Friday, August 3, 2012

New Buckets


Sermon for North Hill Adventist Fellowship
Sabbath, August 4, 2012
Texts: Matthew 9:17, Mark 2:22, Luke 5:37

Berry season lasts most of the summer at our house. Strawberries, then raspberries. Now, it's blueberries. In a few weeks it will be blackberry season.

To pick berries and pop them in my mouth requires no equipment, no container. But the minute I dream of sharing berries or putting some in the freezer, I must have a container. And, since my goal every year is to put 50 quarts of blackberries in the freezer, I give a lot of thought to containers. For several years I tried different bowls and kettles. Then I discovered the perfect container for picking. It's a blue enameled camp kettle with brackets on each side to which I can attach a strap that I sling over my shoulder. Using this bucket I have both hands free and I have complete freedom of movement.

The treasure is the berries. I'm not out there picking berries for the pleasure of carrying around my blue enamel kettle. I'm out there for the treasure hiding among the thorns of the blackberry canes. Still, the container is absolutely indispensable. And the right container is much better than all the others I have tried.

The proper container is rigid enough to protect the berries from crushing as I work around the vines. The strap allows me to forget the kettle while I'm picking and give full attention to the berries. The container to be small enough not to get in the way and large enough so I don't waste too much time transferring berries from my picking container to the large holding bowl. The treasure is the berries. But the bucket matters.

Curiously, even though I find my blue enamel kettle with its strap the perfect container for berries, my daughter uses something completely different. Her container has no strap. And it is definitely not a blue enamel kettle. What's even more curious is that in spite of the fact that I have not been able to persuade my daughter that a bucket with a strap is the best way to go, she picks faster than I do.

Religion is the bucket for spirituality. The bucket matters. What's in the bucket matters even more. Sometimes a new generation discovers a container that works better than dad's bucket, at least in their hands.


Recently I was visiting with a young man who grew up in the church. He attended Adventist schools. He went to Sabbath School and church every week. He participated in Pathfinders (the Adventist version of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts). Then after he got out of college he discovered he could do quite well without church. He had a woman in his life he loved. He had a job that was interesting. He was healthy. He didn't believe everything he heard in the church of his childhood. But now he was thinking about having kids. He found himself wondering just what values, beliefs and practices from his childhood he still believed in. What did he want to pass on to his kids?

Flat out rejection of everything in the religion of his childhood would be silly. On the other hand he could not imagine himself simply stepping back into the old traditions, lock, stock and barrel. He wanted to keep what was true, beautiful, and helpful. He wanted to jettison anything that was faulty or out of date or counterproductive.

Our conversation got me thinking. Of all the traditions the church has embraced over the last 150-plus years which ones do we keep? Which ones do we modify? Which ones do we jettison?

Some people imagine that true religion should be changeless. Let's just do it the way Jesus and the disciples did. But Jesus himself emphatically rejected the notion of a changeless religion.

Consider this:

Once when John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, some people came to Jesus and asked, "Why don't your disciples fast like John's disciples and the Pharisees do? Jesus replied, "Do wedding guests fast while celebrating with the groom? Of course not. They can't fast while the groom is with them. But someday the groom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. "Besides, who would patch old clothing with new cloth? For the new patch would shrink and rip away from the old cloth, leaving an even bigger tear than before. "And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. For the wine would burst the wineskins, and the wine and the skins would both be lost. New wine calls for new wineskins." Mark 2:18-22. (The same story is told in Matthew 9:14-17 and Luke 5:33-39.).

People observed Jesus' disciples violating some of the standard rules for devout religious living. Jewish religious practice had been worked out by rabbis over hundreds of years of intense Bible study and prayer. These practices were intended to help people keep in mind God's holiness and their special relationship with him. The goal of the rabbis was to ensure the people never again fell into the evil ways that had led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the banishment of the Jewish people to Babylong. The rabbis aimed to help live pure lives and obey all God's laws to the letter, so life would go well with them.

It is vital to understand that the traditions the disciples were ignoring had been designed to serve a high and noble purpose. The disciples' casual disregard for ancient habits was scandalous. The critics, the advocates of “high standards,” could not understand how someone like Jesus would tolerate such flippant disregard of holy tradition. One of the specific traditions ignored by the disciples was systematic fasting. What they were doing would be like a Muslim eating lunch during Ramadan or an Adventist bringing steak to potluck. To the critics it appeared to be crass secularization.

Jesus' answer to the critics: People at a wedding reception don't fast. They party. Fasting comes later.

Jesus blithely dismisses a couple hundred years of tradition by saying it didn't fit the present situation. Jesus agreed that fasting had a place in spiritual life, then blithely dismissed as inappropriate NOW. Jesus emphatically, unequivocally declares that religious practice, at least the one in question, was not eternal, it is situation dependent. Sometimes people should fast and sometimes people should feast. Life as Jesus lived it and taught it, included both fasting and feasting. Praying and partying.

Taking this as an example of a general principle, we should expect the ideal forms of religion to change over time. “Changelessness” is not a Christian virtue. It is rather a symptom of death.

Recently someone asked about my views regarding a particular religious practice. They observed a trend among Adventist young adults that troubled them, then said, “That's not the way we did it when I was young.” My response (in my head, not out loud) was, “What's that got to do with anything?” Then I repented—but only slightly. :-)

The fact that the church used to prescribe or proscribe a particular behavior is interesting information. It is not an authoritative guide to what we should be doing now. Religious traditions usually get started for very good reasons. So discarding tradition is not something to be done lightly. But sometimes change is the only smart and holy choice.

Catholics got caught in the rut of doing church in Latin. When they began using Latin, it was an innovation. They were moving from Greek—a language understood by fewer and fewer people—to the “English” of its day, the language most widely spoken. A thousand years later when no one spoke Latin except the intelligentsia, the church was still stuck using Latin. Most of the people understood not a word that was said.

Adventists got stuck reading the King James Version of the Bible and using quaint, out-of-date language in prayer.

Both Latin and “King James English” became the languages of worship for good reasons. And both were eventually replaced with something more modern—again for very good reason. Good religion, religion that genuinely connects people and God, will change over time. That's what Jesus taught. It's what he modeled. Changeless religion is a fossil, interesting to look at but dead.

Since we are followers of Jesus, we should expect that our religion—the forms and traditions, the doctrines and practices that express and nourish our spiritual life—will change with time and situation.

This is the plain meaning of Jesus' words about fasting and feasting.

Now to Jesus' words about wine and wineskins:

No one puts new wine into old wineskins. For the wine would burst the wineskins, and the wine and the skins would both be lost. New wine calls for new wineskins.

Jesus compares spiritual life to a liquid. He warns against the foolishness of trying to confine the vibrant life of the Spirit in the brittle structures of ancient tradition. When there is a vital surge of spiritual life, it will break established forms, always. We cannot confine the present work of the Spirit in the “ways we have always done it before.”

Just as surely, you cannot have a vital spiritual life without the sturdy forms of religion. New wine skins are flexible, but they tough and strong. Jesus does not argue for a formless, featureless spirituality. Jesus would laugh at people who say, “I'm spiritual, but not religious.” That is plainly impossible.

Religion is the form spiritual life takes. And religion is the container in which spirituality lives. We cannot dispense with religion. We can embrace healthier, more effective forms of religion. We can engage in religious practices that promote happiness, health, congenial relationships, service, stewardship of the earth, gratitude, responsibility, sweet relationships at home. Or we can embrace forms that erode and cripple the spirit. The choice is ours.

Spirituality is amorphous, fluid, volatile. For it to be effective in our lives, it must be contained, channeled. This becomes especially obvious when you think of communicating spirituality to children. You cannot teach little ones grand, abstract theology. Instead you teach them Bible stories. You tell them the story of the Prodigal Son and the Lost Sheep. We recite the story of the Good Samaritan and the Sheep and Goats. We teach children to say grace before we try to explain understand the concept of gratitude. We teach the do's and don't's of Sabbath-keeping before kids could possibly understand the value of rest and rhythm in life. We structure children's eating habits before they have any idea what the word “health” means. These structures, habits and practices are the essence of religion.

So my young friend's quest to figure out what he still believes, what traditions and practices from his childhood to retain and which to let go, and maybe what new traditions to create—this quest is right on. It is the wisest, best approach to religion for young adults. Don't dump the religion of your childhood. Don't copy it. Use it as a springboard for fashioning afresh a lively, effective religious life that will nourish your own spirituality and will shape and sustain your children as they grow.

Your children need you to fashion supple, tough wineskins to hold the precious life of the Spirit. Your children need you to take your blue enamel bucket with the strap or the Tupperware bowl or whatever container works and go gather a treasure of berries. Gather enough for now and enough for Thanksgiving pies and enough for cobbler next April.

The treasure in the bucket is worth finding the very best bucket. Your kids and your friends deserve the treasure you will gather.


Final note (for people at church and readers on the web): I invite you to submit lists of practices and beliefs that you have found helpful or detrimental. Or if a list doesn't work, send me your stories of how religion has helped or harmed you.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Notes toward a sermon


Below are some preliminary notes for my sermon on August 4, 2012. Criticism is most welcome. The title, "New Buckets" is from an illustration that may or may not actually make it into the sermon. It is based on the need for appropriate containers when berry picking. Different kinds of berries require different containers if you're going to protect the fruit. Different people prefer different styles of buckets. But if you are going to gather enough berries to share or to save, you must use a container of some kind. 

Jesus talked about wine skins instead of buckets.

New Buckets
Texts: Matthew 9:17, Mark 2:22, Luke 5:37


Recently I was visiting with a young man who grew up in the church. He attended Adventist schools. He went to Sabbath School and church every week. He participated in Pathfinders (the Adventist version of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts). Then after he got out of college he discovered he could do quite well without church. He had a woman in his life he loved. He had a job that was interesting. He was healthy. He didn't believe everything he heard in the church of his childhood. But now he was thinking about having kids. He found himself wondering just what values, beliefs and practices from his childhood he still believed in. What did he want to pass on to his kids?

Flat out rejection of everything in the religion of his childhood would be silly. On the other he could not imagine himself simply stepping back into the old traditions, lock, stock and barrel. He wanted to keep what was true, beautiful, and helpful. He wanted to jettison anything that was faulty or out of date or counterproductive.

Our conversation got me thinking. I'd like to invite you to think with me. Over the next couple of months, I'd like you to join me in addressing the question he so eloquently raised: Of all the traditions the church has embraced over the last 150 plus years which ones do we keep? Which ones do we modify? Which ones do we jettison?

Our starting point will be a conversation Jesus had with some of his critics. People observed that his disciples were breaking some of the rules for devout religious living. Rabbis had developed all sorts of habits to help people keep in mind God's holiness and their special relationship with him. The goal of these rabbis was to help people live pure lives, reminded of God's claim on them in every activity.

It is vital for to understand that these practices that the disciples were ignoring had been designed to serve a high and noble purpose.

The critics saw the disciples blithely ignoring ancient habits and they were scandalized. How could Jesus possibly tolerate such flippant disregard of holy tradition? One of the specific traditions ignored by the disciples was systematic fasting. It would be like a Muslim eating lunch during Ramadan or an Adventist bringing steak to potluck. It was scandalous.

Jesus' answer: People at a wedding reception don't fast. They party. Fasting comes later. Then Jesus added this cryptic remark: You don't put new wine in old, brittle wine skins. The old skins are likely to break. Instead you put new wine in flexible new skins.

Jesus compares spiritual life to a liquid. A container is absolutely essential. But containers get old and need to be changed.

Religion—the formal statements of our creed, the specific practices that help us remember and celebrate God's grace, the rules that we formulate to express how to live a godly life in our specific life setting—these things are essential for a healthy spiritual life. And all these things are subject to change over time.

The answer to the question raised by my friend, Jack, is not obvious. It is not easy. Good life, wise life requires us to answer it. Finding the best answer calls for prayer, thoughtfulness and careful listening to one another.

Jesus words affirming new wine skins and warning about the hazards of trying to confine vital spiritual life in old forms and traditions stands in stark contrast to those in Christianity and in Adventism who think the way of life is found in some mythical golden age in the past.

God calls us to continual reshape the forms of religion to make sure they are true to the Spirit of God and the needs of our own specific life situation. We should encourage every generation to reinvent the forms of religion trusting the same Spirit who has actuated us to guide them.

Friday, July 20, 2012

The Bible as One Book?


Making Sense of the Bible as One Book or Exploring the Difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament
Sermon for North Hill Adventist Fellowship
July 21, 2012
This is a wildly preliminary draft. Criticism most welcome, especially before 8 a.m. Pacific Time, July 21, 2012.



In reviewing suggestions for sermon topics I've received over the last year, one that shows up several times is: What do you make of the difference between the OT and NT? The OT seems severe and stern; the NT is more positive. How does that all hold together?

Obviously, for Christians the most admirable personality, the most authoritative theologian, the supreme teacher about spiritual life is Jesus. Some of the highlights of his teaching are passages like:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. Matthew 5:44, 45.

Jesus was accused of being a friend of sinners (Matthew 11:19). He was famous as a healer (Matthew 4:23-24). He was a defender of children (Matthew 18; Luke 18). What's not to like?

The most famous follower of Jesus, the evangelist Paul, wrote passages like these:

I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God's love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God's love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:38-39.

If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn't love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. . . . Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. 1 Corinthians 13.

These passages epitomize the NT focus on love, grace, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, service. In contrast we think of OT passages like these:

And the LORD said, "I will wipe this human race I have created from the face of the earth. Yes, and I will destroy every living thing--all the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky. I am sorry I ever made them." Genesis 6:7. (God said this about the descendants of Adam and Eve only ten generations after the Creation.)

For my angel will go before you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites, so you may live there. And I will destroy them completely. You must not worship the gods of these nations or serve them in any way or imitate their evil practices. Instead, you must utterly destroy them and smash their sacred pillars. Exodus 23:23-24. (Notice how the writer equates divine and human agency in the genocide.)

When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Deuteronomy 7:2. (No mercy?)

"The LORD also said to me, 'I have seen how stubborn and rebellious these people are. Leave me alone so I may destroy them and erase their name from under heaven. Then I will make a mighty nation of your descendants, a nation larger and more powerful than they are.' . . . The LORD was so angry with Aaron that he wanted to destroy him, too. But I prayed . . . , and the LORD spared . . . . Deuteronomy 9:13-20. (Moses is more merciful than God.)

The eternal God is your refuge, and his everlasting arms are under you. He drives out the enemy before you; he cries out, 'Destroy them!' Deuteronomy 32:27. (Protection and favor for Israel; annihilation for the natives—reminiscent of the thinking and practice of Christian Europeans vis-à-vis Native Americans.)

They replied, "We did it because we--your servants--were clearly told that the LORD your God commanded his servant Moses to give you this entire land and to destroy all the people living in it. So we feared greatly for our lives because of you. That is why we have done this. Joshua 9:24 (Here pagans testify they have heard about God's genocidal edict and are attempting to thwart it by interposing a relationship with Israel between themselves and God.)

Additional infamous OT stories that might come to mind: God's command for Abraham to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22), God's instantaneous execution of Uzzah for touching the ark—an instinctive, well-intentioned action (2 Samuel 6), God's failure to remove King David after he ordered the murder of Uriah in stark contrast to God's judgment against King Ahab for a similar act (2 Samuel 11ff; 1 Kings 21).

Official Adventist doctrine declares:

1. The Holy Scriptures: The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

According to the Church, the Bible in its entirety, OT and NT together, is the written Word of God. The whole Bible is “the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.”

However, given the stark contrasts we've seen above, we have to ask, What kind of interpretive process can we use so the Book speaks understandably to our lives, our times?

First, we have to recognize that I've cherry-picked extreme statements that exaggerate the difference between the OT and NT. There are passages in the OT that picture God as gracious and just, as the God of all humanity, not the petty God of the Jews only. For example, see Psalm 87, Isaiah 40-43, Daniel 4. And there are passages in the NT that make God appear vengeful and petty--John 3:17b, Revelation 14:7-11, Romans 1.

Still, there is a difference between the religion of the NT and the religion of the OT. So how do we think about this difference?

In contrast to classic conservatism (and even more so, fundamentalism) there is change across time. It's not uniform, linear growth, but in general, later is better. The book of Judges is written as an argument against the ways of “historic Israel.” In fact, it reads as a rebuttal to the argument referenced repeatedly in the first chapters of Samuel that Israel had been closer to God before they had a king. The writer of Judges recounts horrific stories then concludes, “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes” (Judges 17:6, 21:25). When the Jews were rebuilding their temple after its destruction and their decades of exile in Babylon, the prophet Haggai prophesied, “The future glory of this Temple will be greater than its past glory, says the LORD of Heaven's Armies. And in this place I will bring peace. I, the LORD of Heaven's Armies, have spoken!" The Jews were not to pine for the “good old days.” They were to anticipate the coming better days.

For the prophets change was not always bad. It was not deterioration or apostasy. Sometimes it was advancement. It was growth. Jeremiah writes nostalgically about the "ancient paths" in chapter 6 (Jeremiah 6:16). But in chapter 3 he writes about forgetting the Ark and not missing it! (Jeremiah 3:16). And in chapter 31, he writes about a new (and obviously superior) covenant (Jeremiah 31:31). The prophets certainly valued their heritage. They treasured the Word of God that had come through Moses and others across Israel's history. They also constantly pointed forward. They dismissed elements of Israel's religious heritage as mere history to be jettisoned from the living religion.

Most people familiar with the Bible see the spirituality and theology of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel as richer, wiser, truer than the more primitive theology of Moses. This is not meant as as denigration of Moses, but a recognition that God's people are capable of learning over time. If God is the teacher and Israel the student, it is reasonable to expect progress. Later lessons would build on earlier lessons, just as calculus builds on the knowledge of algebra and trigonometry.These prophets, who are revered as the wisest, most exalted preachers of God, did not see themselves as the pinnacle, as the last word.

Jeremiah's comment on the Ark is perhaps one of the most dramatic illustrations of the prophets' expectation of progress. 

"And when your land is once more filled with people," says the LORD, "you will no longer wish for 'the good old days' when you possessed the Ark of the LORD's Covenant. You will not miss those days or even remember them, and there will be no need to rebuild the Ark Jeremiah 3:16).

Even the Ark, the box which carried with it God's dazzling, even deadly, radiance, was expected to become a mere artifact of history. It was not an eternal sacrament, an eternal temple of God's presence. If the Ark was expected to fade into mere history, why would we be surprised if some theological understandings associated chronologically with the Ark also faded from relevance and were replaced with brighter, clearer, truer vision?

From the days of the apostles, Christians have seen Jesus as the great leap forward, the grand, climactic revelation of God. This is voiced by passages such as:

Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe. The Son radiates God's own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command. When he had cleansed us from our sins, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God in heaven. Hebrews 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word. And the word was with God. And the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. The word became flesh and dwelt among us. No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God,* is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us (John 1:1-18, passim).

Some theological traditions have elevated the writings of the Apostle Paul to the status of “final, most accurate theology.” I flat-out deny this. Paul is not the ultimate interpreter of God or of Christ. Jesus remains superior to Paul. And Jesus himself pointed beyond his own words and deeds to the ministry of his successors.

"I tell you the truth, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father. John 12:14

"There is so much more I want to tell you, but you can't bear it now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future. John 16:12, 13.

Peter affirmed this creative role of people after Jesus when he made his speech in Jerusalem about the need to innovate in theological and religious practice.

At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: "Brothers, you all know that God chose me from among you some time ago to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe. God knows people's hearts, and he confirmed that he accepts Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he cleansed their hearts through faith. So why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentile believers* with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus." Everyone listened quietly as Barnabas and Paul told about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. Acts 15:7-12

Peter bases his argument for change on two things: human well-being and the contemporary testimony of the Spirit. Note, Peter does not quote any Bible passage. He trusts the experience of God's people, both over time—the long history of the Jewish people with the strict Mosaic rules—and in the immediate present—the visible outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles at Cornelious' house. On the basis of that experience, he corrects Scripture!

As children of the Apostles I think we are not only “allowed” to do this, we are required to do this. Christians have already done this in rejecting polygamy and slavery even though the Bible explicitly allows for both.

What principles should guide us as we decided what elements in the Bible are enduring, and which are time- or culture-limited?

We follow the example of Jesus is putting morality ahead of religiosity. In Matthew 15 and Mark 7, Jesus is challenged for allowing his disciples to violate long standing Jewish tradition. Jesus responds by citing the example of David violating even more impressively credentialed rules for the well-being of his men. Then cites the OT truism: I prefer mercy, not sacrifice.

Jesus refines his definition of this commanding morality in Luke 13, where he blatantly confronts Jewish Sabbath-keeping with the need of a disabled woman. The well-being of this woman outweighed hundreds of years of Jewish practice based squarely on the Ten Commandments. 

The goal of Scripture is the revelation of God. (John 1:1-12). We test our correct understanding of that revelation by how our understanding affects the well-being of people.

Just as the Ark was expected to fade into history as people came to a richer, deeper understanding of the ubiquity of God, so some of the old pictures of God are now seen as outdated. God the despotic king is no longer a helpful metaphor for understanding God. God as the stern, partial father, favoring his Son or his family over all claims of justice and equity is a defective view. It does not lead to human well-being. Instead we will rely on our more modern understanding of good fathering as a more trustworthy image of God.

The church has already moved dramatically away from certain elements of the Bible, taken literally. We reject slavery no matter how "humanitarian" the masters are. We reject Paul's idea that woman should not speak in church and should not exercise authority over men. (The most authoritative voice in the Adventist Church is that of a dead woman.) We reject polygamy. We reject the New Testament's blanket rejection of remarriage after divorce. We reject the notion of eternal torment (even though it is mentioned in the signature passage for Adventist identity (Revelation 14).

We have moved away from these things because of our commitment to progressing with God in his mission to humanity and our commitment to following the Spirit's guidance as we grow into a fuller understanding of the character of God.

Note:  I'll be interested to see how this trajectory of Christian interpretation plays out in our understanding of how to deal Christianly with homosexuality.


Friday, July 13, 2012

Parents and Kids

Sermon for North Hill Adventist Fellowship. Preliminary draft.
For July 14, 2012. Live streamed beginning about about 11:15 Pacific Time.


I got a call on Monday morning this week from my son Garrett. He told me about some business mail he was expecting to arrive at our house. He wanted me to keep my eyes open for it. Then we talked about his plans and how things were going in his pursuit a visa. Then we talked about an article I had written.

Later in the day, Shelley called. She had ordered a textbook for summer school at La Sierra University. It was supposed to have been delivered on Friday. What should she do? It was the second time there had been complications with this order. She needed the book immediately. She had checked the mail room at the university. It wasn't there. It wasn't at the dorm. What to do? We talked about a couple of options she could pursue. She called a little later. She had finally tracked it down. It had been delivered to the wrong department. I didn't actually do anything, but her phone call made me feel important.

Tuesday, I got a phone call from my eldest, Bonnie. She was getting ready to drive back home from Portland and she had a question about her truck. I'm not much of a mechanic, but this question was simple enough for me to have an opinion. She hung up with a plan of action. Again, I'm feeling pretty important.

The ultimate affirmation was a phone call from my daughter-in-law! She and Garrett were at some friends' house back in Michigan, and she was going to make desert biscuits for strawberry shortcake. Did I know my biscuit recipe off the top of my head?

The kids made my week. Their phone calls made me in turn, a business manager, a theologian, educational resource person, mechanic and baker. Not bad. No wonder I like my kids.

God is also pleased when humans interact with him in ways exhibit our appreciation of his wisdom, reliability, and affection.

Central to the message of the Bible are the twin truths: 1. God takes delight in humans as his children. 2. Humans find the richest, most satisfying life through respect for and confidence in God.

This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. . . . When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. Genesis 5:1, 3.

When God created humanity, he made us in the image of God. When Adam had a son, the son was “in his image.” (Verse 4).

How is humanity related to God? Something like the relationship between parents and children.

This same idea is forcefully present in the teachings of Jesus. At the heart of his most famous sermon is a series of statements about God as Father.

Don't make a public show of your generosity. Because your Father in heaven sees all of your giving and he will pay you back.

Don't pray for public effect. Instead be confident that God sees your praying and will respond.

Don't think you have to amass large quantities of prayers. Be sure your Father in heaven already knows what you need. And he doesn't need his arm twisted.

Don't worry about food and clothes. Your father takes care of the birds and flowers. Count on it, he will take care of you.

Be kind to our enemies because that's how your father acts. When you love your enemies you are moving in harmony with the habits of your Father in heaven who is wildly generous toward those who don't deserve it.

These passages highlight the back and forth flow of the parent/child model. As a parent takes pleasure in doing good things for his children, so God takes pleasures in providing for his children. As a parent has expectations for his children, God has expectations for his children.

Notice this passage where the prophet Jeremiah is speaking on God's behalf:

"I thought to myself, 'I would love to treat you as my own children!' I wanted nothing more than to give you this beautiful land— the finest possession in the world. I looked forward to your calling me 'Father,' and I wanted you never to turn from me.” Jer. 3:19

Do you hear a father talking to his son: “I wanted nothing more than to give you this beautiful land.” This reminds me of Jesus' declaration to his disciples, “Fear not, little flock. It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” Luke 12:32.

What would you give your kids, if you could? You would wipe away their debt. You would give them perfect health. Winsome personalities. You would make them smart. Holy. Gracious. Dependable. Affectionate. What wouldn't you give your kids if you could?

This is a picture of God. “I wanted nothing more than to give you this beautiful land.”

And like a parent, God hopes for something back. “I looked forward to your calling me 'Father,' and I wanted you never to turn from me.” God has skin in this game. If he fails to win our allegiance, he is heart broken. If we cut off our relationship with God, it cuts him. We own a piece of God's heart that we cannot give back. We are inextricably, eternally intertwined with the happiness of God. Our failures wound him. If we reject him, he is cut to the core. Our triumphs make him glad.

When we enter into relationship with God, when we show him respect and affection, when we pay attention to what he says through the words of the prophets and through the Spirit and through the realms of nature and human experience, we bring him gladness. God hopes we will never turn from him.

When we embrace the disciplines that lead to well-being, God is pleased. When you decide to spend less so you can have more freedom in the management of your money. God cheers. When you make generosity part of your money management God is made proud by the wisdom of his son or daughter.

When you keep Sabbath—taking time for fellowship with God, time with family and with the family of God—God is pleased. It touches him. Just as a human father is touched when his grown children make room for him in their lives. Just as a human father is pleased when his grown children tend their own families' lives.

God is pleased when we call on him.

This connection of parent child relationships with the Divine-human relationship places a weighty responsibility on parents. And on aunts and uncles, teachers, and any other adult who touches the life of a young person.

Fathers you are a model for your children. They will read you back into God. They will interpret God through their life experience with you. So make it good.

If you want them to respect God, you must earn their respect. You cannot command it. How do you earn respect? Honesty. Holiness. Requiring more of yourself than you do of your children. And finally by showing respect for your children. We require our children to observe courtesy when we are talking to someone else. Don't interrupt. If it is absolutely essential, then at minimum, say, “Excuse me?”

If this is what we expect of our children—and it is proper to do so—it is the courtesy we will extend to them.

If we want our children to love God, we must win their love. It's pointless to command it.

If we want our children to believe God is generous, practice generosity. Not just with money. With our time, our affection, our approval.

Beware of the Laodicean syndrome. A Sabbath school teacher, life long church member, gracious, warm person, speaking of himself—he is wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked. This is how God sees him. Really?

Let's go back to the passage in Jeremiah for a minute.

"I thought to myself, 'I would love to treat you as my own children!' I wanted nothing more than to give you this beautiful land— the finest possession in the world. I looked forward to your calling me 'Father,' and I wanted you never to turn from me.” Jer. 3:19

In this passage Jeremiah is speaking to Israel on behalf of God. I wanted nothing more than to give you this beautiful land. If you know the history of Israel, you know that God's relationship with Israel was complicated. God swings back and forth from passionate declarations of his love for Israel and outrage at their perverse behavior. Over and over, they reject him.

Still God claims them as his own. Through the prophets God talks as a grizzly mom about Israel's enemies. God is going to punish Israel's enemies because of what they have done to Israel. God says this even though he has also declared that he is going to allow those foreign nations to break Israel's defenses because of their rebellions against God. Then after the nations invaded Israel, God announces through the prophet: Whoa! I didn't mean for you to go that far!

The Bible is emphatic: God loves Israel. It is a love that stubborn and persistent. The question was never what did Israel have to do earn their place with God. It was rather how far could they go before God cut them off. The answer was it took repeated rejection for centuries and centuries before God turned from Israel as the primary carrier of his name on earth.

This gives courage to us. God is astonishingly patient. It gives us instruction for our own life with one another.

Parents be stubborn. Love like God. The more stubborn we are in our own love for our children, the more deeply we will be convinced of God's love for us.



Monday, July 9, 2012

Interview with Herbert Schmidt


An Interview with the Author of the WWU Presidential Search Letter
A fictional piece by John McLarty

A letter has been widely circulated commenting on the presidential search at WWU. The letter purports to be from “a group of constituents, alumni, educators, pastors, church members, medical professionals, students and parents.” Who are these people? The official version of the letter does not mention the names of any of these people. Actually, it turns out that I am the group whose views are represented by the contents of the letter: I am a constituent, a parent of a WWU graduate, a parent of an educator, a pastor, a church member, married to a medical professional, a parent and a student (having taken one class on the campus of WWU). Since the letter is about my views, I decided to track down the author. The letter was the brain child of Dr. Herbert Schmidt. I sat down with him at his office in Goodtown, Oregon, a small community near the Tri-cities.


McLarty: Dr. Schmidt, tell me a bit about yourself.

Dr. Schmidt: I'm an orthopedist. I graduated magna cum laude from Loma Linda, and have been practicing here in Goodtown for forty years. I'm a charter member of the Goodtown Seventh-day Adventist Church. I donated the land for our school and provided over half the money for its construction. I helped bring 3ABN to the local cable channel. I'm really proud of that. And I've gone on three Marantha mission trips.

McLarty: Tell me about your family.

Schmidt: I'm married. I have a son and two daughters.

McLarty: I've heard you're a bit of a curmudgeon, that sometimes you have caused conflict in the Goodtown Church.

Schmidt: Yes, some people say I'm a curmudgeon. I don't cause conflict. But I don't shy away from it either. For instance last year, our young pastor allowed kids to help serve communion. He had four young teenage boys—15, 16 years old, something like that—to distribute the bread after it had been consecrated. One of the kids was not even baptized. He wasn't even an Adventist. Anyway, when I saw this non-Adventist kid handling the sacred bread, I got up and very politely thanked him for his service, then I took the tray and told him I would do it instead. He could go sit with his mother.

McLarty: So it's very important to you that everything be done “decently and in order”?

Schmidt: I couldn't have said it better myself.

McLarty: Tell me about your youngest daughter. I understand she has said some very unkind things about you.

Schmidt: I don't understand her. I gave her everything money could buy. We raised her right. Out here in the country. She had her own horse. We sent her on mission trips. Sent her to Adventist schools. Now she won't let her kids visit here. She won't come for holidays. I don't understand it. And lately, she's been influencing her brother and sister. None of them will come for holidays. The last couple of summers they wouldn't let their kids come spend time on the farm in the summer.

McLarty: Why do you think that is?

Schmidt: My wife says my daughter says the grand kids are afraid of me. I don't understand that. Sure, I'm strict. But I have to be. They don't get any discipline at home, so I have to try to give the grand kids some sense of structure and rules and boundaries. I'm no harder on the grand kids than I was on my own kids. You know the Bible principle: spare the rod and spoil the child. Whatever else people may say, they don't say my kids were spoiled.

McLarty: So are your children in church?

Schmidt: I pray for them every day. Maybe I didn't pray enough for them when they were younger. My youngest daughter quit going to church practically the day she arrived at Walla Walla. I sent my kids to Walla Walla so they would have every advantage spiritually. Obviously, the college failed my youngest. The other two, as far as I know, did attend church while they were at Walla Walla. Both of them were involved in music, so I know they were in church when the choir or band performed. And sometimes they would mention something they heard in a sermon. But once they graduated, that was it. They were gone. So, again, I hold the college responsible. Obviously, it did not anchor them in the faith. Whatever religion it gave them was too shallow.

McLarty: So, would it be fair to say that you were motivated to write the letter because of the failures of the college to save your own kids?

Schmidt: That and more. You know when they put that Bryan guy in as college pastor, that really hurt. I had talked with Elder Torkelson about my nephew. He's the only person from that generation in our family that still talks to me. He's doing a great job as a pastor. His members know that when they go to church they're going to hear about the sanctuary, the end of the time, the close of probation and the importance of learning to do without milk and cheese in readiness for the end. They're going to hear Adventist sermons. Elder Torkleson promised he'd include my nephew's names on the list of candidates for the Walla Walla pulpit. Then, I don't know what happened. The next thing I hear is that they are bringing in a preacher from Southern. I figured that would be a good thing, given Southern's reputation. Instead, what do we get? Some theologically confused rhetorician. Then I learn this same guy is being proposed as the president of the university! I called Elder Torkelson. He said that if I would write out my concerns he would share them with the board.

McLarty: So you wrote the letter?

Schmidt: Writing is not my talent. I went over to the political science department at Whitman [College] and asked them if they could recommend someone who was good at political communication to help me. They recommended Bill Halbers. He's done stuff for Democratic candidates in both Washington and Oregon. He agreed to help me create the letter.

McLarty: Did you tell him what to say?

Schmidt: Well, I made sure we got in that part about spiritual formation. Can you believe it? An Adventist pastor who actually admits in public that he reads religious writers who aren't Adventist. After what Elder Wilson said at the General Conference? This guy Bryan even reads some books written by Catholics. I made sure we got that in.

McLarty: What about the part of the letter questioning Bryan's lack of academic experience?

Schmidt: Oh that. That was Halbers' idea. He said that we would never get the board's attention with just the spiritual formation stuff. He suggested that probably some of the board members read non-Adventist authors as well, so going after that wouldn't fly with some of the board. Also, Halbers made me put the spiritual formation information later in the paper. He said we had to lead with Bryan's Sunday church debacle because that might be persuasive with liberal Adventists for whom the Sabbath is about the only thing that makes them Adventist. I think Halbers did a great job. I think including the picture was a really great idea. It will connect with visual learners. At least that's what Halbers said.

McLarty: Where did you come up with your list of people who were concerned about Bryan?

Schmidt: That was easy. It's me. I'm a constituent, alumnus, church member, medical professional, and parent. I have talked with faculty who wondered whether Bryan had enough experience in academia to handle the presidency. And my nephew was nearly apoplectic when he heard that Bryan was being considered for the position. And I threw in students, because, after all, it is a college.

McLarty: Any last word:

Schmidt: First, I want to encourage other people to write letters. Look at what my humble missive accomplished. Second, I'd like to nominate Colin Standish or Dr. Pipim as president. They have the experience and credentials. And they would make sure that we don't have more kids coming out of Walla Walla without a life-long commitment to the church.


Editor's note: This is fiction. Fiction is only dangerous when it rings true. 

Saturday, July 7, 2012

Spiritual Formation

A brief summary of a section of today's sermon.

Anti-spiritual formation rhetoric is alive and kicking again among some Adventists. Which is crazy given the fact that "spiritual formation" is synonymous with character development something very prominent in the writings of Ellen White.

We form ourselves spiritually by our habits. One of the most positive habits we can embrace is meditation. Of course, meditation can also be one of the most negative habits as well depending on the focus of our meditation.

Listening to others speak is a form of meditation. Listening to Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk on the left and right fuels our anger, frustration, suspicion and discontent. In other words listening to Rush is a choice to expose ourselves to spiritual erosion at best. Rush is toxic. So don't listen.  In the words of Psalm One, "Don't sit in the seat of mockers."

Rather meditate on God's law--i.e. God's beautiful words, the totality of divine revelation. This will form your soul in a positive way. It will lead to a sweeter, richer life and witness.