Bible passages that highlight compassion, justice and humility as the greatest considerations of all. When obedience to the “plain meaning” of the text conflicts with compassionate regard for persons, we choose compassion over rigorous enforcement.
To quote Jesus (and Hosea): God prefers mercy not sacrifice (Matthew 12:7).
Our response to fundamentalists is to claim partnership with Abraham, Moses and Peter who discerned God's will by paying attention to what brought health, hope and healing to people. Abraham, Moses and Peter trusted more in their ability make sense of human need than they did in their capacity to understand the infallible word and will of God.
If our first response to fundamentalists is: How can you be so sure you understand perfectly what God has said, our second response is to cite Abraham and Moses as our case studies and declare, “Even if you do understand what God said, you are going to have to go through us to get at the people you wish to hammer.”
When fundamentalists clamor for the firing of professors, for the subjugation of women, for the spanking of children, for the demonization of homosexual orientation, we ought to stand squarely in their path. If Moses would interpose his own body between God and the miserable rebels in Israel, the least we can do is interpose our bodies between the devout fundamentalists who are concerned for the purity of the church and the various people groups who are their targets.
But we must not stop with merely interfering with the destructive aspect of fundamentalism. We must cooperate with its positive themes. All fundamentalisms strongly affirm the importance of morality and compassion. While this devotion to compassion may be obscured by other harsher elements, it is always there. And we who protest against the negative elements of fundamentalism must vigorously, actively engage in the very acts of compassion and creative love that fundamentalism's best people and ideas call for.
We who are not fundamentalists have our own proof texts: Micah 6:8 and Matthew 22:37-39. And if we do not actually live out the ideals voiced in these texts, our critiques of fundamentalists will be tragically misplaced.
Our final answer to fundamentalists is to invite them to join us doing justice, loving mercy, walking humbly with God. Or as Jesus put it, loving God with our entire being and our neighbor (including the fundamentalist) as ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
