UT Study of Reasons Students Have Sex

Researchers at UT have studied reasons college students have sex. Newspaper article and the study. The latter admits that the data are skewed by the fact that they were interviewing college students, and of these, “Four percent of the women and 2% of men were married. Six percent of women and 5% of men were living with a sexual partner.” They suspect that basic biological issues (e.g., having sex to have a baby) might figure higher in studies of people who aren’t college students.

There were nine themes that appeared to characterize the most frequently endorsed reasons for having intercourse: (1) pure attraction to the other person in general; (2) experiencing physical pleasure; (3) expression of love; (4) having sex because of feeling desired by the other; (5) having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship; (6) curiosity or seeking new experiences; (7) marking a special occasion for celebration; (8) mere opportunity; and (9) sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable circumstances.

Interestingly, “20 of the top 25 reasons given for engaging in sexual intercourse were similar for men and women.”

Update: Comments by David Neff at CT.

Insult to Injury

Israel’s Holocaust survivors will get a $20 monthly stipend–they call it “absurd and insulting,” and say Germany treats them better.

Dreher: “Cincinnatus or Benedict?”

Rod Dreher asks, if our society is Rome, do we follow the path of Cincinnatus or Benedict?

Camp Meeting 2.0–In Media Res

Julius Nam of Loma Linda University comments on the preamble to the SDA statement of Fundamental Beliefs.

Ellen G. White in the Light of Catholic Theology of Revelation

Some folks have asked how I could re-embrace Adventism after having some very specific disagreements with it–for example, regarding the role of Ellen White. Well, I must say that here is a good example of how my years in the Catholic Church helped me to better understand and appreciate some aspects of Seventh-day Adventist teaching.

First, here is the official statement of Adventist belief:

18. The Gift of Prophecy:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

For basic background information about Ellen White herself, see the short biography provided on the webpage of the Ellen G. White Estate. Note here, though, the role her writings play: “provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction,” while making “clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.”

I think the Catholic tradition can provide us some terminology that can be helpful in articulating this with more clarity. We’ll look at the distinction between “public” and “private” revelation, and then at the rise of distinctive spiritualities in history.

The first area to consider is the distinction made in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) between “public” and “private” revelation. Public revelation is that which is meant for all people in all times, was progressive through the Old Testament, and reached its completion and fulfillment in Jesus Christ. But God hasn’t left his people alone, and the Holy Spirit still inspires people through history whose role is not to add to Scripture, but to help people live more faithfully in a particular time and place.

Here’s the full citation from the Catechism:

III. Christ Jesus — “Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation”²⁵

God has said everything in his Word

65 “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.”²⁶ Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word – and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.²⁷

There will be no further Revelation

66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”²⁸ Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

This distinction between “private” and “public” revelation might be useful to Seventh-day Adventists seeking better ways to articulate our understanding of the ministry exercised by Ellen G. White, and how it relates to Scripture. While public revelation is “complete,” private revelations assist in making it “completely explicit” and assisting Christians “to grasp its full significance.” It is not the role of private revelations “to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.”

I think that’s entirely consistent with the statement in the SDA Fundamental Beliefs that Ellen White’s writings “provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction,” while making “clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.” I think it’s also consistent with what Ellen White herself said, as in the introduction to The Great Controversy: “The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience.” The Spirit through history has been given “to open the word to His servants, to illuminate and apply its teachings,” “to enlighten, warn, and comfort the children of God.”

The Spirit was not given–nor can it ever be bestowed– to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. [NB--this phrase has been carried over into the Fundamental Beliefs]

Jesus promised His disciples, “The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: . . . and He will show you things to come.” John 14:26; 16:13. Scripture plainly teaches that these promises, so far from being limited to apostolic days, extend to the church of Christ in all ages. The Saviour assures His followers, “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20. And Paul declares that the gifts and manifestations of the Spirit were set in the church “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Ephesians 4:12, 13.

Further statements from Ellen White on her role in relationship to the Bible may be found in Selected Messages, vol. 3, pages 29-31, as cited by the Ellen G. White Estate:

Relation of E. G. White Writings to the Bible Recognized in First Book. I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged. God has, in that Word, promised to give visions in the “last days”; not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth. Thus God dealt with Peter when He was about to send him to preach to the Gentiles. (A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White, p. 64 [1851]. Reprinted in Early Writings, p. 78.)

Not to Take the Place of the Word. The Lord desires you to study your Bibles. He has not given any additional light to take the place of His Word. … (Letter 130, 1901.)

Get Proofs From the Bible. In public labor do not make prominent, and quote that which Sister White has written, as authority to sustain your positions. To do this will not increase faith in the testimonies. Bring your evidences, clear and plain, from the Word of God. A “Thus saith the Lord” is the strongest testimony you can possibly present to the people. Let none be educated to look to Sister White, but to the mighty God, who gives instruction to Sister White. (Letter 11, 1894.) . . .

Relationship of E. G. White Writings to Bible–The Lesser Light. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. (The Review and Herald, Jan. 20, 1903. Quoted in Colporteur Ministry, p. 125.) . . .

Not for the Purpose of Giving New Light. Brother J would confuse the mind by seeking to make it appear that the light God has given through the Testimonies is an addition to the Word of God, but in this he presents the matter in a false light. God has seen fit in this manner to bring the minds of His people to His Word, to give them a clearer understanding of it.

The Word of God is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind, and may be understood by those who have any desire to understand it. But notwithstanding all this, some who profess to make the Word of God their study are found living in direct opposition to its plainest teachings. Then, to leave men and women without excuse, God gives plain and pointed testimonies, bringing them back to the Word that they have neglected to follow.

The Word of God abounds in general principles for the formation of correct habits of living, and the testimonies, general and personal, have been calculated to call their attention more especially to these principles. (Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 663, 664.)

Testimonies to Bring Plain Lessons From the Word. In the Scriptures God has set forth practical lessons to govern the life and conduct of all; but though He has given minute particulars in regard to our character, conversation, and conduct, yet in a large measure, His lessons are disregarded and ignored. Besides the instruction in His Word, the Lord has given special testimonies to His people, not as a new revelation, but that He may set before us the plain lessons of His Word, that errors may be corrected, that the right way may be pointed out, that every soul may be without excuse. (Letter 63, 1893.) (See Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.)

She therefore makes clear that 1) the Bible alone is “infallible” and 2) her writings are not “a new revelation.” Her ministry was intended to direct people to the Bible and for specific guidance to the Seventh-day Adventist church at this period in history, and only the Bible is to be the foundation for teaching.

Two other categories from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that could be useful in understanding the role of Ellen White can be found in the discussion of schools of spirituality in the section on prayer.

2684 In the communion of saints, many and varied spiritualities have been developed throughout the history of the churches. The personal charism of some witnesses to God’s love for men has been handed on, like “the spirit” of Elijah to Elisha and John the Baptist, so that their followers may have a share in this spirit.⁴³ A distinct spirituality can also arise at the point of convergence of liturgical and theological currents, bearing witness to the integration of the faith into a particular human environment and its history. The different schools of Christian spirituality share in the living tradition of prayer and are essential guides for the faithful. In their rich diversity they are refractions of the one pure light of the Holy Spirit. …

2690 The Holy Spirit gives to certain of the faithful the gifts of wisdom, faith and discernment for the sake of this common good which is prayer (spiritual direction). Men and women so endowed are true servants of the living tradition of prayer.

Using this language, we could speak of the role that Ellen White played as spiritual director for the fledgling church (see her many volumes of “testimonies” written to specific individuals). We could also say that she embodied in a unique way the spirit of the Advent movement; that “charism” still lives in her writings, “bearing witness to the integration of the faith into a particular human environment and its history.”

Ellen White has been too often compared to other American visionaries of the 19th century such as Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy. The contrasts are greater than the similarities. These produced writings that they and their followers saw as supplementing the Bible, whereas Ellen White consistently rejected such a role. The Bible and the Bible alone is infallible, and it is the standard by which all teaching is to be judged; it alone is to be the foundation for our beliefs and the evidence for our positions.

To whom shall we compare her, then? I’d suggest we compare her to the those in the Catholic tradition associated with distinctive schools of spirituality–men and women such as Dominic of Guzman, Francis and Clare of Assisi, Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross. These were charismatic figures who spoke prophetically to their day, who gave inspiration to reform movements, and whose guidance is still authoritative for members of their own communities and treasured by even more outside. Or we could compare her to visionaries such as Bernadette Soubirous, Faustina Kowalska, Margaret Mary Alacoque, Anne Catherine Emmerich, or the Fatima children, Lucia de Jesus Santos and Francisco and Jacinta Marto, whose visions and writings are seen by Catholics as providing divine insight to help Christians live more faithfully in particular periods of history. Or to charismatic spiritual directors like Padre Pio and John Vianney who reportedly had great insight into the hearts of those who sought their counsel.

Some Adventist theologians in the 1970s and 1980s tried to distinguish between doctrinal authority and pastoral authority (thus relativizing her authority, much like some Catholics who seek to weaken the authority of Vatican 2 by calling it a merely “pastoral” council), but the Adventist Church as a whole rejected that distinction as inadequate. I think the distinctions and categories proposed here might be more useful, as they provide terminology (already in use in another context) for distinctions that may be seen already present in White’s writings and in official Adventist teaching, and provide a broader context of religious history in which to view the role that Ellen White has played in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

“A More Generous View”

As a response to Phil Johnson’s poster parodies, Emerging Grace provides alternative posters which represent “a more generous view” of “emerging church” principles. Via Emergent Village blog.

And I gotta say, I don’t see what’s really so controversial about most of this “emerging church” stuff, especially as summarized in Grace’s posters. Now, I’m coming at this via a bit of a Rip van Winkle experience, having been separated from evangelical Protestant conversations such as this for many years, and some of the expressions, including the word, “Missional,” just sound weird to me. But the principles outlined here are the basic principles I’ve followed for the past dozen years in young adult and campus ministry.

It seems to me that this “emerging church” stuff is, in a way, just trying to apply to the church at large what those of us in young adult ministry have been learning–assuming that what we’re seeing with the young today is not just a matter of ephemeral generational idiosyncrasies but the beginning of a sociological tsunami that will affect all of society.

Clueless in Australia

The Australian government wants to provide “safe sex” info to participants in next year’s Catholic “World Youth Day”–the same info it has provided for the Sydney Olympics, the Gay Games, and Sydney’s Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. The Catholic Church is not interested, and government officials are put out. It can’t see that a gathering of committed Catholic youth might be different from these other gatherings.

“Emerging Church” Gathering in Austin

One of the regional gatherings, Emergence 2007: The National Conversation on the Emerging Church, will be at Gateway Community Church in Austin October 19-20. Scot McKnight lists reasons for attending. Registration. I had thought about attending, but we’re having something that weekend that I need to attend in Houston instead.

Shakespeare Time

It’s summer, and time for the Houston Shakespeare Festival at Miller Outdoor Theatre. This year’s plays are “Love’s Labor’s Lost” and “Romeo and Juliet.” We’re planning on going the next two Thursday nights, if anyone would like to plan on meeting us there.

Adventist Spirituality

Christian spirituality, at the simplest level, is the lived experience of a personal relationship with God. It includes the day to day things we do to express and nourish that relationship, including prayer and the reading of Scripture. It includes the inspiration we find to keep us going, to help us make choices. It’s about developing that trust in God that gives us hope for the future, meaning to the present, and strength in hard times.

Because spirituality is about lived experience, we learn from those who have gone before us. We all have those brothers and sisters we trust who are like mentors in the faith, who held our hand when we took our first awkward steps, and who are still available to us when we find ourselves on rough ground. Books by Christian authors can also be a help—they’re another way we learn from the experience, struggles, and insights of others, a source of wisdom we can apply to our own life.

Spirituality, in the broader sense, then, includes not just our own experience, but this collective wisdom that provides timeless guidance. In his book, We Drink from Our Own Wells, the Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutierrez said that spirituality starts as a personal experience, but it becomes “the subject of later reflection and is proposed to the entire ecclesial community as a way of being disciples of Christ.” In other words, someone says, “This is what’s worked for me—why don’t you try it?”

Francis of Assisi, for example, heard Jesus calling him to sell all he had, give to the poor and follow him. He was attracted to those Biblical texts that spoke of Jesus emptying himself, becoming a baby in a manger, embracing the shame of the cross. He lived a life of simplicity and humility and poverty; he sang songs praising God’s handiwork in nature; he was the first to display a Christmas crèche, so people could better imagine the humility and poverty of Jesus; and he wrote some guidance for those who wanted to do the same thing—and many through the centuries have been inspired by what’s become known as Franciscan spirituality.

Martin Luther also had an experience of God—he was a neurotic young monk who tried to work his way to God when he experienced God’s forgiveness in Jesus Christ; he felt the law to be a heavy weight accusing him, he experienced the gospel as a gracious word declaring him right with God through faith in Jesus. Luther’s reflection on his experience and Scripture led him to critique church practice and to proclaim the good news of justification by faith alone, to write hymns and to translate the Bible into German so that all could read it—these became the basis for a distinctive Lutheran spirituality.

John Wesley was a young Anglican priest who was troubled; “I went to America to convert the Indians,” he moaned once, “but who will convert me?” Then he wandered into Aldersgate Chapel in London, and heard Martin Luther’s preface to Romans read, and he said, “About a quarter before nine … I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death”—he poured out that experience of God’s love in sermons and hymns, gathered others for small groups for study, sharing and prayer, and inspired the heartfelt spirituality that characterizes the various movements called Methodist, Wesleyan, and Holiness.

The early Adventists were of course influenced by those Christians who went before, especially by Wesley and the Methodist movement. But they also had a unique experience of God; they reflected upon it, and from that, and our experience as a people since, has grown a collection of wisdom about our unique approach to living the Christian life. That’s what I’m going to call, Adventist Spirituality.

Rooted in Jesus

Like all Christian spirituality, Adventist spirituality is rooted in Jesus. It’s all about him. In particular, it is rooted in the experience of our pioneers in the Great Second Advent Movement of the early 19th century, who were “looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). This was not a “doom and gloom” movement—the Advent Movement was optimistic—it had a positive message that was joyous, and hope-inspiring. Look through the hymns in the “Early Advent” section of the hymnal some time. “How cheering is the Christian’s hope.” “How sweet are the tidings.” “O! what can buoy the spirits up? ‘Tis this alone, the blessed hope.”

They took comfort in the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

This blessed hope of the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the recreation of a new heaven and a new earth is both the fulfillment of what God intended in creation and the completion of the redemption purchased for us on Calvary. It is Christ crucified who is coming, to save those whose sins have been washed away by his blood. We sing with joy, “Jesus paid it all, all to him I owe; sin had left a crimson stain, he washed it white as snow.” Adventist spirituality is a spirituality of the cross—we glory in the cross—for we know that we are sinners, that we have no claim upon God, that we have nothing to lift up to him except the blood of Jesus.

After the disappointment in 1844 the Adventist pioneers delved more deeply into Scripture to understand why Christ had not come as they expected. They saw in 2 Peter 3:9, that “the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” They saw in the book of Hebrews, chapter 4:14, that he is our “great high priest,” “passed into the heavens”—“not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”

Do you sometimes feel that your prayers go no higher than the ceiling? Do you sometimes feel that God has turned his back? This Scripture should clear away all such doubts. Jesus lives, and intercedes for you. Hebrews 7:25 promises that “he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”

Do you wonder if you’re praying the right way? I’ve seen books on prayer that emphasize different techniques, how you breathe, how you sit, words you say; some say you should use your imagination, others say you must clear your mind; some want candles, some want beads, some say to walk in circles in and around a labyrinth. None of that matters—prayer is not a matter of what you know, it’s who you know. And we know Jesus.

Prayer is not a technique, it is, as Ellen White said, “the opening of the heart to God as to a friend.” And what a friend he is. He is “not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” We know him—but just as importantly, he knows us. He’s walked in our shoes. Because of this, he can be not only an intercessor who knows us, but an example we can seek to imitate.

In recent years, it has become popular for young people to wear bracelets with the letters, W.W.J.D.—“What Would Jesus Do?” The phrase was coined in 1896 by Charles Sheldon, in his novel, In His Steps. The minister in the story, Henry Maxwell, preaches on 1 Peter 2:21, “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.” He challenges the members of his congregation:

I want volunteers from the First Church who will pledge themselves, earnestly and honestly for an entire year, not to do anything without first asking the question, ‘What would Jesus do?’And after asking that question, each one will follow Jesus as exactly as he knows how, no matter what the result may be.

In 1989 a group of 35 high school youth at a church in Holland, Michigan, who had heard their youth minister, Janie Tinklenberg, refer often to this story, got an idea. “What if we made bracelets with this saying on it, to remind ourselves to ask this question whenever confronted with a choice?” The bracelets became a fad that hasn’t yet died out. This wasn’t an Adventist youth group, Sheldon wasn’t an Adventist author—but we fully embrace this idea as central to what it means to live a Christian life.

Rooted in the Biblical Understanding of Man

Adventist spirituality is rooted in Jesus, as savior, as intercessor, and as model, and in the blessed hope that this same Jesus shall come again in glory, that we may be with him forever.

Adventist spirituality is also rooted in the biblical understanding of man. God formed Adam out of the clay and breathed into him the breath of life, and made him a living soul. God made Adam a wife, and told them to be fruitful and multiply. And then God said, “It is good.” Our physical body, and marriage, and sexuality are things that are part of the original order of creation, before sin entered.

In many other religions, however, the body is a problem—indeed, it is the problem. For the ancient Greeks and the Gnostics, it was a prison, something to escape. Many Christians have embraced that view. They see salvation as just a matter of getting the soul to heaven. But the Bible says God created us whole people, and he showed his interest in the whole person by giving us his son, to live as one of us, and to suffer and die as one of us. He still bears our flesh—and the scars—in heaven. And he intends to raise this body, and transform it, in the earth made new.

The material world isn’t a mistake, and so God isn’t just interested in getting the soul to heaven. We see this clearly in the ministry of Jesus, who gave sight to the blind and made the lame walk. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, in Matthew 25, the sheep, who are commended, are those who cared for peoples’ physical needs: “I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.”

Adventist spirituality is concerned for the whole person. We take to heart 3 John 2: “I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health.” That’s the reason for our health message, including our preference for a vegetarian diet, and our abstinence from tobacco and alcohol and other harmful substances. It’s not intended to be a long list of dos and don’ts; rather, it is intended to be guidance to help us live the kind of life God intended from the beginning.

Our health message seemed eccentric once, but the world is catching on. It used to be you had to go to the Adventist Book Center to get vegetarian food—now there are health food sections in major chains like Kroger and H.E.B., not to mention Whole Foods Market. Smoking used to be a sign of glamour, was once even promoted as a cure for lung cancer—today, there are fewer and fewer places where smokers can light up. The problems associated with the typical American diet are illustrated in books and movies like “Super-Size Me” and “Fast Food Nation.”

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 RSV

That’s different from the attitude of the world. “It’s my body, I can do whatever I want with it.”

This principle extends to our whole person, calling us to a lifestyle of simplicity.

“Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel—rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.” 1 Peter 3:3

We’re not the first and only Christians to see the Christian life as one of simplicity, following the example of Jesus—indeed, some others have taken it much further than we have. St. Francis of Assisi wore a single rough tunic, bound with a rope, and no shoes. The Anabaptists of Switzerland and Germany, and their descendants, the Mennonites, the Brethren, the Hutterites and the Amish, have so emphasized simple living that people forget the Anabaptist faith that is the reason. We lived in Pennsylvania for a number of years, and could sit on our front porch to watch Amish buggies traipsing by on their way to the store. Adventists don’t go that far, but we do seek a graceful simplicity that doesn’t get caught up in the fads and fashions of the world—for our minds are set on things above.

There’s a danger with externals like diet and dress, of course. Our perspective can be warped if we focus on them. They can be an occasion of pride. They can be things that set us over against others, and cause us to focus inward. That’s what turns off so many young people—they see only the rules, not the reason; they see the letter, not the spirit. That’s why we have to be very careful, to show that this, like every other aspect of our spirituality, grows out of our relationship with Jesus.

We must always remember that our concern for the whole person isn’t just about us, it extends outwards in mission. Our spirituality reaches beyond us; we have something we think worth sharing. We have a message that is good news, both for eternity and for today. This is why we not only have evangelistic crusades and television and radio programs, but also hospitals and clinics, medical missions, Five Day Plans and cooking schools.

But early Adventists went further; they wanted not only to heal the wounds caused by society, they sought to reform society itself. They were active in the temperance movement, which was devoted to eliminating the evils associated with alcohol abuse. They were abolitionists, and worked actively for the freedom of slaves, helping them escape through the Underground Railroad. But engaged in civil disobedience against the Fugitive Slave Law that demanded the return of escaped slaves. Adventists fought for religious liberty for all.

It’s paradoxical, in a way. Our Adventist pioneers believed in the soon return of Christ, and they avoided the pleasures and concerns of the world, but they nevertheless engaged the world on issues of importance to themselves and to the larger society. That should cause us to pause and reflect on our own city, and state, and nation. What are the issues facing us? What are the things we should be concerned with? What kind of a witness might we be able to give?

Rooted in the Distinction between the Creator and the Creature

Adventist spirituality is rooted in Jesus, and in a Biblical understanding of man, and—this is my last point—in the realization that there is a distinction between the two. We aren’t God. Seems like a basic point, doesn’t it? But much of what is called “spirituality” today blurs the line between the two, telling us to worship what is divine in us, telling us to celebrate our own potential.

But Scripture calls us out of ourselves.

Revelation 14:6-7—“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”

This was the issue in Eden, it was the issue at Sinai, it was the issue Jesus faced in the wilderness, it is the issue before us in these last days. Who will you worship, the Creator or the creature? Will you follow a spirituality that points you above, or one that says you have everything you need?

We gather each week not to hear useful advice, not to hear things that make us feel good, not to celebrate our own accomplishments. We gather to give God the glory, to give him the praise, to give him the honor. Our music takes us out of ourselves, to magnify his name. Our prayer brings us on our knees, lifting us to him.

The great symbol of the kind of worship God seeks is the Sabbath. It’s not something we offer to God—it’s something he gave for us. He just asks us to remember it, and by it, to remember him. To remember that he is both our Creator and our Redeemer. The Sabbath is both a sign of the difference between us and God, and of what God wants to do with us and through us. “You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, given in order that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you” (Exodus 31:13).

One of my favorite movies is Fiddler on the Roof. I’m especially moved by the scene of the lighting of the Sabbath candles. The mother gathers the family about the table, and with a veil over her head, and her hands over her eyes, she leads the family in prayer. Dressed in their finest clothes, the thoughts and arguments of the week put away for twenty-four hours, together they welcome the Sabbath. Throughout the village of Anatevka all families, rich and poor, large and small, unite in this act recognizing the holiness of this time.

Through my years away from the Adventist Church, I treasured my memories of Sabbaths past. The arrival of the Sabbath was announced by the flaming colors of the Friday sunset and characterized by a hushed atmosphere of holy expectation. We were exhorted to “guard the edges of the Sabbath,” making sure our work was done well before the start of the Sabbath, and treasuring the last moments of the sacred time. The Sabbath was marked not merely by an absence of work and of the blare of the television, but also by special meals and special guests, gatherings for prayer and song, and leisurely strolls through the woods or along the seashore admiring the handiwork of the Creator, who left this holy time as a memorial of his work of creation.

Here’s where it all comes together—our relationship with Jesus, our spirituality that includes the body, and our worship. Here we see again that we aren’t God, but we belong to him.

Seventh-day Adventist spirituality is rooted in Jesus, in our understanding that God is interested in our whole person, and in the affirmation through our worship that we belong to God.

Camp Meeting 2.0–God the Father

Alexander Carpenter has some comments regarding God the Father at Spectrum blog, as part of the “Blogging the 28″/Camp Meeting 2.0 series. You may make comments over there.

Some years ago I wrote a review of a wonderful volume edited by Alvin F. Kimel, Jr., Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1992. Here it is again. [Other essential reading on this topic would include Robert W. Jenson, The Triune Identity: God According to the Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) and Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ (New York: Crossroad, 1986).]

The thesis and the polemical intent of Kimel’s book are clear from the title: Feminism is a challenge to the traditional Christian understanding of the Holy Trinity, especially in its proposals for how we ought to speak of God. Some might be surprised by this, as in some circles it has become a given that theological language should be “sensitive” to the concerns of feminism. What was controversial twenty years ago is now, in most mainline seminaries, commonplace. The authors in the present volume offer no new criticisms; they are largely the same voices that have been saying the same things for the past twenty years. What is significant is that they are here brought together– Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist, evangelical–in hopes that, like the Whos on Horton’s dustspeck in the classic Dr. Seuss children’s book, combining their voices might make their message heard.

The importance of the book lies in the ecumenical breadth of the contributers. These are not fundamentalist obscurantists, but include respected theologians of diverse backgrounds, united in their common conviction that feminist concerns over theological language are not just a sensitive alternative within Christian theology, but represent a cut at the root of the Christian understanding of God, humanity, creation, and the gospel. The authors approach the subject from a variety of perspectives, including Biblical theology, systematic theology, philosophy, linguistics, and liturgics.

One of the most important authors in the volume is Lutheran theologian Robert W. Jenson. Having had a number of courses from him at Gettysburg Seminary, I would have recognized the various authors’ indebtedness to him even without their footnotes. Jenson’s ideas provide the backbone of the book. The triune name, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” he argues, is not a string of metaphors that may be changed to suit prevailing theological winds, but constitute the divinely revealed proper name of God. As such, it identifies the Christian God as distinct among the “putative gods” (a typical Jensonianism) of humanity. The God we worship is none other than the specific man Jesus of Nazareth, the transcendence he addressed as “Father,” and their spirit as the spirit of the believing community. We call God “Father” because that was the form of address used by Jesus. He is not our Father through creation, but through our adoption through baptism, which gives us the right to address him as Jesus did. Alternative names such as “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier” do not, in fact, replace the triune name, and for two main reasons. First, they do nothing to identify which specific god is being named, for “all putative gods” claim to create, and to redeem, and to sanctify. Second, this option represents nothing more than a revival of Sabellianism, or modalism. The classical Trinitarian understanding is that omnia opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa–all the outwardly directed works of the Trinity are indivisible, that is, are the work of the Trinity as a whole. It is not the Father alone who is Creator, etc., but the Father creates through the Son and in the Spirit. The triune name, rather than being a string of metaphors for the various operations of God toward humanity, is descriptive of who God is in himself; that is, the triune name rehearses the story of the gospel, the uniqe history of what and who God is in Jesus of Nazareth. These Jensonian themes recur fuguelike throughout the book.

Behind these theses may be seen Jenson’s (and many of the other authors’) indebtedness to Karl Barth, specifically to Barth’s insistence that there is no knowledge of God apart from the man Jesus, and that all human attempts to create language for God apart from this revelation amount to idolatry. But Barth himself is but one whose ideas represent one of the most faithful recent attempts to recapture the insights of the great Cappadocians, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea, who articulated the classical formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Feminist theologians appeal to the Eastern apophatic tradition (God is beyond all names, and negates all affirmations) as legitimating the application of new names to God, and cite pseudo-Dionysius, in particular, as an authoritative precedent. Because no name really is appropriate, the feminists argue, we can use any names that appeal to us. On this point I think “Apophatic Theology and the Naming of God in Eastern Orthodox Tradition,” by the Orthodox theologian Thomas Hopko, is essential reading. Hopko makes clear that the apophatic tradition applies to God’s being, or ousia, and never to the trinitarian hypostases of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (p. 160-161). To negate the triune name by appeal to the Dionysian tradition is illegitimate.

What appears most to offend the representatives of feminist thought cited herein is the idea that God became uniquely incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. It is the same offense of the cross that was folly to the Greeks and a stumbling block to Jews in the time of St. Paul. As in the case of Carter Heyward, they would rather reinterpret the incarnation as a metaphor for all human relationships, or, as for Sallie McFague, as a metaphor for a panentheistic understanding of the world, in which the earth becomes God’s body, a sacrament, God’s presence to us. Jesus the Jew becomes merely “the divine child” or “lover.” The particularity demonstrated by the confession that God became this man is offensive to an understanding of creation as one with its mother creator, to a cyclical mthology in which time has no real meaning, to a monistic cosmology in which we have only to recognize our own divinity. Feminist thought thus represents not a new discovery overthrowing male oppression, but a return to the Canaanite, Babylonian, Hellenistic, and Gnostic ideas against which the Jewish and Christian confessions of God were formulated. One might not be going too far in suggesting that feminist thought here betrays a methodological anti-Semitism.

A basic feminist assumption that has rarely been challenged is the notion that there is an experience of God and of reality that is unique to women. This surfaces in the argument that Trinitarianism betrays a male worldview and is but one more example of male oppression of women, and that if women had been in charge, the Church would have had a different understanding of God. Elizabeth Morelli, professor of philosophy at Loyola Marymount, rejects that epistemological argument. She concludes, “Insofar as we understand our access to God to be the very ground or core of the human spirit, then we cannot attribute to woman qua woman a specific conscious access to God. To do so would be to assert that woman is not quite human, or that there are two distinct human natures.” (236)

The scandal of Christianity is that while God indeed is vastly removed from us, and all our attempts to name him are inadequate, God has himself bridged the distance by becoming one of us in Jesus Christ, a Palestinian Jew who was born, lived, suffered, and died on a cross, and was raised the third day. God now cannot be properly named or glorified apart from this revelation as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Avoiding the name is not simply semantics, as Christianity knows no “God in general.” The feminist critics, in their zeal, have abandoned the God of Hebrew and Christian faith, who works in history, for the god/desses of Canaanite nature worship, Greek philosophy, and Advaitic Hinduism. And, for each of the authors in this volume, the Christian proclamation is nullified, rather than enriched, by this exchange.

Controversial Acts?

I was surprised by statistics cited in an ABC report about breast-feeding showing a majority of Americans to be opposed to this most normal and natural of activities.

… 57 percent of Americans said women should not have the right to breast-feed in public. Seventy-two percent said it was inappropriate to show a woman nursing on television.

In the video, a young woman reacts with disgust to the thought and brands it “immoral.” Laws are going the other direction, fortunately, and are increasingly protecting the rights of mothers and children.

Another ABC report discusses how long to breast-feed.

No Religious Liberty in Washington

Washington State refuses to give pharmacists a religious exemption to mandated “Plan B” coverage–the “right” of patients to unrestricted abortion is an absolute, the religious rights of pharmacists are denied. Some pharmacists are suing.

America Loves Big Brother

Not the TV show, but the Orwellian dictator–a substantial majority of Americans say they feel safer being watched.

On the Mass as a Sacrifice

Brandon at SDA2RC posts this definition of the mass as sacrifice from the 1962 Daily Roman Missal published by Angelus Press (the SSPX publishing house):

The Mass is thus the perpetual prolongation of the Sacrifice made on the cross. Consequently, every Mass is the one immolation of Christ repeated in the Act of Oblation. 

That’s an interesting way of putting it, which I think makes the reasons for the Protestant criticism all the more clear. Christ sacrificed himself once for all; that sacrifice is neither prolonged nor repeated. For more, see my article, The Sacrifice of the Mass.

Motu-mania

Fr. John Z. continues to blog about reactions to the pope’s motu proprio allowing greater use of the 1962 Missale Romanum, today posting a letter sent by the Bishop of Steubenville, OH, to his priests with some interesting demands. The motu proprio is just one more instance of the tug-of-war over authority that dominates the Catholic Church today–what is right or true or just too often takes back seat to “who’s in charge here.”

Meanwhile, Alan notes that my old parish, St. Theresa’s in Sugar Land, will be celebrating mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum on Friday, September 14, at 7:30 p.m.

Marvin Zindler, RIP

He was a striking image in his blue glasses and white hair, and a prominent feature of Houston television for many years, battling with “Marvin’s Angels” for justice for consumers, and against “SLIME IN THE ICE MACHINE!”

His reporting brought down the Chicken Ranch in La Grange, TX, inspired a Broadway musical and a movie.

KTRK tribute page. Houston Chronicle article.

Update: ABC picks up the story.

A “Christian Nation”?

I flipped past D. James Kennedy this morning, who was asserting once again his contention that America is a Christian nation, that the founding fathers always believed this, that “separation of church and state” is a myth, etc.

Then this afternoon I was browsing through the webpage of the Archives of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference, and noticed that they have a wealth of information on-line, including full volumes of old periodicals. One of my favorite was always the religious liberty paper, the American Sentinel, edited in the late 1880s by Alonzo T. Jones. On the first page of the first issue appeared this piece:

“A Christian Nation.”

THE idea which is advocated by some, that this may be made a Christian nation by simply making a change in the Constitution, was thus pertinently commented upon by the Janesville, Wis., Gazette:—

“But independent of the question as to what extent we are a Christian nation, it may well be doubted whether, if the gentlemen who are agitating this question should succeed, they would not do society a very great injury. Such measures are but the initiatory steps which ultimately lead to restrictions of religious freedom, and to committing the Government to measures which are as foreign to its powers and purposes as would be its action if it should undertake to determine a disputed question of theology.”

This was in response to the activities of the National Reform Association, which has been promoting its idea of the US being a “Christian nation” since 1864. It has been a small organization in recent decades (see AU history), but it is interesting that they historically thought it needed to be said that the US was “a Christian nation.” So clearly, D. James Kennedy’s vision of an America that always understood itself thus is a modern romantic fiction.

Kennedy also suggested that Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (original) (in response to a letter they sent him) in which he used the expression, “wall of separation,” wasn’t really reflective of his views, and was merely a personal letter anyway. Here’s what he said, at the outset of his presidency, writing to those who wanted to congratulate him and who were confident he shared their concerns:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

More Sacred Harp Singing

Some very nice Sacred Harp (and other) recordings from the Voices of Village Harmony, Voices of Waco

Many more groups here.

Some of my favorites: The Morning Trumpet, Wondrous Love, Holy Manna, Beach Spring, Happy Land, Northfield, Never Part Again.

Old Music

Anthology of the American Hymn-Tune Repertory: The Colonial Era to the Civil War, edited by Mark D. Rhoads.

Neuhaus on the NAB Translation

I agree completely with Richard John Neuhaus:

The NAB is a banal, linguistically inept, and misleading translation. Why did the bishops force it upon the Catholic people, demanding that it and it alone be used in the readings of the Mass? Various answers are given: Because it was produced by the guild of Catholic biblical scholars and, while it may not be very good, at least it is ours. Because the bishops hold the copyright, and charges for using the NAB in Mass guides and elsewhere is a cash cow for the financially strapped bishops conference. Because the bishops really don’t care whether Catholics use a worthy and reliable translation of the Bible.

Whatever the reason, it is a continuing scandal that the bishops do not permit the use of other translations that are more reliable, readable, intelligible, and worthy of the written word of God. The best of them is the Revised Standard Version (RSV), but there are others. (For personal and group Bible study, the Catholic edition of the RSV, published by Ignatius Press, is recommended.)

It is worth noting that the NAB, unlike a number of other translations, is used only by Catholics in the United States and used only by them because they are required to use it in the liturgy. In their own writings, Catholic biblical scholars and other writers generally avoid the NAB. Not surprisingly, the NAB is defended by those who are responsible for producing it, and people who choose to do so are free to use it. It is quite another thing for the bishops to impose the exclusive use of a grievously flawed Bible translation upon the Catholic faithful at Mass.

Update: Mere Comments has some comments about Neuhaus’ article, and links to an earlier article of his on the same subject. In that article, Neuhaus said:

Everyone who has sung or listened to Handel’s “Messiah” knows the words: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6, KJV). Magnificent. Here, as of this week’s amended Missalette, is the New American Bible: “For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.” Try singing that. Whether under the rules of literal accuracy or of what, taking liberties, translators call “dynamic equivalence,” that is no more than a pedantic transliteration of the Hebrew. It is not a translation. It is a string of possible signifiers. It is not English. To be fair, the passage is not representative. Most of the NAB is English, albeit of a down-market variety.

Mere Comments’ comments:

How especially unfortunate that these particular words, on that particular occasion–the one moment of the year when all the pews are full, and when even the most jaded hearts present are open to the incomparable mystery and wonder of Christ’s birth–so signally fail to express the moment’s full majesty, but instead offer something that sounds like an anthropologist’s earnest, literal-minded rendering of Stone Age deity names. Fortunately, there is more on offer than just that, and it is not enough in itself to empty the pews. But it all seems a remarkably unnecessary self-inflicted wound. One hopes that the complaints of Neuhaus and others will eventually be heard and acted upon. Until then….how many time-units, O Sky-Sovereign?

A Senior Moment …

My son’s, not mine–he had his senior pictures taken today. It was 29 years ago that I was getting mine taken.

The Shakers

The Shakers, a 1974 film, can be viewed online.

Healing Oil

Israel professor discovers healing properties of Biblical anointing oil. PaleoJudaica.com, press release, Israel Today, and the recipe.

Sacred Harp Music

I love the sound of Sacred Harp music; the rest of the family is split. I was listening to quite a bit of it tonight, including an NPR story, some YouTube clips, and a documentary, Sweet Is the Day: A Sacred Harp Family Portrait.

The Sacred Harp was a hymnal (using shape notes) that went through a number of editions from 1844 to the early 20th century; it’s given its name to the genre that has included other hymnals, including Southern Harmony.

Some of the tunes are included in other contemporary hymnals (Beach Spring, Northfield, and Wondrous Love are three tunes that appear in the Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal, for instance), but in a diluted form. The tune, Northfield, for example, is used for the hymn, “O for a Faith,” in the SDA Hymnal (#533). If you know the tune, compare with this midi, or the the recording you’ll find about half way down this page–the fugue-like parts were in the old SDA Hymns and Tunes (picture below), but have been simplified in more recent SDA hymnals.

Defining Proselytism at Georgetown

Commonweal links to a Washington Post article about new religious policies at Georgetown University. Protestant groups were required to sign a statement affirming:

While zeal for spreading the good news of the Gospel is a most worthy Christian virtue, there is increasing agreement among Christians today that proselytism, defined as any effort to influence people in ways that depersonalizes or deprives them of their inherent value as persons or the use of any coercive techniques or manipulative appeals which bypass a person’s critical faculties or play on psychological weakness, is unworthy of Christian life. Physical coercion, moral constraint, or psychological pressure and inducements for conversion which exploit other people’s needs, weaknesses, and lack of education are not to be practiced by representatives of affiliated ministries.

But what does this mean in practice?

David French, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund who advised InterVarsity during this dispute, said the “haziness” around the policy could still chill evangelicals from speaking about their faith.

“People talk about all kinds of other stuff — politics, sports, all kinds of contentious things. Then someone bring up Jesus, and suddenly . . .”

But there is a difference when it comes to matters of faith, Borelli said. “You’re talking about one’s convictions as one relates to God,” he said. “So you’re talking about something profound to our being, our position of faith, to our relations with God. That would be the qualitative difference.”

I think it would be impossible to defend that position if this were a state university.

Paul Lauritzen at Commonweal opines:

While I am sympathetic to the concern of discouraging aggressive, unwelcome evangelization, it is hard to see how you can draw the line between the acceptable and the unacceptable.  As Terry Reynolds, a faculty member in the Theology department, is quoted as saying: “What’s the difference between saying that “Christ is the only way to salvation,” and saying, “I believe if you don’t accept Christ as the way to salvation, you will go to hell?”

I, for one, don’t mind being told that if I don’t accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior I will go to hell as long as I can tell the person bent on saving my soul to go to hell.

Canada Grants a Basic Freedom to Sikhs

For ten years Canada has had a discriminatory immigration policy requiring members of the Sikh religion to change their names in order to enter the country. They’ve dropped it.

More on Ward Churchill

Why I Fired Professor Churchill, by Hank Brown, President of the University of Colorado:

If you are a responsible faculty member, you don’t falsify research, you don’t plagiarize the work of others, you don’t fabricate historical events and you don’t thumb your nose at the standards of the profession. More than 20 of Mr. Churchill’s faculty peers from Colorado and other universities found that he committed those acts. That’s what got him fired.

“Emerging Church” Satire

You gotta admit that Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs is a talented graphic artist. He’s been posting a series of posters satirizing the Emerging Church movement, that he has now gathered together in one place. If you click on the posters as they appeared on his blog, you will be taken to sites which he says illustrate what he is satirizing.

Of Moral Struggles

Jenny Sawyer argues that J. K. Rowling should have spent more time on Snape than on Harry.