Seventh-day Adventist to Roman Catholic

Luther and the Catholic

2012-01-25T07:36:00.001-07:00

‎"How do I receive the grace of God?" The fact that this question was the driving force of [Luther's] whole life never ceases to make an impression on me. . . . The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – this burning question of Martin Luther must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too. . . Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: "What promotes Christ’s cause" was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture. This presupposes. . . that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life. (Pope Benedict XVI, Sept. 23, 2011)

"From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventist's Attitudes Towards Abortion"

2012-01-10T15:13:00.000-07:00

Here is a review by Mike Senseney a long time follower of this blog of the following book by Nic Lamojluk.

"From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventist's Attitudes Towards Abortion"
by Nic Samojluk

http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?fListingClass=7&fSearch=%22From+Pro-life+to+Pro-choice%22&fSubmitSearch=Go&showingSubPanels=&fSort=relevance_desc

Reviewed By Michael Senseney:

In the early 90s, as an Elder in my SDA church, I corresponded with the presidents of the Columbia Union and the General Conference on the issue of abortions being performed in Maryland Adventist hospitals. At first, the Union president attempted to assure me that I was taken in by vicious rumors. I obtained statistics that showed thousands of abortions were being performed bringing in millions of dollars. When the facts were presented to SDA leadership, the correspondence ended with nothing but the silent ignoring of my pleas. Unfortunately this appears to be the standard operating procedure utilized by church leadership toward any and all pro-life Adventists.

Nic Samojluk's book reveals in great detail and irrefutable evidence, this approach by SDA leadership regarding the issue of abortion in Adventist hospitals, and the commitment of that leadership to the elective and selective extermination of pre-natal human life. One has to ask why. A good starting place is to follow the money. Mr. Samojluk provides sound details which show the source of Adventist abortion policy to be that of money in pursuing this devilish blood lust in continuing to kill innocent human beings.

This is perhaps the most important book for SDAs in the 21st century. Mr. Samojluk provides in great detail, the debate regarding abortion policy in the Adventist denomination, and how it was pretty much shoved down the throats of SDA laity, the majority of whom seem opposed to abortion. The future of Adventism hinges on this one single issue...to kill or not to kill innocent human life. All moral authority, if any ever truly existed, in the Seventh-day Adventist church, should be considered null and void as long as they take the stand with complete and total disregard for precious human life.

In addition to the detailed debate and confusion between Adventist leadership and laity so clearly revealed in this book. Mr. Samojluk presents some of the best logic and reasoning for why a pro-life position is the only position a self professed Christian organization can support in good faith. This book, in spite of the tragedy of the topic, is a delight to read because of the clear insights presented by Mr. Samojluk. At times tears came to my eyes, as when reading that President Wilson's solution to world hunger could be found in the slaughter of humans who will one day eat food, and not in feeding the hungry as commanded by our Lord and Savior; or the terrifying embrace of eugenics by James W . Walters and his sophistries regarding personhood.

All of Mr. Samojluk's writings on this subject are well worth the read, and a must read for all SDAs. One of my favorites was his creative piece entitled "A Stigmata Case in Loma Linda". While this is a must read for all SDAs in the hope of recovering from the damage done by the church's position on abortion; this is a must read for all non-Adventists who desire to understand this denomination, especially those who may be considering joining the SDA church. Beware that the call to come out of Babylon is more applicable to Adventists than non-Adventists. One has to wonder how much of the "Remnant” remains.

This book points out one of the major fallacies of Adventism particularly and of protestantism in general...that being that the Bible is the authority of truth for a Christian. It is clear that if the Adventist theologians and leadership can provide "proof" from the Bible that abortion is Biblical there is a major problem. I suppose anything can be proved from the Bible if one puts his mind to it. 1 Tim.3:15 tells us that The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, not the Bible.

As I discovered the error of Adventist teaching on abortion, I continued to find the error of Adventism on other doctrines. In 2009 I joined The Catholic Church and came home to the pillar and foundation of Truth. I would invite all pro-life Adventists to come out of Babylon and come home to Rome. She has been there from the beginning and Her life for 2,000 years is nothing short of the miraculous sustaining power of God in the face of continual opposition and threat.

But until you are ready to come home, I highly recommend Nic Samojluk's book and suggest that all SDAs read this and encourage all their friends to read this. This is the most important book in Adventism, for Adventists, in the 21st century.

Sunday's Coming?

2012-01-02T09:17:00.000-07:00

Lady Dragon broke the news a few days ago: in Somoa, Adventists in Samatau will continue observing "Saturday," as will the only local Jewish resident, while most other Adventists will observe Sabbath on "Sunday." Some have effectively defined the Sabbath as an institution opposed to "Sunday" on the civil calendar; others feel the civil calendar is less relevant in this case.

This demonstrates what many of us have said for years: Sabbath observance can't be coordinated across the globe. Between arctic midnight suns and international date lines, the "Somoan shift" should force us to recognize that the calendar "day" we observe is an arbitrary and relative convention with respect to position on the globe. The fact is, there is no "seventh day" in any absolute sense. Many speak of it as if it were a concrete institution; it is not. Neither group of Somoan Adventists is now observing the right or wrong day as the seventh day. There is no such thing as an "actual," "correct," or "real" day of worship, anymore than there is an absolutely "real" day.

The fourth commandment offers us a rhythm, a principle, a guide--concrete within the narrow confines of ancient Israel, but relative on a global scale. It calls us to regularly consecrate time to God on "the seventh day." But notice: it does not call us to insist upon arbitrary constructs of the "day," artificially set a time for sundown where none exists, discuss leap seconds, or coordinate our clocks with Jerusalem as a meridian. At this point, one becomes lodged in a web of human tradition and pharisaism that is antithetical to the teaching of Jesus with respect to the Law.

Jesus had little use for these sorts of legal speculations and discussions. In fact, Jesus himself claimed the Sabbath was made "for man, and not man for the Sabbath." The Sabbath observes us(!). It meets our needs, and adapts to our limitations. It is flexible. Its obligations are superseded by a variety of temporal human concerns.

It's time to show Christian humility with respect to "our day" of worship.

Samoa Cancels Friday

2011-12-28T17:07:00.000-07:00

The Island of Samao has canceled Friday. When its citizens go to bed Thursday night they will wake up on Saturday morning. WIll they get dressed and go to church? Or will they wait and go to church on Sunday? Are they protesting this arbitrary disruption of the natural week?

What is "Anti-Catholicism?"

2011-12-06T19:21:00.001-07:00

Your suggested definitions are welcome.

Recent Adventist Conspiracy Theories: "World Central Bank"

2011-10-26T08:58:00.022-06:00

One of the reasons I write less frequently about Seventh-day Adventists is the fact that Adventist views and reactions frustrate and sadden me far more than I let on.

In any case, here's a piece picked up by Spectrum Magazine blog today:

***

In the world of Facebook, Adventists on my news feed have been sharing a CNBC article describing the Vatican's calls for a "World Central Bank." Many have reposted it as a clear "sign" of the end time and warning to others: Rome is calling for a global, financial authority, precisely in an effort to control buying and selling, freeze the assets of Adventists, and slaughter them. On one page, I read: "the signs couldn't be clearer!," "this thing is wrapping up soon!," etc.

Of course, the reality is far less "sexy." Here is the relevant paragraph:

Specific attention should be paid to the reform of the international monetary system and, in particular, the commitment to create some form of global monetary management, something that is already implicit in the Statutes of the International Monetary Fund. It is obvious that to some extent this is equivalent to putting the existing exchange systems up for discussion in order to find effective means of coordination and supervision. This process must also involve the emerging and developing countries in defining the stages of a gradual adaptation of the existing instruments. In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of “central world bank” that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks. The underlying logic of peace, coordination and common vision which led to the Bretton Woods Agreements needs to be dusted off in order to provide adequate answers to the current questions. On the regional level, this process could begin by strengthening the existing institutions, such as the European Central Bank. However, this would require not only a reflection on the economic and financial level, but also and first of all on the political level, so as to create the set of public institutions that will guarantee the unity and consistency of the common decisions.

The idea of a World Central Bank is an old one, especially common since the 1940s. Economists who propose such an institution claim it is necessary within a global economy to level the international playing field, and encourage developing economies. Unlike the national central banks that presently dominate the global economy (e.g., the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Central Bank of China, etc.), a world central bank would not be hindered by narrow national interests (e.g., accommodating national budget deficits, military and domestic spending, the rescue of failing domestic institutions, or currency valuations for trade advantage, etc.)--interests that disadvantage poor and developing nations in the global economy. Rather, as a transnational institution, it would provide a secure and consistent experience for all nations. It would likely create a global reserve currency, regulate interests rates fairly, lend to nations, supervise other banking systems (against fraud), and act as an intermediary between indebted societies and foreign creditors. If a politician, economist, or journalist wrote in favor of this view (and thousands have), it would arouse little interest in the Adventist community. It's the stuff of WSJ or NYT op-eds. It's the stuff of graduate seminars in Finance.

But now that the Pontifical Council or Justice and Peace (PCJP) has dedicated a paragraph(!) in a dense forty-one page document to the proposal, Adventists are raising an apocalyptic alarm.

Sadly, not one Adventist reaction I have read has had anything to do with the substantive issues in this discussion; not one of them has gone so far as to at least gain some familiarity with the concept, and appraise it appropriately. Never mind that many of their political leanings might make them more sympathetic to bold solutions to assist the developing world. Most of my friends who have posted this link are average, balanced, mainstream Adventists; only one is especially conservative (on an Adventist scale). I decided to engage one friend employed by an Adventist University on the subject. Anyone would categorize him as a mainstream/centrist Adventist. Disappointingly, even after introducing him to the benefits and concerns surrounding such a solution, he still weighed this recommendation not on its theoretical merits within the fields of Finance or Macroeconomics (its proper context), but from a conspiratorial mindset (claiming he is "not surprised" the PCJP favors this plan is because it would give the pope a future "ability to influence the worlds economy," and establish "a unified world under a single religion").

Needless to say, my confidence in the Adventist "center" is not especially high today.

What is so alarming in the Adventist reactions is a baseless desire to attach prophetic import and conspiratorial speculation to virtually any statement released by any Vatican office. Nothing in the Adventist prophetic paradigm requires this type of reactionism; in fact, I would suggest it is antithetical to any healthy, careful, and measured consideration of biblical prophecy. One can believe in the Adventist paradigm without viewing this document as anything more than a Vatican office's response to contemporary discussions of macroeconomics, social justice, and subsidiarity (an office whose consultants include University professors, social ethicists, economic theorists, and theologians).

My friend noted, "For [Adventists] it is a duty to point out what they see as the 'signs of the times'". Of course, this little recommendation is hardly a biblical "sign." Nothing in Revelation says that the Beast will prefer a world central bank to an oppressive network of powerful regional (e.g., EU) or national central banks. No prominent Adventist has previously suggested such an institution is necessary to the realization of the Adventist prophetic paradigm. And lest we forget, 167 years of Adventist interest in such minute "signs of the times" has proved a futile exercise. 19th century Adventist fascinations with "the signs of the times" absorbed them in constant speculations during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Civil War (including Mrs. White's speculations of a British-U.S. War), post-WWI interest in calendar reform, the Kennedy presidency, etc. The two-century-long record of failed "signs" speaks for itself.

My friend cynically responded, "there are other ways to help developing countries other than creating a global financial authority." Of course, this is exactly why the PCJP released this document: to spur thoughtful discussion on just ways of regulating international trade and currency. The PCJP merely produced recommendations building upon the statutes and principles underlying the IMF and Bretton Woods Agreements, and in keeping with its defined goal: 'to stimulate the Catholic Community to foster progress in needy regions and social justice on the international scene.'" Its recommendations are certainly not binding on Catholic economists and social ethicists, many of whom will no doubt take exception to various suggestions in the document, and indeed already have. Such responses are usually rooted in such wide ranging concerns as appropriate oversight for such an institution, concerns it could undermine national sovereignty, conservative/right-wing ideologies, and in at least a few cases state-side, American exceptionalism. Adventists should at least ask themselves, to what extent is the Adventist reaction to such a proposal truly representative of biblical concerns, and at what point is it more a reflection of conservative politics, “NWO” alarmism, knee-jerk confessionalism, and the like?

Simply put, Seventh-day Adventists should pick their fights more wisely. When did it become necessary to take issue with the latest economic reflection issued by the PCJP? When did an economics debate become significant to proclaiming the "Three Angels' Message?" What are these reactions reflective of but a psychosis that oversteps the secure parameters of biblical prophecy and has devolved into a form of conspiracism?

Biding Time

2011-10-26T07:30:00.000-06:00

Sorry for the fewer posts these months. Ph.D. work continues.

Anything new in your minds, life experiences?

More Fundamental

2011-09-23T07:46:00.002-06:00

“The fundamentalists are funny enough, and the funniest thing about them is their name. For, whatever else the fundamentalist is, he is not fundamental. He is content with the bare letter of Scripture—the translation of a translation, coming down to him by the tradition of a tradition—without venturing to ask for its original authority.” G.K. Chesterton, All is Grist.

Everything.

2011-09-12T18:16:00.003-06:00

"Love Christ and put nothing before His Love. Christ is Everything. He is the source of life, the ultimate desire, He is everything. Everything beautiful is in Christ." - Elder Porphyrios

Seventh-day Adventist to Roman Catholic: AD 538 in Adventist Prophetic Interpretation

2011-08-28T16:29:00.001-06:00

For those looking for my old essay on the 1,260 days in Adventist interpretation:

http://www.mediafire.com/?m0gv4gt5o7gg89g

Another Great Controversy

2011-08-27T07:55:00.001-06:00

Spectrum discusses the possible harm of distributing The Great Controversy (as part of "The Great Controversy Project"), and lists reasons why the book should not be distributed.

Authentic Liturgy

2011-08-14T18:40:00.001-06:00

The tenth century Syriac monk, Rabban Isho, who heard about the exquisite harmonies, elaborate processions and beautiful ritual of the imperial court liturgy, asked this simple and much revealing question, “but does it bring anyone to repentance?” Liturgy can and should be beautiful, but unless it is also prayer, helping the worshipper to turn from sin towards God and to do what is good, it is not authentic. (Bishop Gregory J. Mansour, "On Liturgy and Prayer," Third Pastoral Letter to the Eparchy of St. Maron of Brooklyn, Maronite Catholic Church, 5-6.)

Expect Nothing Else

2011-07-25T13:55:00.001-06:00

Let not us who would be Christians expect anything else than to be crucified....for to be Christian is to be crucified in this time and in any time since Christ came for the first time. His life is the example and warning to us all.... crucifixion is the only path to resurrection, if we would rise with Christ, we must be humbled with him even to the ultimate humiliation, being devoured and spit forth by the uncomprehending world.... We must be crucified outwardly in the eyes of the world, for Christ's kingdom is not of this world and world cannot bear it, even a single representative, even for the single moment. (Fr Seraphim Rose)

Adventist Baptism

2011-07-17T14:07:00.000-06:00

Interesting. The Greek Orthodox apparently do not recognize Adventist baptisms.

New Blog Design

2011-07-16T11:50:00.001-06:00

I can always revert to the old design. Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

More on Liturgy

2011-07-10T19:12:00.023-06:00

In response to the article I posted in my last post, Arik posted an ATS article that closes with the following words:

True worship can exist without congregational liturgy. Worship is necessary for salvation; liturgy is not. Those who reduce their religious experience to the external forms of worship will not be saved.

Now, Catholic theology welcomes all of these claims. Christian worship can be as simple as a prayer, a glance, or a breath, but can also be as extravagant as a liturgy or procession. In either case, however, true worship is realized "in spirit and in truth," in one's own heart, by faith. We can all agree on this point.

However, it seems another sentence in the article's final paragraph is being used to suggest that liturgy is antithetical to true worship: "Participation in liturgical forms and ceremonies is not worship." Taken in isolation, this is a much more troubling proposition.

To make "liturgical forms and ceremonies" antithetical to "worship" is, as "Lady Dragon" noted, radically out of keeping with the biblical tradition. To defend this contrast, one would have to claim that the only form of worship God ever prescribed in scripture (liturgy/ritual, as in the Psalms, Leviticus-Deuteronomy, and even as far back as Genesis, etc.)--the form of worship Adventists themselves believe is now being performed in the Heavenly Sanctuary (!) (cf. mentions of incense, altars, ritual clothing, and extravagant adornments in Rev. 2; 4-5; 8, etc.)--is not worship at all. This is a chilling conclusion. The tendency to make worship and liturgy an "either/or" issue is, simply put, an unbiblical approach to the question of worship. In Sacred Scripture, worship and liturgy are always "both/and."

Lest we forget, even our humblest prayer on earth is, ultimately, part of that vast and superlative liturgy described in Revelation. Every prayer we whisper is being presented as incense by the priestly ministries of angels and other heavenly beings, holding golden vessels (Rev. 5:8; 8:2-3). The fact is, all Christian worship is, in the final analysis, liturgical. All Christian worship is channeled into, and configured within, the celestial liturgy. Thus, we can never speak of worship and liturgy as antithetical concepts--especially not in the New Testament. In the New Testament, the liturgy of heaven encompasses all worship that exists in all the universe (something that might not be said of Old Testament liturgics, restricted by earthly limitations).

Now, does this mean that Christian worship here below must, or must not, be ordered and formalistic? The fact is, the New Testament does not tell us, and for a very obvious reason. No epistle of the New Testament was intended to establish a church, including, most especially, its rhythms of worship. Rather, the apostles established the rhythms of local churches through their oral preaching, instruction, and example, when gathering followers and ordaining local leaders. The basic shape of Christian worship would have been delineated in these initial missionary labors, and not in later correspondence with these communities. As is easily expected, the epistles only deal only with particular controversies (e.g., speaking in tongues and interpretation [1 Cor 14], seating the wealthy and poor [1 Cor 11], etc.) that presuppose an existing, regular life of worship.

Let us assume for a moment that whatever is not contained in scripture is not of any binding force (a common Protestant assumption). In that case, no one can insist upon, or exclude, the practice of ordered, formal, liturgical worship in Christianity. Scripture itself gives no one license to claim that prayers must be spontaneous or aliturgical. A Protestant has no basis on which to condemn liturgical worship, especially given its place in the biblical tradition, which is why many Reformation traditions are still quite liturgical. (As it stands, New Testament scholars have identified various hymns and credal statements in Paul's writings believed to be widely used in apostolic Christian worship; the Synagogue relied upon a liturgical order; and of course, Paul encourages Christians to speak "psalms," that is, to rely upon the primary liturgical corpus of Old Testament worship [Eph 5:19]).

Of course, outside of scripture, the earliest Christian writings give us a generally liturgical portrait of Christian worship (e.g, the Didache, the Apostolic Tradition, etc.), reaching into the first century itself. The only exception to this rule is the charismatic spontaneity evident in the New Testament and in some early Christian sources (e.g., spontaneous anaphoras by "prophets" in the Didache.) Furthermore, modern liturgical scholarship has traced numerous elements of extant Christian liturgies to basic, even apostolic, core elements. It is safe to say, then, that extra-scriptural references, not unlike scriptural references, point Christianity in a liturgical direction. So far from being an undesirable form of Christian worship, then, liturgy is the natural, ancient, and universal reflex of Christian faith. But it is not its exclusive reflex. From youth services on guitars to grace at meals, family prayer circles, friends interceding for one another, prayers in distress, charismatic events, praise and worship adoration hours, and home worship groups (one of which I host), Catholics happily worship in spontaneous forms as well. In all these examples, I believe Catholicism strikes a quite appropriate, and biblical, balance--a balance also evident in mainline Protestantism.

However, one falls into an unbiblical extreme whenever one excludes liturgy as an authentic possibility for Christian worship, or worse, any vilifies the concept of liturgy altogether. Adventists are keen to encourage Christians to follow the example of Jesus, who worshipped in the Synagogue every Sabbath (Lk. 4:16). They would do well to remember themselves that at the Synagogue, Jesus was engaged in a manmade liturgy with prescribed elements and actions, out of which order all extant Christian liturgies have partly sprouted.

Ministry 1983: Adventists and Ritual

2011-07-07T23:42:00.002-06:00

An old article on Adventists and ritual. I welcome reactions.

The Proposed Ordinariate Liturgy

2011-07-03T15:06:00.002-06:00

This is a summary of Aidan Nichols' discussion of the proposed Ordinariate Liturgy, pending approval by Rome:

Sacraments

Baptism, Confirmation, Ordination

The Ordinariate will observe the usages of the Roman rite.

Eucharist

The Eucharistic rite of the Ordinariate will represent a Catholicization of "the English Prayer Book tradition" "by reference to its own principal ancient source -- the Use of Sarum," also "taking into account" contemporary worship forms, "whether from the Roman Missal of 1969 ... or from modern Church of England best practice." The following description implies that the Sarum Use will serve as its base: "substantial elements of the English Liturgy of the pre-Reformation period... married with those features of the Prayer Book that still held the affection of many [e.g., Nichols' entire discussion suggests the Prayer of Humble Access as an example], together with the best products of Roman rite revision and its Church of England counterpart."

Marriage

The Anglican usage presents no significant "difficulties," suggesting their general retention.

Office

Matins

The Anglican usage presents no significant "difficulties," being a "successful [adaptation] to congregational worship of the ancient [Office]." However, "following contemporary Church of England precedent, the second reading at Mattins could be drawn from post-biblical sources." Beside the possibility of using "the Roman rite Office of Readings [as] an obvious source for these," "the book drafted for the English Ordinariate contains an alternative cycle for Sundays and feasts taken from insular [e.g., British] sources. A number of these are taken from patristic writers (Bede, Aldhelm), mediaeval sources (John of Ford, Mother Julian, Nicholas Love), and English Catholic martyrs (Fisher, More, Campion), but the larger number derive from the Anglican patrimony (the Caroline divines and their Restoration successors, the Tractarians with particular reference to Newman, and a selection of later Anglo-Catholic writers)."

Evensong

The Anglican usage presents no significant "difficulties," suggesting its general retention.

Compline, & "a Day Hour"

Added, "following the example of the 1928 proposed Prayer Book."

Other Services

Funeral rites

The rites will include an "explicit prayer for the departed (and not simply for the bereaved)... strengthened by the addition of the Sarum rites for the commendation of the dead person which followed on the Requiem Mass."

Litany

The Anglican usage presents no significant "difficulties."

Lectionary

The Anglican Lectionary "for Office and Mass" presents no significant "difficulties," suggesting their general retention.

Calendar

The proposed calendar is (1) "the current seasonal calendar of the Church of England, itself of Sarum origin," (2) "together with the cycle of festivals as found in the 1970 General Calendar of the Roman rite," and (3) "a number of English or British commemorations, in excess of those in the National Calendar for England and Wales.

With True Faith Turn to Him

2011-06-20T15:29:00.003-06:00

The following selection is contained in the Book of Divine Worship (the liturgy used by U.S. Anglican Use parishes in the Roman Catholic Church), but is ultimately drawn from the Church of England's 1662 Book of Common Worship. Reading them, one can almost share Wesley's sentiment: "I believe there is no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety than the Common Prayer of the Church of England." It is inspiring that these gospel-filled words have been recognized by the Church as a genuine expression of Catholic faith. Consider praying them as you read:

The Penitential Rite

The Celebrant or Deacon says,
Ye who do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbors, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways: Draw near with faith, and make your humble confession to Almighty God, devoutly kneeling.

All join in saying,
Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, maker of all things, judge of all men: We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we from time to time most grievously have committed, by thought, word, and deed, against thy divine Majesty, provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; the remebrance of them is greivous unto us, the burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; for thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, forgive us all that is past; and grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life, to the honor and glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Celebrant says,
May Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all those who with hearty repentance and true faith turn to him, have mercy upon us, pardon and deliver us from all our sins, confirm and strengthen us in all goodness, and bring us to everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. R. Amen.

The Celebrant, Deacon, or other minister may then say one or more of the following sentences,
Hear the Word of God to all who truly turn to him.
Come unto me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden, and I will
refresh you. Matthew 11:28
God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that all that believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16
This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. 1 Timothy 1:15
If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the perfect offering for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:1-2

The Celebrant says,
The peace of the Lord be always with you.
R. And with thy spirit.

Old Riddles and New Creeds

2011-06-07T19:37:00.002-06:00

After receiving his first Communion in 1922, G.K. Chesterton penned this poem:

THE CONVERT

After one moment when I bowed my head
And the whole world turned over and came upright,
And I came out where the old road shone white,
I walked the ways and heard what all men said,
Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
But softly, as men smile about the dead.

The sages have a hundred maps to give
That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
They rattle reason out through many a sieve
That stores the sand and lets the gold go free:
And all these things are less than dust to me
Because my name is Lazarus and I live.

~G.K. Chesterton

Fine Distinctions

2011-05-29T17:46:00.000-06:00

This is very true.

"There is clearly a considerable potential difference between a beast that has two horns 'like a lamb' and a 'Lamb-like Beast' with two horns." - Newport, Kenneth. Apocalypse and Millennium. Cambridge University Press, 2000, 174.

From 1975 to 2011

2011-05-26T21:38:00.000-06:00

A former Jehovah's Witness, now Catholic, reflects on date setting.

John of Damascus on the Church

2011-05-26T21:10:00.000-06:00

We firmly believe that the Church will never fall, will never waiver and will not be destroyed. For this is what Christ taught, "by Whom the heavens were established and the earth was founded, and stands firmly as the Holy Spirit says”. (Ps. 32:6) The Antichrist will lure to himself “those who have a weak and feeble mind, will seduce and will tear them away from the living God.” (St. John of Damascus, Oration on the Transfiguration of the Lord)

An Evangelical Meets Catholic Seminarians

2011-05-23T09:22:00.002-06:00

Travelling to the Mount (Mt. St. Mary's). On Theresa Beem's blog.

I am proud to know three men who have recently graduated, or are still studying at, Mt. St. Mary's. And they may be three of the most prayerful, joyful, fun, and holy men I have ever met. At least one is a downright saint.

Keeping the Rapture a Secret

2011-05-21T00:19:00.002-06:00

The author of the Left Behind Series rejects Harold Camping's prophecy.

Don't Cry Wolf

2011-05-18T21:35:00.002-06:00

A solid take on this Doomsday prophecy.

The End of the World, Again

2011-05-18T13:50:00.015-06:00

On 22 May 2001, Harold Camping, long time voice of Family Radio, will come face to face with his own "Great Disappointment." As a teenager, I found Camping arrogant. A lifetime of bluntly "correcting" others in condescending tones will culminate in global embarassment, and I can only hope, repentance (More likely, it will encourage quick recalculation or reinterpretation, his protestations to the contrary).

Sadly, no one will suffer like those who have given up their life savings in the wake of this man's error, and will face despair, poverty, and perhaps, anger with "God."

On the one hand, this experience is a fascinating window into the experience of the first Adventists. Reading these contemporary news articles makes the devastation of the Millerites impact me much more than historical records from a century and a half ago. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure if this experience leads me to respect them more or less.

It does, however, fill me with a sense of gratitude for the biblical balance of the Catholic Church, which, for two thousand years, has stood against excess in eschatology. Many groups who arrogantly claim they are "biblical" and the Catholic Church is "unbiblical," have, at the same time, failed to uphold precisely that verse of scripture the Catholic Church has always perfectly proclaimed: "no man knoweth the day or hour." The Adventist movement, sadly, was no exception in the 1840s.

Perhaps more sadly, Adventists are still in a "disappointment" experience. They continue to hold unto another misinterpreted prophecy--one of a National/Global Sunday Law. Unfortunately, a hundred and fifty years later, they are still waiting in vain, but proclaiming it nonetheless. In all that time, the Catholic Church has done the opposite of what was explicitly prophesied by Ellen White. The Church has embraced religious liberty in an ecumenical council, renounced its past acts, and is now one of the champions of human rights around the world. (If they had set a date as a deadline this time around, they might have been forced to confront this mistake sooner.)

It's time Adventists walk another cornfield, and finally confront another failed prophecy.

Restart

2011-04-26T08:07:00.002-06:00

Apologies for failing to moderate comments for some time. I was unable to keep a significant online presence after a small surgery, and no other moderators were able to check the blog either. This week, I will do my best to restore a series of regular posts to the blog.

Blogs often involve lulls and fresh starts. This will be one of them.

Lent VIII: Faint-Heartedness

2011-03-24T08:18:00.002-06:00

I'm going to continue to work through the Prayer of St. Ephrem.

The second thing the prayer asks God to remove is a spirit of "faint-heartedness," a passion similar to "sloth" in many respects. If sloth prevents us from beginning good, faint-heartedness keeps us from continuing the good. As St. John of the Ladder writes, "A doctor visits the sick in the morning, but despondency visits ascetics about noonday." In his commentary, Alexander Schmemann describes it in the following words:

It is the state of despondency which all the spiritual fathers considered the greatest danger for the soul. Despondency is the impossibility for man to see anything good or positive; it is the reduction of everything to negativism and pessimism. it is a truly demonic power in us because the Devil is fundamentally a liar. . . . Despondency is the suicide of the soul because when man is possesed by it he is absolutely unable to see the light and desire it.

So how do we overcome despondency?

1. We ask God to take it from us, certainly. This is the point of the Prayer of St. Ephrem.

2. Secondly, we must remember that the struggle is our only option. St. Isaac the Syrian, in his 73rd ascetical homily, brusquely tells us: "It is better for us to die in our struggle than to live in our fall." All we have is the fight; everything else is simply unthinkable.

3. We can see the fight itself, even in our despondency, as a cure for despondency. In the Philokalia, Evagrius says, "If the spirit of despondency attacks you, do not leave your cell, and do not turn aside in time of discontent. For as silver is purified by friction, so will your heart be made bright if you stand firm." Enclosing darkness is a sign we are slacking; the only answer is to pick up and continue fighting.

4. Finally, we remember that mastering self is a process, and a long process. One of the Desert Fathers encouraged a younger monk with a story of a boy who was asked to clear the tangled undergrowth of an estate. As the boy inspected the property, he was overwhelmed by the undergrowth, and grew despondent. Finally, his father came to him, and says in understanding pity, "My son, work according to the measure of thy sleep each day, and it shall be sufficient for thee." In time, the son pulls out the last weed.

God is that pitying father, and asks us only to work as much as we can. He loves even our tiniest work. And even if we end our lives without having fully mastered our hearts (and who has?), our effort is precious in God's sight. I'll close with these words from St. Peter of Damascus, also in the Philokalia:

Do not despair in any way, ignoring God's help, for He can do whatever He wishes. On the contrary, place your hope in Him and He will do one of these things: either through trials and temptations, or in some other way which He alone knows, He will bring about your restoration; or He will accept your patient endurance and humility in the place of works... Only do not abandon your Physician...

Lent VIII: St. Patrick, and Loving Our Enemies

2011-03-22T23:56:00.003-06:00

This past week, we celebrated the memory of St. Patrick, the Enlightener of Ireland. I want to take a moment to briefly reflect on his life. His life's story has so much to teach us this Lent.

As many of you may know, Patrick born in Britain, but as a child, was kidnapped and enslaved by the Irish. Years later, he escaped. In Britain, he was ordained. Later, he returned to Ireland as a missionary.

Two of his authentic writings survive. In one of them, the Confession, Patrick does not hide his former feelings for the Irish. He bluntly and emphatically admits: "I never had any reason, except the Gospel and his promises, ever to have returned to that nation from which I had previously escaped with difficulty" "after my misfortunes and so great difficulties, after my captivity."

And yet, he did.

Any lingering hatred and anger towards the Irish would have been understandable. And yet, towards the end of the Confession, we read these overwhelming, and probably tearful, words: "May it never befall me to be separated by my God from his people whom he has won in this most remote land" (58).

A young Patrick desperately tried to escape Ireland, having grown up with a fear and hatred for his captors. At the end of his life, he wanted to die among the Irish, among the people God gave him to care, to love, to baptize, and to forgive.

All of us have been mistreated, hurt, and attacked by others. But Jesus calls every person to "love your enemies, and do good to those who hate you" (Lk. 6:17). In Christ, we are sent to them every day, as truly as Patrick was sent to his enemies; we are called to offer them a drink of water, clothing, any help they might need, a kind word.

Paul's charge is perfect:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this 'you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:14-21).

It is easy for us to want misfortune to befall those who have hurt us, but Paul tells us "bless and do not curse them." It is not enough to simply stop desiring that negative things happen to those who mistreat us. Rather, we are called "to bless" them, that is, hope for positive things in their lives, and actively pray for their happiness and success. Tonight, following the example of Ireland's patron, take a moment to pray for those in your life who frustrate you most, for those who have wounded you deepest. Pray for the courage, patience, and strength to say, "May it never befall me to be separated by my God from them." Pray for them, and ask God for every good thing you would ask for yourself.

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

Lent VII: Sloth

2011-03-21T09:01:00.001-06:00

Throughout Lent I'd like to highlight certain prayers that might enrich the Fast. The one I will present tonight is known as the Prayer of St. Ephrem. which dates to the 4th-5th century. It is the most important Lenten prayer of the Byzantine rite. You might want to try it tonight.

O Lord and Master of my life,
take from me the spirit of sloth, faint-heartedness, lust of power and idle talk.
(prostrate)

But grant a spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love to me, your servant.
(prostrate)

Yea, Lord and King,
grant me to see my own faults and not to judge my brother,
for you are blessed unto ages of ages. Amen.
(prostrate)

O God be merciful to me a sinner.
O God, cleanse me of my sins and have mercy on me.
O Lord, forgive me, for I have sinned without number.
(x4, with bows)

O Lord and Master of my life,
take from me the spirit of sloth, faint-heartedness, lust of power and idle talk.
But grant a spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love to me, your servant.
Yea, Lord and King,
grant me to see my own faults and not to judge my brother,
for you are blessed unto ages of ages. Amen.
(prostrate)

I'll highlight one aspect of this prayer tonight. Notice that the first thing we ask God to remove is "sloth." In his commentary on the prayer, the Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann calls sloth "the basic disease": "a deeply rooted cynicism" that "constantly convinces us that no change is possible and therefore desirable."

All of us need awakening and growth in our moral and spiritual lives. Lent is a season designed precisely for this. However, we are tempted to never begin the process at all. We may have a desire to change, but after confronting who we are, and realizing the enormity of the challenge ahead of us, we may fall into the "oppressive sorrow" that leads us to "neglect to begin good," as St. Thomas Aquinas defines sloth. We are overwhelmed by the depths of our bondage to bitterness, lying, pornography, drug abuse, food, or anger. We can't imagine that anything we "do" will ever free us, and we surrender to it every time it calls without an faintest resistance.

The Prayer of St. Ephrem asks God to take this sloth away from us.

Key is the realization that we cannot free ourselves from sloth. God must. We are Christians, saved by grace alone. And so we pray. But what happens if sloth has so thoroughly infected us, we are losing faith, sight of God, and cannot even begin to pray for this freedom? In the Philokalia, a Greek monastic guide, Evagrios calmly tells us: "do not lose heart and despair because you have not yet received the gift of prayer. You will receive it later."

All God ever desires is for you to want to want to pray, to want to want to be free. If you feel you have that, you have it all. If you want that, even in the tiniest corner of your heart, you have it all. That's it. Be patient, be hopeful. In time, try a prayer like the Prayer of St. Ephrem, with whatever emotions and spirit you do or do not have.

God will do the rest.

And if, throughout Lent, we fall, and have to begin all over again, we do. God will do it. I am there, and feeling it is time to begin again.

Lent VI: "But Why Meat in Particular?"

2011-03-21T08:58:00.003-06:00

Yesterday, I explored the general principle behind abstinence during Lent: self-emptying, self-denial. Today, I'd like to explore why we give up meat in particular. The answer lies in the ancient vegetarian ethic of Christianity.

Christianity has always valued and encouraged a vegetarian or vegan diet. All Eastern monks, and Western monks in the Benedictine, Trappist, and Carthusian traditions, practice vegetarianism. As for the rest of us, meat was (and in some communities, still is) excluded on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Lent. To this day, on the Greek and Coptic calendars, meat is excluded more than two-thirds of the year. Many favorite saints were vegetarian, including Francis, Martin de Porres, Benedict, etc. Still, Christianity has always attempted to be moderate on the issue. Ancient Christians resisted the views of groups that identified the eating of meat as intrinsically "evil" (out of excessive asceticism, dualistic theology, etc.).

So why has the Church encouraged vegetarianism?

1. One reason was simplicity. St. Basil believed, "For a man in good health bread will suffice, and water will quench thirst; such dishes of vegetables may be added as conduce to strengthening the body." Vegetarianism is healthy and modest. In other words, it is Christian. The link between simplicity and health was common among Christians. St. Clement of Alexandria believed that those with a "frugal" (i.e., vegetarian) diet are "the healthiest," acting on a "rational motive." By contrast, meat was associated with wealth and excess in the ancient world. One needed considerable resources to own or buy animals for slaughter. In Greek culture, meat was also linked to gluttony (especially by association to the lifestyle of the wealthy), and by extension, stupor. Finally, the consumption of meat was riskier for ancients (e.g., undercooking). St. Jerome noted, "no one can imagine vegetables being the cause of disease"; in the ancient mind, vegetables were not linked to disease in the same way meat was.

2. At least some ancient Christians linked vegetarianism to compassion towards animals. St. John Chrysostom praised the "very gentle and loving" Scythian saints and ascetics who avoided meat, writing, "even to the unreasoning creatures they extend their gentleness." Many also noted that killing animals was not ideal: "In the earthly paradise. . . no one sacrificed animals, and no one ate meat" (St. Basil). Interestingly, in Jerome's thought, Christ came to restore that aspect of humanity's original state as well:

God had purposed in the fulness of time to sum up and renew in Christ Jesus all things which are in heaven and in earth. Whence also the Savior himself in the Revelation of John says 'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending.' At the beginning of the human race we neither ate flesh... once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, [we do not] eat flesh. . .

Back to us...

Avoiding meat on Fridays is one of the last reflexes of the Christian vegetarian tradition among Western Christians. When you observe the rule, even if you aren't a vegetarian, you do so in the context of this heritage; your Fridays will be more meaningful when your heart engages it. What theme speaks to you? Is it simplicity? Is it health? Is it compassion towards animals?

Explore it.

Any of these can transform your Lent.

Lent V: "Why Give up Meat on Fridays?"

2011-03-15T02:11:00.005-06:00

All Catholics abstain from meat on at least some days during Lent. Roman Catholics, for instance, must avoid red meat and poultry on Fridays, encouraging the popularity of the church "fish fry." If you happen to find this practice difficult, realize: it once was broader and more exacting. By the late Middle Ages, the Western Church taught complete abstention from meat, eggs, and dairy, as well as sex, throughout the season of Lent. Many Eastern Christians are still encouraged to abstain from meat (including fish), eggs, dairy, (at least some) oils, and alcohol.

Why?

When Christians abstain from food, music, sex, or any other thing, they do not do so because these things are evil or objectionable (as St. Augustine was all too quick to point out to the Manicheans). In the case of food, the New Testament teaches us that "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected"; "God created [these foods] to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" (1 Tim. 4:3-4). Instead, it is precisely because these foods are good, and because they are to be received with thanksgiving, that Christians abstain from them during Lent. On the cross, Jesus denied himself everything that is good; during Lent, as we travel beside Jesus toward the cross, we are called to mirror his spirit of self-emptying in tiny ways. We symbolically live out the words of an early Christian hymn that may well be preserved in the following words of the apostle Paul:

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross. (Phil. 2:5-8)

As humans, we live our lives in terms of entitlement. We are frustrated when our hard work is not entirely rewarded, when we are not honored or respected as we ought to be, and when we are passed over for opportunities we could have. We choose to use up every cent we own, and treat ourselves to gifts whenever we can afford it. We want what we "deserve."

These instincts are radically foreign to God.

God uses infinite power to be last and least. God is humility, love, self-sacrifice, and self-emptying. Avoiding foods we deserve, could buy, and love, is a small symbol of self-emptying; it is a visible sign to us that we are also not called to exercise our rights. When we live the life of God, we forfeit "rights."

This week, when you encounter disappointment (as we all do), long to forfeit, desire to lose. Run to last place. Empty yourself--of pride, of entitlements, of expectations... and of meat.

"I have food to eat that you do not know about. . . . My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work." (Jn. 4:32-34).

Lent IV: Why Do We Call It 'Lent?'

2011-03-11T22:12:00.002-07:00

The name "Lent" comes from a Middle English word meaning "lengthening." Once a synonym for Spring, the term refers to the lengthening of daylight hours as one approaches the Spring Equinox (which always falls during Lent). When the Fast begins, we can usually trace out the first signs of Spring overcoming the dark chill of Winter. By its end, on the morning of the Resurrection, warm temperatures, grass, and blossoming trees fill the world. It is as if the natural world has fully risen from death. Woven into the annual cycle of nature is the mystery of resurrection that animates Christian faith. Lent is designed to utilize the earth's primordial rhythm.

It is worth embracing.

In the eye of a Christian, every new bud, every insect, every ray of sunlight, is an icon of the Resurrection. Make a commitment to approach them as such on every day of Lent. They are revelation; they are encounter; they are sacred. When you step outside, notice tiny leaves unfolding before the sun, and anticipate the mystery of rebirth--its inevitability, its promise, its beauty, and the death that precedes it. Let every twig and stream excite and prepare you for the climactic events of Holy Week. Recognize them as living liturgical decorations for our planet, beyond the violet altar cloths of church.

These ancient words from the pen of Tertullian, a second century North African Christian, are almost poetic:

Day dies into night, and is buried everywhere in darkness... yet it again revives, with its own beauty, its own dowry, its own sun, the same as ever, whole and entire, over all the world, slaying its own death, night—opening its own sepulchre, the darkness. Winters and summers return, as do the springtide and autumn.... all creation is instinct with renewal. Whatever you may chance upon, has already existed; whatever you have lost, returns again without fail. All things return to their former state, after having gone out of sight; all things begin after they have ended; they come to an end for the very purpose of coming into existence again. Nothing perishes but with a view to salvation. The whole, therefore, of this revolving order of things testifies to the resurrection of the dead. In His works did God write it, before He wrote it in the Scriptures... He first sent you Nature as a teacher... being Nature's disciple... do not doubt that God, whom you have discovered to be the restorer of all things, is likewise the reviver of the flesh. ("On the Resurrection," XII; c. 195 CE)

Mm.. "Nothing perishes but with a view for salvation."

This is Lent.

Lent III: Why Do We Wear Ashes?

2011-03-09T18:45:00.002-07:00

The Church is ancient and foreign. She was born on another continent twenty centuries ago, and has passed through dozens of cultures. Sometimes, its not easy for our Western society to understand all the things she does. Applying ashes is one of those ancient, foreign practices we could all more fully understand.

Christianity inherited the biblical practice of applying ashes during periods of fasting and mourning (2 Sam 13:19; Esther 4:1; Job 2:8; 42:6, etc.). In the Ancient Near East, a man would apply ashes as a sign that he desired death in his intense grief, or felt a horrific loss had effectively stolen his life. It had a stark iconic value. A human body in torn clothes, smothered in ashes and refuse, looks like an abandoned, unclean corpse. It is as if the mourner, seeking the status of a dead man, has buried himself alive.

By embracing death, the mourner cast away any participation in life. In Jonah, the king of Nineveh, immediately upon hearing a prophecy of destruction, "rose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes" (3:6). He abandoned all worldly status, riches, diversions, and luxuries; they were empty, useless, worthless. Thus, in contexts of repentance, the practice expressed a desire to leave not merely a particular sin or error, but one's entire former life behind. It was a symbolic death of the whole self, born from grief.

This is why, thousands of years later, the Church keeps this practice alive.

Lent is not about giving up a particular habit for six weeks; rather, this season calls us to an entire death to self, an entire transformation. It is a realization, born from intense grief and guilt, that our lives cannot continue as they were. We are morbidly disfigured with emblems of death: ashes, a black cross. The priest whispers the words, "turn away from sin, and be faithful to the gospel" as he applies them to our foreheads. We must die. We must say with St. Paul, "the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" "I have been crucified with Christ; It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal 6:14; 2:19-20).

A few months ago, a friend who is learning the faith turned to another friend of mine and asked, "What does it mean to die to self? Are you dead to yourself?" Funny (and tough) question, until we remember the words of Paul, "it is Christ who lives in me"; "to live is Christ." Death to self means a commitment to live the life of Christ instead.

As best you can, try to live this Lent as Jesus would. This is what the entire Christian life aims to do. If Jesus walked in your shoes for a day, what would he say (or not say), do (or not do), go (or not go). How would he treat everyone around Him? He spent his time with the poor, lonely, and marginalized. He forgave his murderers. He tirelessly worked for others. At the very least, try to learn to look into the eyes of others with the same emotions he has for them. Try it. You might be surprised what you see. Fast from yourself; partake of Him.

Live his life, not the one you abandoned today in ashes.

Lent II: The First Step

2011-03-09T18:35:00.002-07:00

St. Leo I wrote several Lenten homilies for the Christians of Rome less than a century after the 40 day fast had spread to that city (sometime in the late 4th century). On the eve of Ask Wednesday, I'd like to share one line from his 6th homily that is all too poignant:

"Let the feeling of mercy be first aroused and the faults of others against us be forgotten."

Lent is a time of awakening, as symbolized by the Spring season in which it is set. All of us struggle with feelings of spiritual "sleep" (as a Buddhist might express it), or "forgetfulness" (as in Islam). Lent is one of the moments where Christians call one another to rise, and see, and remember, and live. We need moments like these often; the Church gives us these on at least an annual cycle.

Of course, awakening is a gradual process (especially for me). We are given forty days for our spiritual eyes to open, memories to flood back, and for us to turn and lift ourselves from our beds. What is so striking in Leo, however, is the reminder that the "first" thing that must be aroused, before anything else, must be mercy. The first stirring of a Christian's heart must be a willingness to forgive. Before we pray, before we fast, we must forgive.

Any sacrifice, including those we offer for Lent, requires this change of heart; as Jesus said: "first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift" (Mt. 5:24). In his first homily for Lent, Leo warns us that we cannot begin a season of prayer if we cannot say with the most prototypical of all Christian prayers: "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us." Why pray at all? How can one make it through Mass on Ash Wednesday if he stumbles on this line?

Of course, forgiveness is not easy. Which is why Leo makes at simpler for us; he calls us to simply let "the faults of others against us be forgotten." Just forget.

Forgetting. If I did not summon memories of hurt and instances of wrong, done even by those reading this reflection (hello), I could embrace others with a fuller heart. And that's why Leo, looking at the ancient Christians of Rome, could use no other word, think of no other solution.

Fifteen centuries later, there isn't another.

Tomorrow, we will wake up to an Ash Wednesday. As dreams become a fleeting memory in the first moments of a day, it will be time for fantasies of revenge, nightmares of the past, and illusions of control to simply dissolve. Separate yourself from them "as far as the east is from the west" (Ps. 103:12). Make it your Lenten challenge to never bring them to mind. Fast from them. Approach others as if the past never occurred. Make this the first thing you do.

On the evening before Lent begins, there is a rite in which Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Christians line up and prostrate before their parish priest, saying, "Forgive me, a sinner." He immediately prostrates himself before each, and says, "God forgives. Forgive me." Each one humbly responds, "God forgives." By the end of the night, all the faithful have asked forgiveness of one another.

Then they go home to begin the Fast.

Lent I: What to Give Up?

2011-03-07T22:56:00.004-07:00

I've always wanted to write a series of Lenten reflections; I'm going to give it a try this year.

***

Last night, a friend asked me what they might give up for Lent. It's a question many of us ask ourselves as Spring approaches.

Among world religions, Christianity places a particular and central emphasis on the word "Love." In 1 John 4, we read such lines as, "Let us love one another, for love is of God." "God is love." "Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God." "If we love one another, God remains in us."

A Christian fast ought to be about Love--a love that is projected outwards--towards God and neighbor. It is easy to think of Lent as a season of self-improvement, but in the paradox of Christian faith, there is no such thing as self-improvement that focuses on self; as Jesus said, "whoever seeks his life will lose it." We realize the meaning of our lives only as we live for others, as we love (cf. Mt. 10:38-39). If Lent is a Christian time, it is a time for love. And the sacrifices we make during Lent ought to be about love. As Kallistos Ware, an Orthodox writer, reminds us: "Sacrifice. . . is not primarily a matter of giving up but of giving. The main emphasis falls not upon what we deny to ourselves, but upon what we offer to God and to our neighbors."

Avoiding a meal, habit, or activity during Lent is great; better still is when the time and money we have saved by avoiding these things is then reinvested in God or those around us. If you give up music in your car, spend that time in prayer for others. If you give up a daily meal, donate an equivalent amount of food daily to the local soup kitchen. If you give up facebook, regularly meet or call friends who would love a listening ear. Build that second step, that bridge. Let your death to self be life to another; let your self-denial be other-affirming; this is, after all, what Jesus' death was all about.

So this year, as you plan what you might give up for Lent, it might be worthwhile to plan to give up only those things you know you can give. Begin Lent by asking yourself: Where can I give? To whom can I give? What can I give? And then, let that last question especially guide what you offer for Lent. Work backwards.

And if you have any ideas, I could use some.

An Open(-sourced?) Faith

2011-03-04T20:21:00.007-07:00

Roy Gane, professor of Hebrew Bible at the Andrews University SDA Theological Seminary, recently posted on the Seminary blog a thought-provoking reaction to some controversy regarding an evangelical scholar who was invited by Adventist Forum to speak on campus. (If you've not been paying attention, the Seminary has taken some criticism by some conservative members of the Adventist church for allowing speakers and classes that they believe compromise the church's mission and spiritual life, such as a class formerly called "Spiritual formation" and a visit by Catholic professors to guest lecture.)

How open should Christians be about their faith? Is it something we should protect from contrary influences as a man with a treasure might guard against a thief or is listening to others a sign of a strong, confident faith? Gane weighs in:

No doubt some think our Seminary should be like a glorified SDA catechism class, but it is essential for the education of our Bible teachers and pastor-evangelists that they learn how to interact with and reach out to people who think outside their “box.” So what will happen if some undergraduates attend such an event? Will their faith be undermined? I would ask in response: Which is better, to have them hear the various sides of an issue in the faith-affirming environment of our university, or to hear only some sides by reading books or getting information from the internet? They will inevitably be confronted with questions that affect or potentially affect their faith. Will they encounter such issues here, where they have support, or elsewhere, where they will be on their own? Will we do enough if we only teach them what to think, or should we also teach them how to think?

Catholics&Adventists Site News

2011-02-02T01:45:00.004-07:00

I've updated the site's email address (moving it to a gmail account for space), and added an archived copy of the old DIES DOMINI site for those who enjoyed that resource.

Both of these moves are long overdue.

Feast of the Presentation

2011-02-02T00:45:00.009-07:00

For today's feast:

On the day of the Presentation God received infinitely more glory than He had hitherto received in the temple from all the sacrifices and all the holocausts of the Old Testament. On this day it is His own Son Jesus Who is offered to Him, and Who offers to the Father the infinite homage of adoration, thanksgiving, expiation and supplication.

This is indeed a gift worthy of God.

And it is from the hands of the Virgin, full of grace, that this offering, so pleasing to God, is received. . . .

Just as Mary had given her consent in the name of all humanity when the angel announced to her the mystery of the Incarnation, so also on this day Mary offers Jesus to the Father in the name of the whole human race. For she knows that her Son is "the King of Glory, the new light enkindled before the dawn, the Master of life and death." (Dom Columba Marmion, O.S.B.)

Roe v. Wade: Our Common Ground

2011-01-23T00:30:00.003-07:00

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. This is one of the most divisive days in our nation, hosting rival, passionate protests outside government buildings.

I wish it were a day we could stress our common ground instead.

Whether we identify as "pro-life" or "pro-choice," I think it is fair to say none of us are "pro-abortion." We can stand together on this platform. In a world where preventing pregnancy is possible, abortion is never our first choice. It can't be. There is nothing positive in the realization that more than 50% of all abortions are sought by sub-poverty line and low-income women, 60% of abortions in the US are requested by minorities, and almost 7% by minors. No American, whatever their views, can "celebrate" the abortion of 50 million children since 1973. There is tragedy and failure written in all of these statistics.

Every abortion is a tragedy, reflective of a failure of society as a whole: a failure to fully encourage and utilize means of prevention (abstinence, sexual education, contraception, etc.); a failure of governments to provide adequate financial support, healthcare, and psychological/emotional resources to families; a failure to provide the resources for children with disabilities and their families to lead happy, fulfilled lives; a failure of our education and criminal systems to prevent rape.

No parent should feel forced to choose between financial security and a child.
No parent should feel they cannot contribute to society, or advance their education and careers, because they have a child.
No parent should feel forced to abort their child for lack of excellent adoption options, and parents willing to care for new children.
No parent should have to face an undesired pregnancy, or be unprepared for it.
No parent should lack the resources to find fulfillment and support throughout pregnancy and childbirth.
No parent should have to endure the negative emotional and physical consequences of an abortion.
No child should be unwanted because of their gender.
No parent should ever have conceived their child under circumstances of rape.
No parent should be forced into a painful choice between the life of a mother and the life of a new child.

In these instances, "choice" is no longer truly a "choice," and "life" will never be "life" in the fullest sense.

Our society must rise to this challenge, and find creative solutions that involve all of us. Whether our banners read "choose life" or "safe, legal, and rare," all of us want to reduce the occurrence of abortion. Let's cooperate towards the one goal we all share, the only goal that matters. How many families will our present mutual villanization and labels help? Let's unitedly champion social welfare and justice programs, government policies, medical research, and education reforms that can eliminate this tragedy, or at the very least, reduce it drastically. Let's all be, in our own way, however we feel towards Roe v. Wade, a new movement for life--one with broader appeal, and a more profound sense of compassion for every human being: vulnerable child and hurt, struggling mother. We all want life, we all want happiness, we all want dignity and possibility, and we all want to share that with the next generation.

And today is as good of a day as any to begin.

Lover of My Soul?

2011-01-19T14:28:00.003-07:00

A thought: Some of my liberal Christian friends embrace feminine images of God/dess (or note that God is beyond gender). However, I notice the evangelical girls I know describe their relationship with God in catastrophically romantic terms, love, even need, a fully masculine Jesus (Who loves them, to Whom they sing essentially love songs). Any thoughts? I wonder if anyone has explored this phenomenon.

"Told You So"

2011-01-11T09:10:00.004-07:00

A year ago, I wrote a "Mythbusters" series, addressing recent claims of the Continuing Anglican priest (and Catholic critic) Robert Hart. The first two installments of my series (1 and 2) addressed the following quotes by Fr. Hart:

The text of Anglicanorum Coetibus makes it clear that the former Anglicans will be under the bishop of the local Roman Catholic Diocese, granting only that each local diocesan bishop has to allow for the structure of the ordinariate (which directly affects only the clergy who want to be postulants).

. . . you will be part of the local Roman Catholic diocese, with whomever they have already as a bishop, and no matter which team he plays for.

Today, the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales released a "frequently asked questions" Statement on the Ordinariates. Here, a year later, we have a chance to hear from the diocesan bishops themselves. Their answer? Those registered in the Ordinariate will not be under their juridstiction, nor will they be members of local dioceses:

The Ordinariate will be a specific ecclesiastical jurisdiction which is similar to a diocese and will be led by its own ‘Ordinary’ (see below) who will be a bishop or priest. However, unlike a diocese its membership will be on a ‘personal’ rather than a ‘territorial’ basis; that is, no matter where a member of the Ordinariate lives within England and Wales they will, in the first instance [that is, before appeal to higher authorities], be under the ordinary ecclesial jurisdiction of the Ordinariate and not the diocese where they are resident.

Other passages reinforce this point. This passage distinguishes "members of the Ordinariate" ("under the juridstiction of the Ordinariate") from "members of a diocese" (who will be "under the jurdistiction of" a "diocesan bishop"):

Any Catholic, whether a member of the Ordinariate or a member of a diocese, will be able to attend Mass, receive Holy Communion and participate in the liturgies of an Ordinariate parish or celebrated by an Ordinariate priest. However, they would not be registered members of the Ordinariate and would remain under the ordinary jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop where they are resident.

Similarly, registered members of the Ordinariate are free to attend Mass, receive Holy Communion and participate in the liturgies of any diocesan parish but they would remain under the ordinary jurisdiction of the Ordinariate.

The contrast between these two groups is too clear. It always has been.

My conclusion a year ago stands: Fr. Hart misread Anglicanorum Coetibus, clouded by his personal feelings against the Ordinariates. His claims were baseless (now even more manifestly so), and represented little more than a scare tactic to discourage Anglicans about this new and exciting possibility. They can take comfort in the fact that the fiercest critics of the Ordinariate are the poorest interpreters of its founding documents.

The Origin of Christmas

2011-01-05T09:00:00.000-07:00

I should have posted this weeks ago; from Biblical Archeology Review.

As I have said every year, Christmas is of Christian origin.

Te Deum Laudamus

2011-01-01T09:01:00.002-07:00

This year, the Anglican-Catholic Ordinariate begins. Today was its first step. For the first time since the Reformation, three Church of England bishops, their wives, and three young sisters, have entered into full communion with the Catholic Church. The Rite of Reception was celebrated discretely out of respect for the Anglican world.

Relics, III: Pilgrimage and the Dead

2010-12-31T15:19:00.035-07:00

The Patriarchal Tombs at Machpelah

The Bible clearly establishes the miraculous potential of even the bones of the dead. However, many Protestants are inclined to read the story of Elisha's bones as an isolated event that provides no norms for a future relation to the bodies of holy men and women. According to this view: "a miracle occurred in that instance, but not as an encouragement to seek out the bones of the dead for similar miracles."

In fact, the biblical scholarship of the past century has generally concluded otherwise. Since the early 20th century (Albrecht Alt), scholars have noted that the Old Testament narrative likely represents an assemblage of the foundation stories of various local cultic centers. For this reason, many patriarchal stories identify the location of the events they describe (which coincide with known cultic centers), and highlight the fact that certain historic objects remain in those locations "to this very day." Tombs were certainly numbered among these sites. Pilgrimage to these sites was fueled by interest in the patriarchal stories, and represented a powerful reflex in ancient Israel:

In some cases pilgrimage to the tombs of Jewish heroes and ancestors clearly did occur. Even minor figures who are only briefly mentioned in the Bible, such as the daughter of Jephthah, sometimes played important roles in local tradition and ritual (Ps.-Philo, LAB 40:8-9). But interest seems to have been directed most frequently toward the tombs of the patriarchs, matriarchs, and kings. The tombs of Abraham and Sarah, the twelve patriarchs, David, Solomon, and other similar figures seem to have been among the few tombs that were associated with known locations in the Second Temple period. Some of these sites may have been known because of persistent traditions of pilgrimage that kept alive the memory of their location. (Allen Kerkeslager, "Jewish Pilgrimage and Jewish Identity in Hellenistic and Early Roman Egypt," Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt, Ed. David Franfurter [Boston: Brill, 1998], 139).

Many Adventists are unaware of the historical fact and significance of these pilgrimages. They were a common and mainstream phenomenon during the life of Jesus (cf. Mt. 23:19):

The outstanding example of this is the shrine of Machpelah at Hebron. The enclosure wall built by Herod the Great to surround the tombs of the patriarchs was strikingly similar in proportion, plan, and construction to the wall that he build to enclose the temple mount. Jack Lightstone has observed that this indicates that the shrine at Machpelah had a role for contact with the sacred similar in ideological function and in national scope to the temple in Jerusalem. This implies that Jews believed that the patriarchs and matriarchs buried in Machpelah could still render powerful assistance to their descendants. (Ibid.)

Mark S. Smith concludes the same expectations attended the tomb of Elisha:

Saints whose powers assumed legendary proportions in life were, for example, the objects of special devotion in death, including pilgrimage. The Elijah and Elisha cycles suggest that these men were not simply prophets (though biblical historiography conforms them generally to this picture), but also classical holy men whose deeds in life and death attracted the attention of the multitudes who traveled to their tombs to seek health and other areas of popular concern. The miracles of biblical holy men extended beyond their lifetimes. . . . When the corpse touched Elisha's bones, the dead man miraculously revived (2 Kgs 13.20-21). (Smith, Mark S. and Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus, Sheffield: Shedffield Academic Press, 1997, 53).

Many scholars agree. According to Joachim Jeremias, the episode in 2 Kings indicates Elisha's tomb was a very famous tomb of the pre-exilic period, to which pilgrimage persisted into late antiquity among Jews and Christians, a view van der Horst shares:

The story of this miracle demonstrates, as Jeremias rightly remarks, "dass wir es mit einem offenbar schon in vorexilischer Zeit hochberuehmte Grab zu tun haben." As in the case above, this too was exactly localized in postbiblical times: the Life of Elijah says it is in Samaria. . . and fourth-century Christian authors know many stories about miracles happening at the tomb. (van der Horst, Pieter Willem, "The Tombs of the Prophets in Early Judaism," Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Studies on Jewish Helleism in Antiquity [Leuven: Peeters, 2003], 123).

Far from representing an isolated miracle, then, it appears the story of Elisha's bones was transmitted and received at an early stage as a basis for pilgrimage, drawing crowds to the general location of the bones in the hope of healing (cf. the reflexes described, and never condemned, in Jn. 5:3-4). Only within this context is its original impact fully understood. This response was a natural reaction to the miracle story, and one consistent with the interest in miraculous personages, objects, and places later manifest in the New Testament. Indeed, “the cult of the dead in Christianity followed the patterns set by Judaism" (Kennedy, Charles A., “Dead, Cult of the,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. II, 108) until, in later centuries, "grave veneration became an exclusively Christian practice" (Hawley, John Stratton, Saints and Virtues: Comparative Studies in Religion and Society, Vol. 2 [University of California Press, 1987], 95).

Christianity, however, introduced a new dimension to the use of relics. Having transcended the pentateuchal stigmas of ritual uncleanness attached to dead bodies (Lev 21:11; Num 9:6-7), relics could be fully moved into sacred space. They were, after all, "living members of Christ and the temple the Holy Spirit, to be awakened by Him to eternal life and to be glorified" (Trent, Session 25). Thus, “the tombs of the Christian martyrs, like those of the prophets before them, stood as separate monuments; later some were incorporated into church buildings" (Ibid.). It is within that context that Catholics typically encounter their healing virtue today.

Relics, II: Superstition?

2010-12-30T23:10:00.013-07:00

I am not alone in suspecting that the biblical practices I cited in my last post on relics would be rejected as examples of "superstition" or "worshiping" humans by the principles of historic Protestantism.

Adventists believe in miracles, and when in need of healing, pray directly to God. But would they seek out a particular individual in hopes of a miracle? Would they feel confident merely touching a piece of cloth to his skin, and then touch it to their loved ones as an instrument of healing? Would they hope his very shadow would fall upon them? Would they believe that contact with his dead bones could produce miracles?

How quickly would these reflexes be criticized as placing one's trust in a human being? How many would be disparaged for believing in the miraculous power of a simple piece of cloth? What modern Adventist would feel comfortable crediting an object with a miracle? When would this not be called "superstitious?" What about a corpse? And yet, these reflexes were widespread in the early Christianity depicted in the New Testament. No Christian is criticized for seeking out the unique power of God in a certain human being or object. No one is told to "go directly to God."

Adventist rhetoric against relics would easily exclude practices perfectly natural to the New Testament. This is a very damaging fact, and unmasks the deeper issues in this debate. Even if Catholics have seen excesses related to these practices (as they will be the first to admit), the false dichotomies Adventism perpetuates (turning to God v. turning to human beings; prayer v. miraculous objects) are unbiblical. The net effect is to underscore the fundamental unity between apostolic and later Catholic practice.

Relics, I: The Theological Context

2010-12-26T15:23:00.032-07:00

Christianity is a faith that embraces the physical, the material. In the Incarnation, Christ assumed a physical body to save the world. He healed people through physical touch (Lk. 13:13); His saliva could work miracles (Mt. 8:23; Jn. 9:6-7); His breath could impart the Spirit (Jn. 20:22). Even the very clothes He wore transmitted healing power to those who touched them (Lk. 8:44). For this reason, people reached out to Him in faith, believing they could be cured by even the slightest contact with His physical body and clothing. (Lk. 6:19; Mk. 3:10; Mt. 14:36 || Mk. 6:56).

It is within this context that one can understand the Christian use of relics. As the dwelling places of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19), the physical bodies of holy men and women can also be channels of healing (cf. Jn. 14:12). This is certainly true in life; the touch of the apostles' hands healed the sick (Acts 9:17; 28:8). However, even in death, precisely in anticipation of the future resurrection, the bodies of holy people remain vessels of God, capable of transmitting miraculous power. In one startling example, the dead bones of Elijah the prophet raised a dead man to life:

So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. As a man was being buried, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha; as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he came to life and stood on his feet. (2 Kings 13:20-21)

For this reason, physical contact with the bodies of the holy people, living or dead, has become a desire of faith-filled Christians. This instinct is evident even in the New Testament, which notes that individuals would go so far as to touch pieces of cloth to the bodies of the apostles, confident that they would be healed: "God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that when the handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were brought to the sick, their diseases left them, and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12). Even the shadows cast by the bodies of the apostles were desirable: "they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on cots and mats, in order that Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he came by" (Acts 5:14-15).

These instincts remain as vibrant as ever in the Church. Christians continue to touch cloths to holy individuals in hope of healing. Likewise, they preserve and approach the bones of Christians with great reverence, recognizing the permanent and life-giving power of the Spirit in them. These responses are not superstitious, but biblical acts of faith in a God who works miracles through the physical, lives in His people, and who will restore their bodies on the last day. Nor do they undermine the unique place of God. Early Christians longed to sit under the shadow of Peter, or hold an apron touched to the body of Paul, not because they placed their trust in human beings rather than God, but because they knew God worked through these human beings. In the words of the old Douay Rhiems: "God is wonderful in his saints: the God of Israel is he who will give power and strength to his people. Blessed be God" (Ps. 68:35).

Closed-Mindedness

2010-12-26T14:40:00.009-07:00

The best evidence that there is something profoundly wrong with the mentality of many, many Adventists comes from the comments to the ANN article, to which I linked in the last post. Dozens of comments have been posted since I posted the link to that article. Some are thoughtful and sincere. Most, however, are frustrating to read, rejecting the facts outright. Rather than select the worst examples, I will merely reproduce pieces of the last two, more than representative of this mentality:

"May God forgive you for misleading so many people some of whom have become so confused by your article."

"Sorry for the writer, but please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We believe in the Bible not on inferences. God Bless You Bro! The Church has more important things to attend to---preaching the Word---not a pagan practice."

I am profoundly disappointed by these reactions, but unfortunately, hardly surprised.

Christmas is NOT Pagan in Origin

2010-12-20T22:27:00.009-07:00

As I have said for a long time... and Adventist News Network agrees.

Positive: it is wonderful to see an Adventist recognize that the origins of Christmas are rooted in a calculation from Passover. Disappointing: the Adventists commenting on the article who want it be pagan-inspired. They exploit the fact that the author fails to make reference to the pre-Nicene sources for this reconstruction (which do exist), and to the scholarship discussing them (for example).

C. S. Lewis on Praying for the Dead

2010-12-19T19:53:00.001-07:00

Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age, the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to him? (C.S. Lewis, Letters To Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, from Chapter 20)

HUGO BIRTHDAY

2010-12-02T12:52:00.001-07:00

The time has returned. :)

Thankful for Adventism

2010-11-25T14:19:00.003-07:00

Spectrum readers remember the aspects of Adventism for which they are most thankful. Good idea.

Home in Sight

2010-11-19T06:47:00.001-07:00

The English and Welsh bishops finally announce a timeline for the creation of the Anglican-Catholic Ordinariate (UK). It all begins at the beginning of January, and will end at Pentecost.

This is a joyful time. Pray for them.

Sacred Scripture

2010-11-11T15:37:00.000-07:00

From the new post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on Sacred Scripture, Verbum Domini, available by PDF:

Although the word of God precedes and exceeds sacred Scripture, nonetheless Scripture, as inspired by God, contains the divine word (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) “in an altogether singular way”. (17)

Glorifying God

2010-11-09T08:34:00.000-07:00

Words do not describe...

Ordinariates Forming

2010-11-08T06:47:00.002-07:00

Good news: 5 Anglican bishops resign to join the Catholic Ordinariate.

(By the way, midterms are over... I will try to write a short post every day.)

Linkettes: Adventists on the Ordinances

2010-10-01T09:15:00.004-06:00

I should have posted these links earlier. I have been busy as midterms approach:

On the Spectrum blog, David Brattson argues that "Christians of all denominations should show. . . due consideration for the sensitivities and consciences of their hosts when at a Communion service in a church other than their own." I am glad he shows great regard for the historic sensitivities of Christians as regards communion. The comments that follow have taken interesting turns since (including the typical sarcastic remarks of certain conservative Adventists on Spectrum blog, and our own Clement admirably explaining Catholic eucharistic theology). My difficulty? Understanding how Brattson can cite as many fathers as he does, and not truly take to heart the ancient Christian notion that the eucharist truly is "the medicine of immortality."

Meanwhile, on the Adventist Seminary blog, Denis Fortin states, "I personally don’t see much difference between induction, commission, and ordination when it comes to laying on of hands," and invites the Adventist church to clarify the meaning of this gesture, especially with respect to women. I have long shared this view. As an Adventist, I would also argue that the distinctions between laying hands for "commissioning" or "ordination" are un- (or at least extra-) biblical, and should likely be abandoned by Adventists. Of course, I am now a Catholic, and bound by a very different theology of ordination.

The Origins of the Christian Calendar

2010-09-24T19:19:00.001-06:00

Some reduce the Christian calendar to an attempt to adopt and modify "pagan" holidays to facilitate the spread of Christianity. No doubt a desire to rival contemporary pagan celebrations were a major factor in the choice of certain dates. But the original commemoration of these events, the choice of what events to associate with these dates in later times, and in fact, most feasts on the calendar, are native to Christianity.

Commemorations of individual saints (the bulk of the calendar) usually fall on the date of the saint's death, a tradition widespread in the 2nd century (Martyrdom of Polycarp 18; Tertullian, the Chaplet 3). Of course, the core of the system (Pascha and Pentecost) are modified retentions from Judaism, observed in apostolic times. All moveable observances (e.g., Lent, Holy Week, Triodion, Ascension, and later feasts like Trinity, Sunday of Orthodoxy, Corpus Christi, etc.) are directly contingent on the date of those feasts. It also appears from the writings of Hippolytus and Tertullian that the date of the Annunciation is derived from the (suggested) coincidence of the original Pascha and the Spring Equinox, with the date of Christmas calculated to fit a 9 month "gestation" period (and the Conception and Birth of John the Baptist calculated by extension.) Other observances (e.g., Holy Cross, Our Lady of the Rosary, Our Lady of Fatima, translation feasts) fall on dates of historical significance to the Church.

Therefore, taken as a whole, the Christian calendars bear few marks of external influence. The dates I think are most influenced by a desire to rival contemporary pagan feasts include the Roman-rite All-Saints' and All-Souls' Day. The date of the Nativity of Mary appears to rival astrological interests.

The notion of Christian days as rival days to paganism is often encouraged because of the survival and assimilation of certain pre-Christian cultural traditions near these feasts. After all, many major Christian celebrations are near to Equinox/Solstices. However, the date of Passover (essentially, a Near Eastern Solstice festival on a lunar cycle) is partly to blame for that. And of course, we can thank 19th century anti-Catholic polemicists who made unscholarly links to "Babylonian paganism" for fanning the flames of suspicion.

Prayer Request

2010-09-23T20:53:00.000-06:00

Hi everyone, I would like to ask if you all would say a prayer for my family. I really appreciate it.

Brandon

"Where there is anti-Catholicism I will go forward with great courage and joy."

2010-09-16T19:47:00.001-06:00

Fantastic interview with Pope Benedict XVI.

The Papacy and the Antichrist, I: "Come in the Flesh"

2010-09-10T19:51:00.014-06:00

As I have noted many times, the papacy does not meet the profile of the coming antichrist clearly delineated in 1, 2 John. The church of Rome does not deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 Jn. 2:22), nor does she deny that He has come in the flesh (1 Jn. 4:2-3 || 2 Jn. 2:7)

Adventists, when pressed with these facts, attempt to reinterpret these characteristics. For instance, some Adventists claim that Catholics essentially deny that Christ has "come in the flesh" by denying that Christ assumed a sinful human nature. This argument is at least as old as Christian Edwardson's 1942 book, Facts of Faith (p. 204). Of course, its interpretation of 1 Jn. 4 is not normative in Adventism, and is dismissed by many mainstream Adventist theologians. Additionally, it depends upon an understanding of Christ's human nature that is fiercely contested in Adventist theology, and is likely the minority view in Adventist scholarship. Norman Gulley, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Southern Adventist University, comments on this very interpretation in an opinion piece for the GC Biblical Research Institute:

1 John 4:1-3 does not speak about which kind of human nature (sinful or sinless) Jesus took, but human nature itself. Gnostics, and later, Docetists, believed that He did not really become human, but merely appeared as human. This passage labels such a denial of His genuine humanity as antichrist. ([Psudonym: Rand, Benjamin], "What Human Nature Did Jesus Take? Unfallen," 8.)

Since this reading of 1 Jn. 4 does not pass muster even among other Adventists, Catholics can easily dismiss it.

Instead, as Gulley observes, 1, 2 John appear to be directed against those who denied Christ was incarnate. This is also the consensus position of New Testament scholarship. 1 John opens with an affirmation of the physicality of Christ: "what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands concerning the word of life—this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it. . . . we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us" (1 Jn. 1:1-3). 1 Jn. 5:6 stresses that Jesus Christ came by "blood." If we expand the scope of our study to include the other Johannine texts, we find the closest parallel to the language of 1 Jn. 4:2-3 || 2 Jn. 2:7 in Jn. 1:14 ("the Word became flesh, and lived among us,"), an unambiguous reference to the physical incarnation of Christ (cf. the common use of "word" for Christ in 1 Jn. 1:1, Jn. 1:1). One must conclude that "the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming" denies precisely what John 1:14 affirms: that Jesus Christ, "the Word," "has come in the flesh," that is, that he is incarnate.

In light of these texts, is nonsensical for "the antichrist," the "coming" antichrist, the "antichrist" par excellence, to affirm the physicality of Jesus, whatever else it affirms or does not affirm. Even if one could persuasively argue that the phrase "coming in the flesh" embraces sinful tendencies, it does not follow that antichrist will affirm the physicality of Christ and only deny His sinful tendencies. The above textual evidence is clear: the physicality of Jesus is the primary question of 1 Jn. 4:2-3 || 2 Jn. 2:7, if not the whole question.

A Catholic Blog on Daniel 2

2010-09-07T21:57:00.002-06:00

Over on the Shamless Popery blog, Joe Heschmeyer has been sketching out a "Catholic" understanding of Daniel 2, over and against a view he associates with Adventists: [1] [2]. I tend to be initially skeptical of a cradle Catholic addressing Adventist theology, as I believe Adventist theology is far more complex, subtle, robust (and beautiful) than most Christians realize. An Adventist named Kevin Benta has criticized his initial post's representation of Adventism, though I believe Mr. Benta may have misunderstood the thrust of Herschmeyer's argument. As I understand it, Herschmeyer is attacking the notion that the Stone Kingdom of Dan. 2 embraces only the second coming of Christ, as Adventists believe (and not the Messianic age in a broader sense).

In fact, I share Heschmeyer's belief that the stone kingdom is not a symbol for the second coming alone. Like him, I believe it embraces the Christ event and Church age as a whole, culminating in the Second Coming. He cites a piece on AToday, which observes: "To properly exegete Daniel, one must remember that it is not the practice of the Old Testament to separate the two advents. The kingdom of God is seen as a unit ushered in by the death of the Messiah and consummated at his return." This realization was pivotal for me several years ago.

However, in many other respects, I differ with Heschmeyer. First and foremost, I have great difficulty with his view that the fourth kingdom is the Roman Empire. As most of you know, I believe the iron/clay kingdom of Daniel is, in all probability, a symbol of the Hellenistic world. This is a point where the former Adventists on this blog tend to differ, and we are comfortable with that. I sketch out my arguments for the "Greek View" in this essay. (My arguments do not require Daniel to have been written in the 2nd century BCE, though I personally assume a late date for Daniel. Herschmeyer dismisses a late date on this page.)

I do not know whether the exchange on the Shameless Popery blog is of interest to anyone here, but I do try to post examples of Catholics addressing Adventist theology on the web, and vice-versa.

Vicar of Christ and Antichrist, II: What Kind of "Substitution?"

2010-09-04T11:16:00.017-06:00

In my last post, I noted that the prefix "anti-" in "antichrist" almost certainly means "against" and not "in place of," as Adventist evangelists so often claim. No occurrence of the term "antichrist" in the New Testament suggests this figure positions itself as a substitute for Christ; rather, he is the opponent of Christ, denying Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh.

Even still, to further explore the profound differences between the titles "antichrist" and "vicar of Christ," it might be worthwhile, for only a moment, to assume that the word "antichrist" means "substitute Christ"/"in place of Christ." As I noted in my last past, Bacchiocchi believed there was a correspondance between the two titles: "The term 'Antichrist' can also be applied to the Papacy. . . .in the meaning of 'taking the place of Christ.' This is a legitimate use of the term which fits the historical claims of the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ and God’s representative on earth." Is this a valid conclusion, even after conceding his alternative definition for "antichrist"? No. The immediate difficulty of associating the two terms is the wide semantic range of "substitution." There are various forms of substitution, not all of which apply to both "antichrist" and "vicar."

Vicarius

Lewis and Short's classic Latin dictionary, citing various occurrences of the term in classical Latin literature, defines the substantive vicarius as "a substitute, deputy, proxy, a locum tenens, vicegerent, vicar," especially "an adjutant or lieutenant to a military commander." As is obvious from these definitions, and as later historical examples bear out, the term "implicitly connotes subordination" (Dumont, 154). At the beginning of the common era, vicarius could be applied to an "under-slave," that is, "a slave subordinate to another slave" (Lampe, 178). In late Roman government, vicars "were, by definition, the deputies of higher officials" and "lesser governmental agents," who "formed an intermediate tier of administration between the praetorian prefects and the governers of the provinces over which they had control" (Barnwell, 64).

Ecclesiastical titles containing the term also reflect a subordinate exercise of authority. At the end of the 4th century, the "vicars apostolic" (or "Vicars of the Roman See" [Kidd, 88]) were local bishops, under the patriarchal authority of Rome (e.g., Gaul, Illyria), who were granted additional powers of regional supervision by the Apostolic See. By the 13th century, the same title was applied to temporary substitutes for bishops, appointed by Rome to lead a diocese if the see became vacant or its bishop was otherwise impeded. ("Vicar," Merriam Webster New Book of Word Histories, 494). In more recent times, a "vicar apostolic" is the appointed head of a missionary territory, "who governs it in the name of the Supreme Pontiff" (CIC 371), with "vicarious (not proper)" authority (NCCL 508; cf. CIC 131). Likewise, Episcopal vicars, Judicial vicars, and Parochial vicars all exercise subordinate agency under the bishop, or in the case of the latter, the parochial pastor (cf. CIC 475.1; 1419-20; 545.1).

Vicar of Christ

Similarly, the title "vicar of Christ" communicated the notion of deputation, subordination, and exercise of another's authority by their consent. Contrary to Adventist claims that the title indicates the pope's equality or interchangeability with God, Innocent III, who standardized the title, repeatedly stresses that the vicar of Christ is below God:

So now you see who this servant is who has been instituted over the family, namely the vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of Peter, the anointed of the Lord. . . set between God and man, this side of God but beyond man, less than God, but greater than man; he judges all but is judged by no one, saying with the voice of the apostle, "who judges me is the Lord" (1 Cor. 4). (In Moore, 29).

These words explicitly reject any equality or confusion with God. The vicar of Jesus Christ is "less than God" and absolutely not divine ("this side of God," that is, human). He is, rather, the subordinate and "servant" of God, in keeping with the historic sense of the term "vicar."

Antichrist

By contrast, if the antichrist substitutes for Christ (though again, we have no exegetical basis for assuming so), that substitution would be akin to supplanting, removing, or falsifying Christ. It would absolutely not be akin to delegation, authorized proxy, or a subordinate exercise of authority, as is true of the Latin "vicar." The antichrist is not the authorized delegate or deputy of Christ, acting as a subordinate to Christ; however, the "vicar of Christ" is conceptualized as precisely such.

This contrast is extremely significant. One cannot simply equivocate these forms of "substitition," even if they are both in the broadest sense "substitution." (Again, the question is one of semantic range.) Adventists must realize that the substitution conceived by the terms "antichrist" and the "vicar of Christ" are not of the same order, nor are they interchangeable. Bacchiocchi is wrong to equate the two titles.

These facts should also reassure Adventists that the title "vicar of Christ" was never used to challenge the unique position of Christ. Rather, the title indicates a plentitude of power exercised in unity with Christ's will, and under submission to Him.

_________________

Citations:

Barnwell, P.S., Emperor Prefects and Kings, 395-565, (Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press, 1992).

Dumont, Sandrine, "Choirboys and Vicaries in the Maitrise of Cambrai: A Socio-Anthropological Study (1550-1670), Young Choristers, 650-1700, ed. Susan Boynton and Eric N. Rice (Boydell & Brewer, 2008).

Kidd, B. J., Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church, Vol. 3: c. 500-1500 (Read Books: 2007).

Lampe, Peter, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, (London: CIPG, 2006).

Moore, John Clare, Pope Innocent III (1160/61-1216): to Root Up and to Plant (Brill, 2003).

Vicar of Christ and Antichrist, I: "In Place of X"?

2010-09-03T10:30:00.020-06:00

Adventists attach a particular notoriety to the papal title "vicar of Christ" for various reasons. On the one hand, one of its variant forms (Vicarius Filii Dei), when interpreted using Roman numerals, can be calculated as 666. Mainstream Adventist scholars have abandoned the significance of this calculation with good cause, though it remains popular.

Another Adventist argument links the title directly with the word "antichrist" in Greek, noting that the prefix "anti-" means not only "against X" but also "in place of X" (cf. the antidoron distributed after a Byzantine liturgy): "The term 'Antichrist' can also be applied to the Papacy. . . .in the meaning of 'taking the place of Christ.' This is a legitimate use of the term which fits the historical claims of the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ and God’s representative on earth." (Samuele Bacchiocchi, End-Times Newsletter 216). In my next two posts, I would like to address this particular argument, noting the profound semantic difference between the titles "antichrist" and "vicar of Christ."

Anti-christos

New Testament scholar Lietaert Peerbolte (University of Amsterdam) sums up the ambiguity of the term "antichrist" as follows:

In Homer, antitheos means 'godlike'. In later times it comes to mean 'contrary to God' (for instance, Philo, Poster. 37:3; 123:4; Congr. 118:1; Fug. 140:3). The term antichristos is ambiguous ('opponent of Christ' or 'false Christ') owing to the twofold meaning of anti in composita: it can mean 'against' (antistratēgos: 'the enemy's general', Thucydides 7:86) or 'instead of' (antipsychos: 'something offered instead of one's life', Dio Cassius 59:8; neuter in 4 Macc 6:29; 17:21). (Peerbolte, L. J. Lietaert, "Antichrist," DDD, 62-64 [Wm. B. Eerdman's: 1999], 62)

Of these options, Peerbolte prefers the former, for reasons I find persuasive:

It is now time to come back to the question of the meaning of the word ἀντίχριστος. The only indication for finding an answer appears to be the way in which the word is applied to the opponents [condemned in 1, 2 John]. In all three pericopes discussed above [1 Jn. 2; 4; 2 Jn. 1], it undoubtedly means, when applied to the opponents, 'opponent of Christ', not 'false Christ'. Does that mean that this was the original meaning as well? Probably yes. There is no evidence that the Antichrist was thought of as one who tries to usurp Christ's place. The fact that he is called 'the deceiver' in 2 John 7 only refers to the denial of Christ's coming in the flesh. It says nothing about the claims the Antichrist made upon worship. (Peerbolte, L. J. Lietaert, The Antecedents of Antichrist: a Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents [Brill, 1996], 110.)

One must be sensitive to the fact that the term "antichrist" occurs only in 1, 2 John, as Adventists so often fail to do. In these epistles, the antichrist(s) is an entity who refuses to acknowledge Jesus and denies key Christological teachings [1 John 2:22-23; 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7]. As Peerbolte notes, no suggestion is made that the antichrist seeks to impersonate, falsify, or receive worship, in place of Christ (however true of other prophetic adversaries of Christ, e.g., "the lawless one" of 2 Thess. 2, or the Sea "Beast" of Rev.13). Since the notion of 'substitution' is absent in any text in which the term 'antichrist' occurs, the term likely means "opponent of Christ" rather than "false Christ."

In this light, the Adventist association of the antichrist with the notion of substitution appears to be influenced by, or even rooted in, foreign texts, such as 2 Thess. 2 and Rev. 13. However, since these texts never use the word "antichrist," they are of no value when interpreting the term. Though Adventist evangelists consistently champion the interpretation "in place of Christ," their attempts are exegetically unsound.

He Who is without sin...

2010-09-01T09:39:00.002-06:00

Jesus was walking along one day, when He came upon a group of people surrounding a lady of ill repute. It was obvious that the crowd was preparing to stone her, so Jesus made His now-famous statement, "Let the person who has no sin cast the first stone."

The crowd was shamed and one by one began to turn away. All of a sudden, a lovely little woman made her way through the crowd. Finally getting to the front, she tossed a pebble towards the woman.

Jesus looks over and says, "I really hate it when you do that, Mom."

Anonymous Posting

2010-08-31T09:33:00.001-06:00

I have disabled the ability to post anonymously to this blog. I missed reading the blog over the weekend, and when I tried to read all the comments today in the latest posting by Hugo, it was very confusing. Hugo and I have discussed disabling anonymous posting for quite some time, but due to posts by valuable contributors we have put off doing this. However, at this point, I know of at least 8 different people who post anonymously.

I really hope and pray that everyone will register with an OpenID source and continue posting comments to the blog. You do not need a membership to the blog, just an OpenID Source to post comments.

Thanks
Brandon

The Pope as "God on Earth"

2010-08-28T23:34:00.022-06:00

Adventist evangelists often cite statements from individual Catholic writers who, in past centuries, described the pope in terms similar to "God on earth." As I have elsewhere noted, these descriptions were meant to have shock value, underscoring the divine quality of the authority Christ entrusted to Peter and the Church viz., authority to command, act, and judge in His divine name and power (cf. 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Cor 5:3-5) with heavenly confirmation of their decisions (Mt. 16:18-19; see also this paper). Catholics apprehend a kernel of biblical theology in these exaggerative statements. Nevertheless, Adventists are scandalized by them, and I think legitimately.

The dissemination of these statements in Adventism has led to widespread misunderstanding about the role and nature of the papacy. Adventists interpret these statements literally, and infer a variety of erroneous notions from it. I have met many Adventists who insist Catholics worship the pope as divine (or divinely-posessed), as if the pope were infallible and impeccable in his every, thought, word, and act. When John Paul II passed away, a respected theology major at Southern coldly mocked me before class: "Aw. Did 'God' die?" As Catholics, we must correct these grave misunderstandings.

Even more fundamentally, we must remind Adventists that the strongest such statements were never issued by the magisterium, and are not "papal claims," "styles of the papacy," or "the teaching of the Catholic Church," as Adventist evangelists so often claim. Most Catholic writers through the centuries never made such statements, several sought to distance the Church from them, and of course, no modern Catholic writer issues them. In fact, these statements have been openly criticized in the Church. On the floor of the II Vatican Council, the Patriarch of Antioch Maximos IV (Melkite) expressed his horror that such assertions were ever issued by certain Catholic writers:

It is not by flattering or self-interested exaggerations that one raises [the papacy's] prestige. Christ has tied jurisdiction to love, and confided it to Peter, a man like all human beings, and a repentant sinner.

Venerable Fathers, we confess that we were truly shocked when we read in books made available to everyone statements like the following, “The pope is God on earth... Jesus has placed the pope above the prophets... above the forerunner..., above the angels..., Jesus has set the pope at the same level as God” (St. John Bosco, Meditazioni, Vol. I, Ed. 2a, pp. 89-90).

The papacy has no need of such intemperate language which turns into impiety, and which misleads consciences and scandalizes even the souls of non-Christians. (Dec. 5, 1962 [1])

Catholics can and do find this language misleading, scandalous, and even impious, and have abandoned it. Adventist evangelists ought to represent this more complete and complex picture when they cite these statements. Sadly, they do not. Without context, qualification, nuance, or exposure to Catholic criticism of these same statements, prophecy seminar audiences are left to believe that the pope actively considers himself "(a) God," commanding the willful worship of a billion Catholics. This is a fault of the Adventist evangelists, but it is also a fault of Catholics who allowed the papacy to be cast in misleading (and scandalous) terms for the sake of mere rhetorical flourish, as the late Melkite Patriarch makes very clear.

We must be extremely careful when attempting to represent our faith, and self-critical when our words have led others to misunderstand it.

An Invisible Court of Appeals?

2010-08-27T09:40:00.002-06:00

Among Protestants and even Adventists there prevails the concept of a universal invisible church. It is almost universally assumed by Protestant commentators. Unfortunately, it is a doctrine vanity and convenience, as it sheds all responsibility of the believer to anything higher than himself. It is the epitome of "private interpretation" that we are counseled to avoid in Holy Scripture.

However, as we look through scripture, the idea of an invisible Church is simply not found, in fact common sense tell us that it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared to Peter, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). What good would it have done to give the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Christ also speaks of a visible Church when he instructs believers to use that Church as recourse for settling disagreements among His followers: "Refer it to the Church" (Matt. 18:17). Next, we find Christ telling his followers, that they are "the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house" (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).

The visibility of the Church is no light matter. It underlies the ultimate source of Christian belief: Church or Bible? Its importance surpasses that of other divisive issues, such as the veneration of saints or confession.

The invisible Church theory does little in the way of doctrinal unity or discipline. For if I don’t like what one church says, I simply go to another. Does God not desire unity in His Body? Does he not care about the contradictory “truths” proclaimed by those to claim to be part of His Body?

"For, every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?" Romans 10:13-15

"How can any of this be accomplished through an "invisible" Church? Does an invisible" Church have "invisible" preachers? Did "invisible" Apostles preach to "invisible" Churches? Was the Church Council of Acts 15 invisible? Was the office of Bishop that Judas Vacated filled so that it could be "invisible"? What is the purpose of a Church if it is not to be seen?

Uh huh... and another, one with one great punch line.

2010-08-24T11:47:00.002-06:00

This time, a Catholic and Adventist couple... Who makes these?

A Former SDA Asks Questions

2010-08-24T09:02:00.002-06:00

This is from the maker of the "Appliances"... I thought it was a bit overdone with the Adventist's reaction, I certainly have not had an Adventist react that way, but it brings up some interesting points.

From the Author:
"Joe" represents many faces and names, but the questions and reactions represent real dialogs I have had over the years.

Appliances?

2010-08-23T22:20:00.005-06:00

This was forwarded to me by an Adventist friend of mine. I... um... I don't know what to say, haha.... So weird. Thought I'd pass it along. If you are or were Adventist, the inside humor should be worth it.

Blessed Mother

2010-08-20T10:24:00.001-06:00

In a previous post and subsequent comment, it was asked that Catholic provide scriptural evidence for calling Mary the Blessed Mother. I wanted to create a thread that will encourage this discussion.

Luke 1:48 Mary Said "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed."

So here we have that all future generations will call Mary blessed.

In Revelation 12 we have Mary presented as the Ark of the New Covenant, and the (Woman) Mother of Christ, as the Church we are called her offspring in Rev 12:17. Therefore she is our spiritual Mother.

Hence.. Blessed (Luke 1:48) Mother (Rev 12:17, John 19:27).

These are only two examples of many verses that can be used... I encourage more discussion on this.

Two Laws or One?

2010-08-20T10:11:00.001-06:00

Adventists, especially when dealing with verses such as Col 1:14 and Eph 2:15, will often assert that the Old Testament contains two separate laws, the Moral Law, and the Ceremonial Law. The Moral Law is said to be eternal is basically equivalent to the 10 Commandments, whereas the Ceremonial law was done away with at the Cross.

Often in my discussions and experience within Adventism, a distinction between the the Moral and Ceremonial Laws is created by focusing on what was written and what was given by God vs. what was written and given by Moses. An example of this distinction can be found below:

The Ten Commandments	The Ceremonial Law
Written on Stone (Ex 31:18)	Written in a book, Book of the law (Deut 31:24,7; Deut 31:24)
Placed in the Ark (Deut 10:5)	Placed on side of Ark (Deut 31:25)
Written by God’s finger (Ex 31:18, 32:16)	Written by Moses’ finger (Deut 31:9; Ex 24:4)
Spoken by God (Ex 20:1,22)	Spoken by Moses (Ex 24:3)
God gave	Moses gave

The Law of God, God's law, The law
(eternal)

The Law of Moses, Moses Law
(Done away)

Unfortunately, this distinction is a false distinction not based in scripture.

God is the one who gave the "Law of Moses" in Ezra 7:6 "Ezra... a scribe skilled in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given."
But on the other hand, Moses is said to have given the "Law of God" in Nehemiah 10:29-30 "walk in God's law, which was given through Moses."
God is the one who have the Book of the Law of Moses according to Nehemiah 8:1 "...and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel."
The law written in the book was the "Law of the Lord according to 2 Chron 34:14 "...Hilkiah the priest found the book of the law of the LORD given by Moses."
Moses gave the 10 Commandments according to Mk 7:9-10 "...For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother..."
Paul, when writing about the wives being silent in Church calls it the "Lords Commandment" (Is this one that Adventists keep in order to be the Remnant?)
Finally, Nehemiah 9:13-14 uses the terms Law of God and Law of Moses interchangeably.

If we look at scripture and Jewish theology/history, we find the Jews had only one Law... Scripture talks about only one law in the OT. The "Law of God" and "Commandments of God" are used in the OT to refer to things such as sacrifices, burnt offerings, commending to dwell in tents, etc.

Unfortunately for Adventists, scripture does not support the idea of two laws in the Old Testament, in fact one cannot even find a reference to the so called "Moral Law" in scripture or the "Ceremonial Law". For in reality, there was one Law, given to one people, by one God. Sure it was given in different ways at different times, but the authority and ultimate author of the 613 commandments of the OT was the same.. God.

Judgment Vindicates Calif. Student Punished for Pro-Life T-Shirt

2010-08-17T09:23:00.002-06:00

FRESNO, California, August 13, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) — In a victory for pro-life speech in public school, a federal court entered a judgment Thursday against a California elementary school and three school officials for violating the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of a 6th grade student who wore a T-shirt opposing abortion.

Los Angeles attorney William J. Becker, Jr., of The Becker Law Firm, assisted by the Thomas More Law Center, filed suit after school officials barred Tiffany Amador from wearing her pro-life T-shirt at McSwain Union Elementary School, a kindergarten through 8th grade school located in Merced, north of Fresno.

View the story here!

The "Remnant" of the Story...

2010-08-09T23:47:00.002-06:00

I do not understand why Adventists appeal to Rev. 12:17 when introducing the concept of the "remnant." I agree that God always reserves to Himself a faithful people, even when the majority have forsaken him or are in ruin; this is a biblical teaching (1 Kgs. 19:18; Isa. 10:21; Rom, 11:5; etc.). However, this concept of the "remnant" is not to be found in Rev. 12:17, and should not be read into it.

The "remnant" (KJV) or "rest" of the woman's offspring in Rev. 12 are the offspring of the woman other than the "male child" (Rev. 12:5), that is, other than Christ. The meaning of the term in this passage is straightforward.

The biblical background of a "remnant" that preserved in the midst of an apostasy or ruin of the majority is not in view. Apostasy and ruin are not even in view. In fact, all of the woman's children "keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus"; these traits indicate that they are her children.

Adventists are welcome to continue proclaiming the concept of the remnant. It is a profound biblical concept, and deserves attention. However, they should avoid making much of the word "remnant" in Rev. 12:17 when making this point. One might better cite texts like Rev. 20:4 or 7:14, though both lack a specialized term like "remnant."

The "New Agnosticism?"

2010-08-08T13:30:00.000-06:00

Interesting article.

Listen Before You Talk

2010-08-03T12:20:00.002-06:00

Recently, I have been reminded again how important it is to accurately represent the beliefs of your opponent. You gain nothing, absolutely nothing, by refuting beliefs she does not share in the first place.

Please, remember the proverbs: . "He who answers before he hears--his is the folly and the shame" (Prov. 18:13). "A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions" (Prov. 18:2).

"You Know You Grew Up Adventist If..."

2010-07-30T16:28:00.003-06:00

Haha. Thank you Adventist Today. If you, as an Adventist, were aware of circulating rumors like these, feel free to share in the comments.

One omission: the secret room of filing cabinets, keeping the medical histories of all Adventists.

Evangelicalism, 25 Years from Now

2010-07-28T12:38:00.000-06:00

A long time ago, I read this article predicting the "collapse" of evangelicalism in 10 years (which I welcome you to read). I have wanted to write a response to it for some time.

My thoughts... I think the article's timeline is too short; I'd prefer 25 years. Nevertheless, I believe some of its predictions are not too far off.

Worship

I agree evangelicalism will be more thoroughly penetrated with "charismatic" worship expressions (e.g., healing prayer, emphasis on spiritual gifts, emotional worship), and "traditional" (hymnal) worship will be rare. Also, I agree the emerging church will disappear, but because it is not as needed; some of its innovative worship forms will have become mainstream. The movement will be remembered as another avenue through which the spiritual use of visual arts, contemplative prayer, candlelit worship, and liturgical seasons (Advent, Lent) became common in evangelicalism. Pair these with a worship band, an engaging speaker, a full spectrum of of lay ministries, and new forms of media technology (many of which have not yet been invented), and I think you have a rough idea of the future of evangelical worship. Of course, there is no way of knowing what form of music will be common in that decade. I expect, however, that worship will continue to range between contemplative and energetic. It will (even unconsciously) aim to elicit emotional responses as strong as popular media can produce.

Influence

Should trends continue, evangelicals will lose the culture wars as regards gay marriage (and feel the backlash of it), but make small gains on the abortion issue, and become more focused on social justice issues. Attendance will drop significantly, but I am not so sure of a "collapse." I believe evangelicalism may partly withstand the advance of secularism because its appeal to emotion continues to grow (through contemporary worship, charismaticism, etc.), and its standards of membership will prove more flexible (seeker-sensitive rather than disciplining).

The notion that evangelicalism will have no media presence due to secular pressure is short-sighted. The established "old media" (tv, radio, newspapers) will be irrelevant by then, replaced by personal forms of media (like today's web sites, blogs, and youtube). Evangelicalism will continue to take full advantage of these.

Doctrine

I also believe the future evangelical will be more informed in matters of faith (we live in an age where information is very accessible), but less "confessional." Protestants are nearing (or are already in) a post-denominational future. "Community" churches, churches with a less-obvious denominational identity, and megachurches will be standard fare. This suggests evangelicalism will also be less theologically robust as a movement. Beliefs will be individual, doctrinal standards minimalistic. Confessional churches (e.g., convinced Reformed churches) will prove attractive to some seeking greater robustness, but their theology will not be mainstream, nor will they be especially large.

Of course, another satisfying home for those seeking theological robustness will be the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, as the same article suggests. A post-confessional and theologically-flaccid evangelicalism will be less competitive and combative, allowing for more interfaith partnerships and conversions (though not in spectacular numbers). These Churches in turn will be further "evangelicalized" by their converts, who will increase the drive of both to attract more converts (I embody some of this). However, Catholic and (old world) Orthodox Christianity are poised to lose more of their members to evangelicalism than they will gain. (I suspect they will lose many of them to secularism, and evangelicalism will recover them.) Another development: evangelicalism's heavy use of new media technology will significantly alter the American worship "palate." The Catholic Church will feel more pressure to create contemporary worship experiences, albeit in an age when the average priest is more conservative.

Finally, in a post-denominational future, ecumenism will become irrelevant. Ministries and denominations will not feel a need to merge. Ecumenical dialogue will continue only among the liberal mainline Protestant churches, all of which will have worked towards shared ministries, and which may recover talk of mergers in part to offset collapsing numbers. Talks will also continue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Articulating an Anglican Catholic Faith, IV: Using the ARCIC

2010-07-23T10:05:00.008-06:00

In my last post, I mentioned the ARCIC documents could be very valuable when articulating the Catholic for an Anglican audience. As an experiment, I decided to directly adapt the text of two documents along the lines of a "catechism." Below are two sections, which I welcome you to enjoy and use:

Papal Primacy and Infallibility
Mary: Dogmas, Intercession, and Veneration

I tried, so far as possible, to leave entire paragraphs intact. I also eliminated self-references to the ARCIC, replacing these with "Anglicans and Catholics."

One will immediately realize that the doctrine expressed in these excerpts is in complete agreement with that of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Most exciting of all, the source documents were consensus statements, crafted jointly by Anglican and Catholic scholars, officially representing their respective communions. This should reassure all who struggle with these doctrines: it is more than possible to affirm them from an Anglican perspective.

In fact, this "catechism" possesses an even more pronounced apologetic tone than the CCC. Again, these documents were partly written by Anglicans, precisely to be received the entire Anglican communion. They discuss papal infallibility not as a long-established dogma (as did the CCC), but as a deeply disputed and misunderstood doctrine. To encourage openness to papal infallibility among Anglicans, the ARCIC sought precedents in scripture, patristic tradition, and the experience of Anglicanism. They do not represent the understandings of one particular movement within Anglicanism (Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, Affirming Catholic, etc.), but were meant to create a consensus among all of these. Their approach will obviously prove much more useful to the Ordinariate communities as they dialogue with other Anglicans of whichever movement.

I hope the profound advances made in these documents will not prove fruitless. They will be inherited by the Ordinariates, as the realization of a long, and nearly dashed, dream. I pray many are blessed through them.

Articulating an Anglican Catholic Faith, III: The Present

2010-07-22T14:35:00.006-06:00

In my last two posts, I considered the need for a future Anglican Catholic catechism. Today, I'd like to turn my attention to the present. Thousands of Anglicans, inside and outside the Anglican Communion, are considering Pope Benedict's offer of personal Ordinariates. Although many are ready for the journey, others struggle to embrace all the doctrines contained in the Catechism. Some, encouraged by polemicists who defend the content of "classical Anglican" faith, have deep-seated doubts about papal infallibility, for instance. They sincerely fail to see how their future in the Ordinariates could be considered authentically "Anglican."

No doubt, all understand that a Catholic-Anglican ecumenical reunion would require doctrinal concessions. And in fact, if, after prolonged reflection, the entire Anglican Communion were to embrace papal infallibility, these individuals would feel confident in their personal decision to do the same. This move would be authentically Anglican; it would be based on joint declarations crafted by Anglican theologians, supported by Anglican authorities, and defended in Anglican terms. In the case of the Traditional Anglican Communion, something quite similar has occurred, though without a joint declaration (fostering the doubts I outlined in my first post on this topic). Once again, I must return to the inadequacy of Catechism to inspire confidence from some Anglicans. There is a need for native Anglican instruction in Catholic doctrine. Until an Anglican Catholic catechism is produced, what resources can fill that need?

I believe the most important tool at the disposal of the future Ordinariates are the ARCIC dialogues.

There is an unfortunate tendency among many Anglicans to discount the work of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) wholesale. Nevertheless, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have praised several documents produced by the commission. In my next post, I would like to outline why two of these documents--Gift of Authority (1999) and Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ (2005)--could be invaluable aids for the Ordinariate communities. Coupled with the writings of Anglicans who have already entered the Roman Catholic Church, and brilliant pieces from current FiF and TAC bishops and priests in favor of reunion, these documents could be pivotal in helping many overcome their doubts.

Articulating an Anglican Catholic Faith, II: A New Catechism

2010-07-20T17:10:00.017-06:00

The Catechism of the Catholic Church may be a useful first word in the theology of the Ordinariates, but it was never intended to be a final word. As Ad Tuendam Fidem indicated, the CCC is a mother catechism, provided precisely to assist particular churches in communion with Rome in the creation of their own culturally and ritually distinct catechisms:

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represents a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See. . . . This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. . . . It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith.

This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine. (Pope John Paul II, ATF 3.)

For instance, the Ukrainian Catholic Church is about to release a catechism of its own, partly to safeguard the unique doctrinal and spiritual heritage of the Byzantine rite. The USCCB has its own catechism for Latin and Eastern rite Catholics, highlighting American saints. Anglican Catholics should consider, and even prioritize, a similar project. As Pope Benedict indicated, the Ordinariates are called "to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared" (AC III). To protect this treasure, Anglican Catholics must have an instrument that distinctly and comprehensively articulates it.

Such a project would redefine local parish catechesis. Bishops, priests, and local catechists could reference it when they teach or prepare sermons. The catechism would also prove useful for Ordinariate seminarians, who require "formation in Anglican patrimony" (AC VI, 5). In fact, the catechism could be developed by the faculties of Ordinariate "houses of formation." Above all, it would indispensable to Anglicans considering reunion with Rome. It would speak directly to their concerns, answer their questions, and indicate how fully Anglican patrimony will be preserved in the Catholic Church. Its authority would be secure, having been embraced by Ordinariate bishops and theologians, and approved by Rome. RCIA programs could use it to ensure candidates receive a comprehensive education in the Anglican Catholic tradition. This would underscore the reality that being a member of an Ordinariate parish is not equivocal to being a member of a Roman Catholic parish.

I excitedly await the day.

Articulating an Anglican Catholic Faith, I: Absorption?

2010-07-20T15:59:00.005-06:00

To demonstrate their doctrinal unity with the Catholic Church, the bishops of the TAC signed a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), the Church's most comprehensive summary of its own faith. Their act has established a precedent for all entering the Ordinariate. In 2009, Anglicanorum Coetibus affirmed: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate" (AC I.5).

It is hardly surprising that some continue to interpret the signing of the Catechism as a wholesale "capitulation" on the part of the TAC. "The authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate" is not a document of Anglican origin. The college of bishops embraced as their own a statement of faith written by scholars of another denomination. Although the Catechism cites the liturgies and fathers of various Catholic rites, it never expressly incorporates the distinctive insights of the Anglican tradition. How, then, can it authoritatively express the Catholic faith for Anglicans? If this is not theological "absorption," what is? No attempt was made to draft a consensus document or joint declaration.

Of course, joint declarations take years to draft, discuss, and compare with existing statements of faith. It is much more efficient to use an existing statement of faith. If a group of continuing Anglican bishops can identify the Catechism as "the most perfect expression of the Catholic faith in the world today," why delay the fulfillment of Christ's prayer for unity any longer? A bolder and more committed request for unity can hardly be imagined. And in fact, Rome needed only two years to respond favorably to the petition.

Nevertheless, talk of "submission" and "absorption" is unlikely to disappear among critics of the Ordinariates. To counter these claims, Anglican Catholics must be confidently and manifestly Anglican. God has called them to articulate the Catholic faith with an Anglican vocabulary, with Anglican nuances, and with Anglican concerns in mind. To do this, they need an instrument to articulate Anglican faith.

I believe they will ultimately need their own catechism.

Catholic-Adventist Marriage

2010-07-20T00:23:00.002-06:00

Some thoughts from Crosswalk.com.

About the Dies Domini Site

2010-07-16T23:05:00.005-06:00

As some of you have already noticed, I have discontinued diesdomini.com. For many, the domain name was too hard to spell correctly. I will be transferring all of its content to catholicadventist.com.

"We Would Have to Reject" Marian Devotion

2010-07-13T22:06:00.016-06:00

St. Louis de Monfort beautifully articulates the "first principle" of a Christian devotion to Mary. It speaks to the balance of Catholic Christianity:

Jesus, our Saviour, true God and true man must be the ultimate end of all our other devotions; otherwise they would be false and misleading. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and end of everything. "We labour," says St. Paul, "only to make all men perfect in Jesus Christ." For in him alone dwells the entire fullness of the divinity and the complete fullness of grace, virtue and perfection. In him alone we have been blessed with every spiritual blessing; he is the only teacher from whom we must learn; the only Lord on whom we should depend; the only Head to whom we should be united and the only model that we should imitate. He is the only Physician that can heal us; the only Shepherd that can feed us; the only Way that can lead us; the only Truth that we can believe; the only Life that can animate us. He alone is everything to us and he alone can satisfy all our desires. We are given no other name under heaven by which we can be saved. God has laid no other foundation for our salvation, perfection and glory than Jesus. . . .

If then we are establishing sound devotion to our Blessed Lady, it is only in order to establish devotion to our Lord more perfectly, by providing a smooth but certain way of reaching Jesus Christ. If devotion to our Lady distracted us from our Lord, we would have to reject it as an illusion of the devil. But this is far from being the case. . . .

. . . Mary is always with you [Jesus]. She can never be without you because then she would cease to be what she is. She is so completely transformed into you by grace that she no longer lives, she no longer exists, because you alone, dear Jesus, live and reign in her more perfectly than in all the angels and saints. If we only knew the glory and the love given to you by this wonderful creature, our feelings for you and for her would be far different from those we have now. So intimately is she united to you that it would be easier to separate light from the sun, and heat from the fire. (True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, 62-64)

"Icons" or "Idols"? Comparing Christianity and Hinduism

2010-07-13T14:00:00.008-06:00

At Southern Adventist University, my World Religions professor made it a point to equivocate the "idolatry" of every world religion to the veneration of icons in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity (e.g., placing a statue of Shiva and one of the Blessed Virgin Mary side by side).

In my writings since, I have noted that the Christian concept of "icon" is quite distinct from the theology of other religions. I have given special stress to the fact that the Christian "icon" is not, as in other ancient religions (Mesoptomaian, Egyptian, and perhaps also Greco-Roman), an embodiment of real presence of the deity, which is directly adored in the image. Rather, for Christians, icons are merely visual cues, used to focus one's attention on heavenly realities (as the images in the Jewish temple focused the priest's attention). According to II Nicaea, any reverence paid to icons can only be of the same quality given to any other sacred object in the Church (kisses, bows incense, and lights, such as is given to the book of the gospels, altar, etc.), and is certainly not adoration. Finally, just as one salutes the American flag not strictly for the sake of the flag itself, but primarily to honor the nation it represents, one kisses an icon to honor the person the icon represents, but only as an indirect honor

Recently, I have spent considerable time reading Hindu sacred scriptures and books on Hindu worship. Once again, I find that the Hindu use of images is rooted in a concept of divine embodiment, quite distinct from the Christian theology of icon. The following paragraphs are cited from Eck, Diana L., Darśan: Seeing the Divine Image in India. Ed. 3. New York: Columbia Univ., 1998.

The image is the real embodiment of the deity. It is not just a device for the focusing of human vision, but is charged with the presence of the god." (45)

First, it must be said that most Hindus, especially of devotional sectarian movements like the Śrī Vaiṣṇavas, take the notion of image-incarnation quite seriously. The image is a divine "descent" of the Supreme Lord who entrusts himself to human caretaking. . . . There is no docetic notion of incarnation here [as if the god "did not really experience the thirst, delight, and the pain of the human condition"]. (48)

The rites of āvāhana ("bidding") and visarjana ("dismissal") which very often open and close the period of worship also illuminate something of the meaning of the image. Āvāhana is the "calling," the "bidding" of the deity at the commencement of worship. For example, Śiva may be invoked to be present in the liṅga with these words: "O Lord, who protects the world, graciously be present in this liṅga until the end of worship." Similarly, when the pūjā is over, the deity is given leave to depart, with a prayer of dismissal: "O excellent gods, O Supreme Śiva, return now to your own abode so that you may come again for the benefit of the worshipper."

While it is believed that God is present continually in any consecrated image of liṅga, the bidding and dismissal prauers provide a special framing of the ritual honor-offerings, and they make it clear that the omnipresent God is in no sense restricted by the multiple "image incarnations" it undertakes. (49-50)

When an image is completed, there are special rites of consecration which take place. . . . the prāṇa the "breathlife" is infused into the image in the central rite called prāṇapratiṣṭhā, "establishing the breathlife." The infusion of the prāṇa ordinarily takes the form of a mantra uttered by the ritually purified sponsor (yajamāna): "O Viṣṇu, approach this image and wake it up with thy embodiment of knowledge and the divine energies, which are concentrated in this one image." (52-53)

The differences between Hindu theology and Christian theology on this point are obvious and profound. Christian do not have "bidding" ceremonies for their icons. They do not believe God indwells their icons, and experiences hunger, thirst, or need through them. They do not worship God directly as or in their icons. They do not believe their icons contain "breathlife" (so they may know and sense the actions of the worshipper). It continues to astound me when individuals confuse the Christian theology of icon with that of "pagan" religions.

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

2010-07-12T21:40:00.007-06:00

I long have wanted to share this excellent series of sermons, addressed to Anglicans considering reunion with the Catholic Church. Each sermon explores what it means for the Church to be "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." Fantastic.

Adventist Ministry to Take Sabbath to the Super Bowl

2010-07-09T13:26:00.007-06:00

Leo Schreven, speaker/director of a ministry called All Power Seminars, has been attempting to drum up support for an ad to run during the Super Bowl in 2011 that aims to "remind" people of the Sabbath. He is looking for 144,000 signatories that he claims are necessary to demonstrate a wide enough audience base in order to be considered. If those 144,000 each give $20 then All Power Seminars will have exactly the amount they need for a Super Bowl ad.

Here is your chance to be part of the 144,000 :)

What do you think?

"Spiritual Formation"

2010-07-07T12:22:00.156-06:00

First of all, or those of you have not yet listened to Ted Wilson's sermon, its text is available here; video of the complete sermon is available on Youtube. Secondly, some of you are asking about "spiritual formation." I'd like to call your attention to excellent pieces on Bill Cork's blog, in response to some of Wilson's concerns:

Thoughts on "Spiritual Formation"

Contemplative Prayer

Naturally, Adventism must follow the principle "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). Bill reminds us that there is tremendous good in the spiritual experience of other denominations (particularly classical Catholicism and Protestantism). Adventism can appreciate those experiences that are Christocentric, rooted in the biblical tradition, and even find parallels in the writings of Ellen White. However, some sectors of Christianity have imported spiritual exercises from systems of greater theological concern. Caution is necessary, as Elder Wilson himself stressed. All in all, a very balanced treatment.

My thoughts on Wilson's words? Wilson is wise to invite Adventists to "be vigilant to test all things according to the supreme authority of God’s Word and the counsel with which we have been blessed in the writings of Ellen G. White." But immediately after this invitation, he continues: "stay away from non-biblical spiritual disciplines or methods of spiritual formation that are rooted in mysticism such as contemplative prayer, centering prayer, and the emerging church movement in which they are promoted." Encouraging Adventists to flatly "stay away from. . . contemplative prayer. . . and the emerging church movement" fails to appreciate the complexity of both. I believe there are biblically-appropriate modes of contemplative prayer. I also believe there is much good in the emerging church movement. Moreover, the term "mysticism" is ambiguous; I doubt Wilson has the typical academic definition in mind (which would readily apply to Mrs. White's experience).

Simply put: Wilson's appeal is unnuanced, and by consequence, sounds quite reactionary. One receives the impression that after testing "contemplative prayer" and "the emerging church movement" by the Word of God, one will find nothing positive in them. Some thoughtful Adventist pastors, theologians, and church leaders would rightfully disagree. I hope they are able to make their point to a wider Adventist audience before their opposition grows.

59th GC Session: Meet Ted Wilson

2010-07-06T20:40:00.009-06:00

The 59^th Annual General Conference Session that ended last week introduced the world to a new church president, Ted N.C. Wilson. During his first sermon in that capacity, Elder Wilson weighed in on a number of issues:

1. Affirmed a literal, 6-day Creation

2. Affirmed “absolute confidence” in the Bible (vs. “historical-critical methods...”)

3. Warned against movements: ecumenism, the emerging church and its spiritual practices, and “spiritualism”

4. Affirmed the prophetic role and mission of the Adventist Church as part of the “remnant,” though warned that it should be a term that brings humility and is not exclusive.

5. Warned against accepting “trendy” methods of evangelism without testing them. Rather, SDA’s are to look for resources already within the church.

Wilson’s conservative position didn’t inject anything new into ongoing dialogue between “conservatives” and “liberals,” but it does mark a break from the previous eleven years, when then-President Jan Paulson generally avoided partisan language in his effort to foster more unity. For his part, Wilson made several gestures towards the center, criticizing people who combatively use Ellen White and who emphasize very obscure points of doctrine.

My biggest criticism of Elder Wilson’s statements center on the fact that he seemed to be recycling the rhetoric conservatives have used for years now. He didn’t add anything new to his side or even make an attempt at consoling many Adventists by at least mentioning something on the issues important to them: care for the environment, helping the impoverished in local communities, or even continuing Jan Paulsen’s commitment to unity in the church. Support for basic issues such as these would have easily assuaged much of the anger directed at him from non-conservatives and would show that he has a grasp of what is important to more than one segment of the Adventist Church.

But it’s far too early for anyone to be judging Ted Wilson’s presidency. For that, we must wait and see what the next 5 years have in store.

GC Session in Retrospect

2010-07-05T20:49:00.010-06:00

The 59th General Conference Session of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (held once every five years) has been over for a few days now. Sunday morning, I returned exhausted from the miles of walking, crowds in the dozens of thousands, and perpetual noise I endured for several days. In the coming week, both Matthew and I will react to the events of the session.

The experience was a rich and memorable one for me. I saw many friends and, in a sense, family, from my Adventist years. Adventism is not another denomination to me; it is a home, a family, albeit one from which I am removed. Events, decisions, and movements in Adventism still interest and affect me. As everyone should be aware, significant decisions were made at this GC Session, none greater than the election of Ted Wilson to GC Presidency. His Sabbath morning sermon has provoked the strongest reactions across Adventism. In it, Wilson took aim at evolution, historical-critical scholarship, ecumenism, "pagan" worship styles, seeking solutions from other denominations, "spiritual formation," and fringe prophetic interpretations from the far right. This response on Spectrum Blog resonates most with me, and I welcome you to read it. Among other things, it questions Wilson's limited emphasis on grace (the theme of this GC Session).

Wilson's aggressiveness (not a bad thing in and of itself) represents a marked departure from the cool, moderate, intellectual tone of Jan Paulsen. Overnight, the GC Presidency has become a bully pulpit for conservative Adventism. Evidently, the time is ripe for this "right turn"; Wilson's words were meet with thunderous applause from the worshippers (which he corrected, asking the worshippers to respond with "amen's" instead). Earlier this week, following a plea by Wilson, the delegates voted to revisit the Fundamental Beliefs and develop a stronger affirmation of creationism. In this light, one has every reason to expect this presidency will not be one of mere words. We are only a couple of months removed from the conservative Adventist backlash against La Sierra University, spearheaded by Michigan Conference. Conservative Adventism is on the move, and is now further invigorated by a committed and maximally influential leader.

More to come.

Question About the Trinity

2010-07-03T07:41:00.000-06:00

It has just come to my realization that Catholics and SDAs view the Trinity in very different ways.

Please answer the following question. It would help (if you wouldn't mind) to also state your religious affiliation.

Which of the following do you believe?

A. God = 1/3 Jesus, 1/3 Holy Spirit, and 1/3 Father

B. 100% God =100% Jesus, and 100% God = 100% Holy Spirit and 100% God = 100% Father

C. Other, please elaborate.

Ships Passing in the Night

2010-06-30T23:00:00.001-06:00

Is anyone else visiting GC Session this week? I think I know of only one other member of our blog community who is.

Sts. Peter and Paul in Glory

2010-06-29T22:14:00.004-06:00

Less than three decades after Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, the local church whose "faith is proclaimed throughout the world" (Rom. 1:8) acknowledged the present, heavenly reward of its two greatest martyrs in these words:

The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied. . . .

Not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience. (95 CE; 1 Clement, 1, 5, 50).

Habemus Presidentum

2010-06-27T00:35:00.011-06:00

I will cover the present General Conference session in more detail later this week.

Tonight, though, congratulations are in order for Ted Wilson, who was elected the new President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists . . . the 16th successor to John Byington to the ancient see of Battle Creek, sans white smoke and dramatic introduction.

Ted Wilson, originally from my home conference of Greater New York, served as GC VP for ten years. Of interest, he is the son of Neal C. Wilson, GC President from 1979-1990 (a first in Adventist history). These reports from Spectrum and Adventist Today may be of interest.

(Kudos to the Caricatures of Adventist blog for designing the Catholic-inspired caricature at left.)

Pause and Praise

2010-06-25T00:25:00.008-06:00

Because God is worthy of our praise:

We praise thee, O God :
we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.
All the earth doth worship thee :
the Father everlasting.
To thee all Angels cry aloud :
the Heavens, and all the Powers therein.
To thee Cherubim and Seraphim :
continually do cry,
Holy, Holy, Holy :
Lord God of Sabaoth;
Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty :
of thy glory.
The glorious company of the Apostles : praise thee.
The goodly fellowship of the Prophets : praise thee.
The noble army of Martyrs : praise thee.
The holy Church throughout all the world : doth acknowledge thee;
The Father : of an infinite Majesty;
Thine honourable, true and only Son;
Also the Holy Ghost : the Paraklete.
(The first half of the Te Deum, adapted from the BCP)

Contemporary Worship Parodied

2010-06-24T20:53:00.001-06:00

Sooo funny, and indirectly related to my present series on worship.

"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

"How Is It Difficult to Believe?"

2010-06-22T22:40:00.006-06:00

Below is the Collect for the future feast of Blessed John Henry Newman, the great Catholic convert from Anglicanism. I am excited to see it finally released:

O God, who bestowed on the Priest Blessed John Henry Newman
the grace to follow your kindly light and find peace in your Church;
graciously grant that, through his intercession and example,
we may be led out of shadows and images
into the fulness of your truth.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.

An excerpt from his writings for the Office readings also appears:

People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe; I did not believe the doctrine till I was a Catholic. I had no difficulty in believing it, as soon as I believed that the Catholic Roman Church was the oracle of God, and that she had declared this doctrine to be part of the original revelation. It is difficult, impossible, to imagine, I grant;—but how is it difficult to believe? …

I believe the whole revealed dogma as taught by the Apostles, as committed by the Apostles to the Church, and as declared by the Church to me. I receive it, as it is infallibly interpreted by the authority to whom it is thus committed, and (implicitly) as it shall be, in like manner, further interpreted by that same authority till the end of time. I submit, moreover, to the universally received traditions of the Church, in which lies the matter of those new dogmatic definitions which are from time to time made, and which in all times are the clothing and the illustration of the Catholic dogma as already defined. And I submit myself to those other decisions of the Holy See, theological or not, through the organs which it has itself appointed, which, waiving the question of their infallibility, on the lowest ground come to me with a claim to be accepted and obeyed.