Here is a mini-view of the chart. (The PDF version is much larger, designed to print on 11 x 17 inch paper.)

As you can see, the top section — everything above the green line — describes the actual, literal festivals in the Jewish calendar. The bottom section repeats the same festivals, but shows how they met their fulfillment in the various events of the Gospels and Acts. The chart includes Bible references for each event.

The autumn feast section of the chart is presented from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective. The October 22, 1844, date seen in the chart is derived from the 2300-day prophecy of Daniel 8:14. Perhaps I will include that information in a future version of the chart. The names mentioned as “trumpeters” are probably unfamiliar to most Christians, but would be familiar to those who have read the history of the Second Advent Movement, especially as described in the book The Great Controversy.

Adventists, like most Christians, believe the antitypical events associated with the dates of the spring feasts fell on the exact days of those feasts. However, with respect to the autumn feasts, we believe the order of events is important, but not the exact, literal days.

Church conflicts — whether over doctrines, matters of lifestyle, or policies — are often described as conflicts between “conservatives” and “liberals.” Given the Bible’s call to unity, this factioning of the church should be cause for concern.

The factioning of the church into conservative and liberal camps is a fascinating process. To the casual observer, it may seem that the many specific points of contention between the two camps are over unrelated issues. For example, what does a theological position on the human nature of Christ have to do with the length of women’s dresses? Though both are conservative positions, a studious observer would find little direct relationship between the points. Indeed, there are many who freely hold to only one or the other of those two points, and see no contradiction in doing so. Yet despite widespread exceptions over specific points, there is a noticeable polarization. Something draws church members towards either of these two groups, each representing a collection of diverse issues. In the end, people tend to adopt a collection of related ideas and practices, which could be classed as either liberal or conservative. Put another way, people who hold doctrinal views deemed conservative also tend to adopt conservative lifestyle choices and policies. Those who favor liberal church policies tend toward liberal theological and lifestyle stances. Of course, individually people tend to take various exceptions to their party platform.

Somehow all this gathering into factions occurs without a formal platform on either side dictating what is offically a conservative or liberal position. Evidently there are forces at work — whether attitudes, cultures, or other influences — that beneath the surface affect how we evaluate a wide range of important decisions. We may be unaware of these forces, yet their influence is there.

The purpose of this article is to explore what these forces are, in the hope that it will help us find common ground with those on the other side of the fence, whichever side that might be.

Disclaimer

Because the words “conservative” and “liberal” are relative, it is impossible to attach any absolute merit to one approach or the other. We cannot say something is right or wrong merely because it reflects a conservative or liberal approach.

An additional caution is that we must distinguish between the more general uses of these terms, and their special usage regarding differing viewpoints in the church. For instance, someone who is theologically conservative may be quite liberal (financially) in supporting mission projects — statistically, that is often true. Being generous does not make a person liberal in the sense that we are talking about here. For another example, someone who enjoys liberal worship styles may be quite conservative (emotionally) in their personality. Being quiet by nature does not make a person a conservative member of the church. In a sense we are detaching the words “liberal” and “conservative” from their broad meanings, and using them somewhat abstractly to represent opposite poles in a multi-dimensional space that represents the church. (This is not to suggest the terms have no significance in themselves; however, for now it is best to simply think of them as two opposing points on a spectrum.)

Probably no one fits neatly into one stereotype conservative or liberal position. Humans are complex creatures. Life is complex. Individual may be so conditioned to a certain way of life in one area that they cannot part from it, even though it may contradict their overall course of thought and action in other areas. Thus a liberal may retain some conservative qualities, and vice versa.

The factions within the church are not two distinct camps. Rather, they form a broad space between two poles. These poles seem to magnetically pull people one direction or the other, yet there are other forces of attraction and repulsion at play as well. Many church members consider themselves “moderates” — neither liberal nor conservative. We will look at this position later.

Agents of change

What influences cause people to see things so differently? Why are most of our major differences within the church usually described (or argued) as two-sided, instead of being split among three, five, or a dozen competing groups?

Culture. Culture is blamed for much of our church strife. Indeed, the church today is composed of many diverse cultures. By definition, people from different cultures will have differing expectations, traditions, customs, and manners. The ways they socialize, conduct business, and evangelize are different.

However, upon closer scrutiny, culture does not completely answer the question. Within just about every culture we can find the same liberal-conservative split. Historically, time seems more significant than culture. That is to say, churches within our relatively liberal First World cultures (such as the United States) were closer spiritually in the past (such as the 1700s and 1800s) to the more conservative Third World nations today, even though culturally the people of those respective nations were further apart at those points in time.

To say it another way, liberals and conservatives across cultures do not have so much cultural similarities as they do doctrinal and lifestyle similarities. There seems to be a force that transcends culture.

Tradition. Tradition is also frequently put to blame for causing liberal-conservative rifts. It is obvious enough that many doctrinal and lifestyle issues can become traditions. Examples would include Sabbath-keeping practices, methods of presenting Bible truths, and what church-goers wear.

Yet tradition is also an incomplete answer. For example, conservatives are the ones usually decried as traditionalists. In this usage it implies stuck in a rut, hardened in formalism, and so on. But the facts bear out that many conservatives are anything but traditional. Many are new believers who have broken from other religious faiths (or nonbelief) that have no relationship to church culture or traditions. For those believers, their conservativism is radical, not traditional. And liberal believers can be just as guilty of traditionalism as their conservative brethren — which is why many conservatives think liberal worship styles “are all alike.”

In short, there is no direct relationship between conservative values and traditionalism, nor liberal values and radical or free thinking.

Extremes. Both factions tend to think that the other group is extreme. Conservatives tend to look at liberals as compromising and worldly. Liberals tend to see conservatives as Pharisaical, fanatics, or just sadly uneducated. But is it really possible to say that one faction is more extreme than the other? On what basis do we judge extremes?

When we look at the history of God’s people, from the story of Adam and Eve all the way through New Testament times and beyond, it appears that following God has always been rather extreme. Few, if any, of the great believers of the Bible have lived “normal” lives. Jesus Himself often presented the Gospel call in a way that could easily be described as extreme: leave all, sell all, enter the narrow (unpopular) way, take up your cross, and so on.

Of course, both factions can claim that they offer God’s extremes. The liberals offer extreme mercy-grace: “Hey, don’t sweat anything, God loves you.” Conservatives offer extreme obedience-grace: “You can be perfect, today — and if you will please God, you must be.” Liberals have extreme celebrations and rallies; conservatives have extreme Bible studies and diets. On what basis do we decide which extremes are worthy?

Yet the Bible is clear that following God is “wisdom.” Wisdom means discernment, and implies that life cannot be navigated through simple polarized thinking. In that sense godliness is a very middle-of-the-road position. There are dangers on both sides. We cannot point to the existence of extremes as a reason for or against either position. When we realize that the Bible is the arbiter, or test, of wisdom, we have a basis to decide which extremes are God’s calling and which are man’s folly.

Spiritual qualities. This is the most heated type of explanation. “Liberals are worldly.” “Conservatives lack love and the Spirit.” It is also the most frivolous. While it is certainly true that members of both camps suffer from spiritual ills, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. It is helpful to remember at this point that we are dealing with a spectrum, not two precise camps. There are worldly conservatives. There are happy, loving conservatives. Their are self-sacrificing liberals. There are bitter liberals. And many other variations exist than we could possibly name here.

Two ways of determining truth

As compared to the church as a whole, I am a conservative. You might say in some ways that I am very conservative. One day I was thinking through a particular issue. I realized that I knew of no direct Biblical or inspired counsel on the subject. Yet the principle seemed clear to me. While I had convinced myself, I knew the very suggestion of my application of this principle would sound ridiculous to liberals I know personally.

While I could envision in my mind how the conversation between myself and a liberal on that particular topic would go, it was not immediately obvious why we would see it so differently. Gradually this conclusion formed in my mind: Conservative thought and liberal thought ultimately distill down to two different ways of evaluating reality. The more I thought about it, the more obvious it seemed. Here in a nutshell is the sum of that day’s musings:

• Conservatives are idealists, who take the high road on principle; they stick to the tried and true.
• Liberals are realists and pragmatists; they tend to experiment.

Conservatives are people with high ideals, who also maintain a high regard for orthodoxy. As such, they have high standards, they attempt much, and they feel a strong burden to protect doctrinal pillars and foundations. Liberals in the church tend to look to the past as the time of darkness and ignorance, and are always pushing for freedom to explore new options. I feel there are points of merit in both views, but both can be carried to extremes.

Generally speaking, conservatives evaluate the merits of something based on the principles involved: “Is mustard known to irritate the stomach? Yes? Then I won’t eat it.” Liberals evaluate things based on effects that can be seen or experienced (a view known as pragmatism): “I’ve eaten mustard many times. Has it ever bothered me? No. Plus I like the taste. Pass the mustard, please.”

Liberals, of course, do not disdain all principles. But the question is whether they will accept a principle as an absolute guide, in itself, and especially on the word of a third party (by inspiration, for example). Liberals will generally accept the same principles that conservatives accept, when the significance of doing so is obvious and profound. For instance, nearly all church members oppose drugs, alcohol, adultery, and stealing. We can see the effects of these things. In many cases the damaging consequences are almost immediate.

But where effects are not immediate or obvious, but where the principles are known (or where in the Bible a rule is stated), strong differences of opinion exist. Conservatives will tend to see the principle or rule as a divine law; liberals will tend to find it hard to swallow and attempt to explain it away on one pretext or another.

Another food-oriented example: A conservative may hear that science through several studies has substantiated that chocolate contains substances known to impair judgment and adversely affect health. Since there is no compelling reason to eat chocolate, a conservative may find it obvious that it is best left alone. A liberal, on the other hand, may hear the same facts. But since there is little perceptible difference in the health, intelligence, or morality of an average chocolate-eater versus an average non-chocolate-eater, the liberal will tend to conclude that it does not really matter.

In this the conservative approach has advantages: It realizes the limitations of human perception, and accepts the divine principles as a wise guide. It also grasps the fact that synergy is a principle of evil as well as of good. Many little influences, inconsequential as they may seem, can add up over the course of a lifetime (or over the course of a nation’s or planet’s existence). Many interactions and reactions may exist of which we have no knowledge; therefore, if something is known to be a little bit bad, it may be very bad in ways we have not discovered yet. This applies not only to food, but to clothing, speech, lifestyle, and even matters of doctrine.

Of course, it could also be argued that the liberal approach has advantages, too, since it does not lead one to bind up himself with rules that lack a clear, compelling, rational basis. It does not make mountains out of molehills, or lead to perfectionism.

There are pitfalls on both sides. Personally I feel that liberals are wrong about doctrinal and lifestyle issues a larger percentage of the time. But conservatives can be cranks or cranky, and that’s not good. Still, there is a deep pragmatism in the view that, in a spiritually dangerous and conflicted world, there is wisdom in leaning to the safer, less licentious side.

Moderates in the church

From a very conservative standpoint, a self-proclaimed moderate is someone who knows the truth but has made some compromises. From a very liberal standpoint, a self-proclaimed moderate is a somewhat enlightened individual who is unfortunately bound by Pharisaism or tradition. However, these perceptions belong especially to those who have strongly gravitated to one end or the other of the church spectrum.

Moderates make up the largest percentage of church membership by definition. However, there is somewhat of a dichotomy in how individuals view themselves. Nearly everyone regards themselves as middle-of-the-road (which could be a definition of a moderate); on the other hand, many pride themselves on their conservatism or liberalism as compared to others (in that sense no one is a moderate). Individuals generally like to feel they have reached a higher sphere, but not that they have branched away from what is mainstream. Obviously there is a paradox in that.

Summary

My denomination, compared to others, is quite conservative. This explains the popularity of “conservative values” in certain circles of my church. But being in a church that hangs close to the conservative pole can be a dangerous crutch. We can become deceived in our own smugness. Conservative Christians cannot judge themselves by what other Christians believe or do; the Bible is our guide. We will never enter heaven because we were “less heathen than others.”

It is all too possible that our “conservative” denominations, and we along with them, have become quite liberal — or worldly, as the Old Guard Christians might have put it. The shifts in thinking and practice across centuries can leave us far away from what was once the conservative harbor, while we still congratulate ourselves that we are not as liberal as others. Today’s staunch conservative could be yesterday’s flaming liberal, or vice versa.

There is a danger in allowing ourselves to be drawn into political ways of thinking. If we find ourselves saying or thinking, “That is wrong, because that is just what a liberal (or conservative) would do,” then we know we’ve broken away from principle-based thinking and have slipped into political prejudice.

So I think it is important to apply the human mind to the Bible, to understand the principles involved. It is the bane of conservatives to get wrapped up in laws (applications of principles), rather than knowing and upholding the principles themselves. We can cite all kinds of verses to back up what we say, and point out the lack of verses to justify any other course — and still be wrong.

The Bible calls us to moderation (Philippians 4:5). But it also warns against “lukewarmness” (Revelation 3:15-19) and comparing ourselves with others (2 Corinthians 10:12). There is no safety in gauging our spirituality based on herd instincts. Only the wisdom of God, found in His Word, can lead us to the moderate, levelheaded position that is not ashamed or afraid to obey God’s extreme call.

I had the good sense to clip it from the magazine and file it, and just recently found it again. It deals with three specific legends that have circulated in the scholarly world and washed over into popular culture:

• Did Martin Luther base the hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” on drinking songs? (which is a topic I’ve dealt with before)
• Did medieval Christians debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?
• Did those medieval Christians actually believe the Earth was flat?

According to the article, the answer to these questions is no, no, and no.

The last one is, of course, the consummate example often cited in support of ancient Christian superstition and ignorance. But, alas, it is baloney. Literature and art all the way back to Greek times represent the earth as round. And in the case of Columbus, the question was not whether he would sail off the edge of the world, but whether his ship could make it all the way to the other side. (Curiously, Columbus succeeded because he was wrong. No one in Europe dreamed that on the other side was a whole new world.)

It says something about the quality of critical scholarship when such nonsense continues to be peddled as fact, even today.

Without a doubt, thought leaders of the past have been wrong about many things in science and theology. But in many cases they were limited by technology and easy access to information. Today we do not have those excuses to anywhere near the same degree — and so our mangling of history is all the more shameful. It is high time we ditch these and other “scholarly legends,” or at least cease to pay attention to those who perpetuate them.

New Habits for High-Tech Hearts – Online Magazine Archives – NavPress.

If you are a Mac user using the beta release of the EGW CRE 2008 software (Ellen G. White Writings, Comprehensive Research Edition 2008), you may be interested in this little app I wrote. What it does is allow you to launch multiple instances of the EGW CRE 2008 app simultaneously. This was requested in the comment thread for “EGW CD-ROM via Darwine on OS X“.

Being able to have multiple windows at once is possibly handy for heavy users of the app, but not officially supported (the main concern is that if you save settings from more than one open window, the settings from one could overwrite the other, meaning some of your settings won’t be saved). [Update: One user reported that changing settings in one instance, locked the settings in other instances so they could not be saved. Another user reported that all settings were saved in each instance, but that the instances had to be quit and relaunched to get the settings to sync. YMMV. Since I have not personally used things like notes, highlighter, etc., this has not been a problem for me. If you use those things, you just need to use them in a single instance at a time, or else do some testing to be sure your changes will be saved.]

This is version 1.5 of my “New Instance” app. This one is a little smarter: it tries to find the EGW app if you moved it from the Applications folder, it should report errors to Console, and finally it has a new fancy-pants icon (the icon is based on the official icon created by the EGW Estate). It requires that you already have the beta version (or later) installed. It requires Leopard (10.5) or Snow Leopard (10.6). You can download from here:

Download EGW-CRE-2008-New-Instance-1.5.zip

Usage:

1. You must have the EGW CRE 2008 software already installed (beta version is OK)
2. Download and unzip EGW-CRE-2008-New-Instance-1.5.zip; place it in your Applications folder or wherever you like
3. Run EGW CRE 2008 New Instance; each time you run it, it will start a new instance (a new window) of the EGW software
4. To quit a single window, click File > Exit (if you want to save settings), or the keystroke Cmd-W (won’t save settings) … if you want to quit all windows without saving, Cmd-Q

Hope you like it!

* * *

For the technically-inclined: This program is pretty simple, but it is also my most complex app written as a shell script for Bash to date. I learned quite a bit from the process. The script uses Spotlight for some of its work, which I think is pretty cool.

The base app, PocketBible, is developed by a company called Laridian. This app is FREE. However, PocketBible is mainly just a shell for library modules that you download. Some of these are free or included, but others — such as the Ellen White writings — cost money. (Most of their libraries are Bible translations and such.)

You cannot, apparently, buy the Ellen White library from Laridian. I got mine directly from the White Estate booth at GYC. However, I could not find any information about the Ellen White library for this app on the Ellen White Estate website. They definitely carry the product, because I am using it now on my iPod touch. My guess is that you just need to contact them for information about how to buy a serial number. Once you register the serial number on the Laridian website, you then enter your customer identification in the PocketBible app, and the whole collection downloads automatically. It’s best to do this with a wifi connection, because it’s quite a large download.

Personally I found the interface a little confusing. It’s not as elegant as the Conflict of the Ages app, but it’s functional. Personally I found the method of turning pages awkward. But some people might prefer it. It’s mainly a matter of taste.

The app is fully searchable. However, it only searches one library at a time. In some ways this is good, because you usually don’t want a search to be pulling words from all the different Bibles and commentaries. However, when I first started using the app, it appeared that you could only search White’s writings book by book. In other words, you might open Sons and Daughters of God and search that. Obviously that would be very limiting. However, I learned that the key is to open the library called “EGW-BKS” (in the Other Books section of the app), and searching in this library searches all the books simultaneously.

Here is a screen shot showing a search results listing:

And this shot shows what the content looks like. Note that the Bible verse references are clickable, which is quite cool:

If you have an iPhone or iPod touch, it’s definitely the best thing out there for accessing Ellen White’s writings.

Quality may be subjective, but quantity is not. This was clearly the most attended GYC ever, with well over 3,000 attendees on the opening night, and reports of close to 6,000 attendees on Sabbath. It has come to be a powerful movement.

This year’s theme was “unASHAMED” (yeah, capitalized like that). A little irony for me was that in the last year or so, I took down my personal unashamed.net website. I’m laughing. Maybe I was just ahead of my time. (The good news is that all of the worthy articles from that site are now available on this one, or will be when they are finally edited.)

The Meetings

The main (plenary) meetings at GYC were very good.

David Asscherick’s presentations were all first rate, and hit on important themes. His talks were titled, “Unashamed of the Crucified Christ,” “Unashamed of the Creative Christ,” and “Unashamed of the Coming Christ.” These talks could be summarized, respectively, as: (1) recognizing the scandalous, foolish reputation of First Century Christianity helps prepare us for scorn in our day, and the death of Jesus for us must remain a vital theme; (2) Jesus’ creative power, understood through a literal, historical understanding of Genesis 1 and 2, is essential to our message and mission today, and there is no place for Christianity, much less Seventh-day Adventism, in a theory of Darwinian origins; and (3) we need an urgency in our evangelism that is not based on current events, but instead is grounded in the urgency of human need.

My great disappointment with conservative Adventism is its tendency to focus on doctrinal correctness and mission activity to the exclusion of Jesus-focused discipleship. If it can be successfully argued that Christian doctrine stands or falls with Genesis 1 and 2, it is even more obvious that Christian practice stands or falls with our connection to a living Christ. Sometimes we conservative Adventists come across as straight-laced religionists bent on evangelism and orthodoxy, but come up short in living as followers of a risen Lord. I include myself in this, because in reflection on my own life I often see more theory than substance. But of this I am certain: If Jesus is not a living reality for us today, all of these other things we do are vain and empty.

For these reasons, David’s presentations were a breath of fresh air, because I felt that he spoke not merely as a conservative Seventh-day Adventist, but as an ardent Christian. I think that is essential.

Many of the meetings, and not just David’s, are now available for download on GYC’s website. (They are also available in audio format on AudioVerse.) They will also air eventually on 3ABN, and be available from 3ABN on DVD.

The Seminars

I went to the first couple seminars, and then for various reasons — somewhat contrary to my wishes — missed the remaining ones. All the seminars looked good, although it was hard to find ones that particularly interested me. Many of the topics seemed all too familiar. I guess that is a symptom of going to GYC for so many years. Obviously GYC needs to cater to the new recruits, and not aim at the generation of no-longer-youth.

The first seminar I wanted to attend, Dr. Pipim’s, was totally full. Instead I went to one about reaching people in one’s community, and it was quite good. I got into Dr. Pipim’s seminar about new spirituality movements for the second seminar. It was a good message, although I can’t say I learned anything new, since the topic is a bit of a hobbyhorse for me. He did throw out some cool soundbites though: “Liberals are nice people with bad ideas. Conservatives are people with good ideas and difficult personalities.” He said we need the liberal’s niceness, combined with the conservative’s biblical fidelity, and I agree. “What we call a ‘liberal’ today, in the past we called ‘backslidden.’” (Both quotes slightly paraphrased due to my poor memory.) He went on to say that the term “liberal” is a gloss that makes spiritual problems sound like just a variation in an acceptable spectrum than runs from liberal to conservative. The same could probably be said for “conservative.” He also said he didn’t particularly care for the relativistic terms “liberal” and “conservative,” and I feel likewise. But they are terms in common use, so we have to deal with them. I should add that this seminar was about holiness versus the nebulous spirituality of new spiritual movements; the part about liberals and conservatives was just a short tangent.

The Testimonies

One thing you can always expect to hear at GYC is a lineup of great testimonies. There was an incredible, miracle-infused testimony by a woman named Deniza Hush, former Muslim and New Age practitioner. If you can listen to the recording of it, by all means do so. There were also other testimonies of young people doing evangelism, and more.

The Panels

There were two panel discussion at GYC, both on Sabbath.

If there was one low point at GYC for me, it was the morning panel, which featured a number of highly respected church leaders, including Mark Finley, Mike Ryan, Don Schneider, and several others (all GC vice presidents, I believe). The questions put to these leaders were very good — dealing with subjects such as the promotion of evolution and homosexuality at particular SDA educational institutions, inefficiencies in church organizational structure, and inequalities in how the church treats “too liberal” and “too conservative” ministries and organizations. The early answers were good. But their later answers were evasive and unsatisfactory. Although I disagreed with only a few minor things that they said, it was these leaders’ inability to directly answer these critical questions that left me disappointed. But there is no need to take my word for it; listen, and decide for yourself. Despite their weak answers, it seemed that the great body of attendees were strongly united on most or all of the topics presented.

(On the topic of the promotion of evolution and homosexuality within the church, the response of the leaders was that these conflicts shouldn’t happen, faithful members should make their voice heard to the respective boards, members should work through the system, and the intellectually honest thing would be for those with divergent views to remove themselves from their church positions. However, it’s obvious that members have attempted to follow this advice, without seeing the problems corrected. Eventually firmer steps have to be taken, because the false teachers in question have responsible, teaching, administrative positions. But the panelists were unable to give a definite answer about how this problem should be stopped. Likening the situation to Jesus’ patience with Judas was inappropriate; despite Judas’ internal struggles, we have no reason to believe that Judas was openly teaching contrary to Jesus. The reference to the situation with J.H. Kellogg was valid, but we are already past that stage; these problems have already come to fruition.)

The afternoon panel was much better. It was focused on more everyday subjects (how do you find a mate? what are some Christian guidelines for music? what does the Bible say about homosexuality? how can someone trust God who has been sexually abused as a child? and others), and the answers were biblical, practical, warm, and at times witty. It was just an enjoyable discussion to listen to.

The Exhibits

There was a fairly large showing of exhibitors this year; it seems to feel more and more like ASI all the time.

I was attending GYC on my own dime, so I was not officially working 3ABN’s booth. But I did help out a little, mainly because I wanted to observe how things were going. Our booth had many visitors, and the items we were giving away seemed well-liked. This was especially true for the Origins DVD that we made especially for this event, featuring a 3ABN Today Live program with David Asscherick and Sean Pitman on the subject of creation versus evolution. Another new item that moved well was our Rapid Bible Reference cards.

I was glad to see the EGW Estate present, and showing the new beta of the Ellen White software for Mac, since I’ve been involved in that project. Mac laptops seemed to be “the computer to have” at this year’s GYC; they were everywhere. So I was glad to see the Mac software receiving attention.

Pan de Vida had a great booth with a strong showing of beautifully designed, spiritually rich materials. They seem to have a knack for producing content that looks and tastes fresh.

My brother’s new book Deeper sold reasonably well. I was told he sold over 100 copies at the event. (I designed the cover for it, so am glad to know it’s moving.)

Friends

The abundance of friends attending GYC is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it is good to see everyone. On the other, there is little time to spend with any of them. People are always on the go, and when there is a moment to catch up, they tend to get mobbed.

Most of the time at GYC events I sit alone or with strangers. I wouldn’t say this is exactly my preference. I always look for friends to sit with, but somehow I can never find any (or else they are already sitting with others), and eventually I give up trying. At mealtimes I just follow the flag-wavers to whichever table, and sometimes I end up with people I know, but most of the time with ones I don’t.

So if you were at GYC, and we didn’t get much time together, please don’t take it personally. I’m glad I got to see some of you, to know you are still alive and working, and to catch up a bit.

(The framework of this article was written years ago. But I finally got around to finishing it!)

“Silver bells, silver bells — it’s Christmastime in the city.” So begins one of my favorite popular Christmas songs. This song is nostalgic, sentimental, and secular — although by secular, I don’t mean anything negative. Simply put, it is a nice song, but not a religious one. It contrasts with another Christmas song I like a lot, “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen,” which is probably the only Christmas carol that mentions Satan by name. This Christmas hymn tells the Incarnation part of the gospel story in a nutshell — and it has a catchy tune as well. These two songs illustrate the two sides of Christmas that we see every year — the cultural side and the spiritual side. And together they illustrate, in a sense, the dichotomy about Christmas that many conservative Christians find difficult to reconcile.

For much of the Western world, Christmas is the high point of the year. The Christmas season — essentially Thanksgiving until New Year’s Day — is full of fun, excitement, and time with family and friends. It offers breaks from work and school, and showcases an unusual degree of generosity and hospitality. Of course, for some it is also a stressful time, for some a time to reflect on our crass materialism, and for some it can be hard on the bank account or on the waistline. Still, the feeling pervading society in general, and for children especially, is overflowing joy and goodwill.

For some conservative Christians, Christmas is a pagan holiday. The staunchest say it is on par with Halloween in its devilish origins and should not be observed. This view stems from the belief that the date for Christmas and the traditions associated with it were adopted from various pagan religions. It is condemned primarily on the basis of its origins.

Origins, Pagan and Not-So-Pagan

Every Christmas season since at least my college years, I encounter fellow Christians who object to Christmas or common elements of Christmas. Their arguments are pretty much always the same. And every year I do some thinking about Christmas’s origins and what those mean for us today.

Christmas, as just about everyone knows, is not a celebration with a single historical source. It is a synthesis of traditions and practices, largely of European origin, pulled together over centuries.

We know that the date, December 25, has a long history predating Christianity — as it happens to fall quite closely to the winter solstice, which was variously observed by many cultures and religions from antiquity. It is very unlikely that December 25 was the time of Jesus’ birth. (There was one old church teaching that claimed Jesus was exactly 33 years old when He was crucified, and since He died on Passover, He would have been conceived the same day, or perhaps at the spring equinox, which was March 25, which would have put His birth nine months later, or at about the time of Christmas. But this is a bit far-fetched and not supported by any concrete Bible teaching. Most Christian scholars believe Jesus was born at another time of year altogether.)

Many of the trimmings of the holiday have colorful, and somewhat contested, histories. We know that use of evergreen trees and boughs, holly, and mistletoe were used by pagans in their winter festivals. The same is true for the use of candles and other lights. Of course, there are only certain plants that are green during the winter for much of the European world, and it would be natural to choose those for any winter decorating. And what celebration is done without lights? While some claim that Christians gradually borrowed Christmas customs from the pagans, along with corresponding superstitions, others claim that Christmas traditions developed independently. (Follow this link for some examples.) Most likely there is a combination of pagan and Christian influences, since many medieval Christians were converted from paganism. As converts they would have retained some cultural forms that they deemed neutral, as well as some superstitions. Any new practices introduced by Christians would likely find some association with existing practices, since it is very difficult to create traditions out of a pure cultural vacuum.

The persona of Father Christmas (Santa Claus, Saint Nicholas — both names are the same) is also of mixed origin, and both the pagan and Christian roots have ties with gift-giving. In his current form Santa is entirely mythical, and is somewhat of a competitor for Jesus Christ as the focus of Christian attention. Elves, Jack Frost, and flying reindeer are certainly from outside the Christian worldview. I have no interest in these myths, and am content to discard them altogether.

Coming Together

The holiday package that we know today as Christmas is largely a product of the Victorian age.

The Puritans in America, like those in Great Britain, were strongly opposed to Christmas as a Catholic institution. However, not everyone agreed that it was Catholic. The tradition of hanging candles on a tree is attributed by some to Martin Luther. The Moravians, who were also strong Protestants, the descendants of Hus, apparently celebrated Christmas with no reservations.

As immigrants came to America from the Old World, they brought with them a host of winter holiday traditions. In this great “Melting Pot,” those traditions were blended, with some ideas dropped and others added. In Victorian New England, a somewhat secularized version of the Christmas traditions began to emerge. The tree had no meaning; it was just beautiful. The mistletoe had no power; it was just an excuse to get a kiss. Santa was just “a jolly old elf,” to amuse children. The feasting (and drinking!) were done for the mere pleasure of it. Gift exchanging promoted family and community bonding. The holiday became about celebrating rich traditions in a way that promoted family, friends, good times, and generosity.

During the mid-1800s, a stream of Christmas paraphernalia appeared, including Christmas cards, carols, and decorations. These items became increasingly popular. Today they define much of what we associate with Christmas.

Conclusions

Some have promoted the idea that it’s inconsistent for a person to take offense with Halloween (as conservative Christians are more apt to do), and yet observe Christmas, since they both stem from common, pagan sources.

However, who is to say that the meanings attached by pagans in antiquity are the only meanings that can be attached to traditions? Very few people — almost none — believe in the pagan superstitions and religious ideas that were part of the pagan winter traditions. Those elements have long ago evaporated from popular culture (although they might exist on the neo-pagan fringes of society, but this is practically irrelevant to mainstream practice). Meanings attached to cultural forms are not inherent, and are subject to change. Rather than asking what a certain observance may have once meant to a certain group of people, we ought to ask what it means to us and to others today.

To me, the whole idea of “pagan origins” seems to be unbalanced. As a Seventh-day Adventist, I reckon that my more devout fellow Adventists are particularly susceptible to this antagonistic attitude toward pagan origins. And this is because of the Sabbath doctrine, and the history of its decline within Christianity. We believe that Sunday keeping came from pagan sources, and that Christians ought to observe the Bible Sabbath. Thus, that conflict is about the Bible versus pagan customs. So shouldn’t we apply the same thinking to Christmas?

But — here is where I may offend some of my fellow Adventists — IF God had not specified a certain day as holy AND if “pagan origins” were the ONLY other objection to worshipping on Sunday, I would say today that worshipping on Sunday would be perfectly acceptable. God is the ultimate origin of everything in this world, of everything in the universe. Sinful pagans didn’t create the first day of the week. Every day belongs to God, and the pagans can’t change that. The Sabbath is holy, not because it is un-pagan, but because God set it apart and made it special. It is not because it is pagan that Sunday is not the Sabbath; it is not the Sabbath because God never made it holy, and He chose another day instead. “Pagan origins” may be part of the history of Sunday-keeping, but they are not the reason for my rejection of that day as the weekly day of worship.

My point is: The present state of something — what it is and what it stands for today — is the test, not what it once was. This fact must be true, or else we could not be saved. After all, the Bible says we were once children of darkness — yet now we are the light of the world. (See Ephesians 5:8; Matthew 5:14.) The Bible is all about transformation, about redemption. And if a person can be redeemed, why not a holiday and its customs?

So to bring this back around to holidays: In the case of Halloween, it is still very much a satanic holiday, and isn’t a safe (or healthy) holiday besides. In the case of Christmas, it’s more what you make it. There is no doubt that Christmas has fallen prey to commercialism, hedonism, etc. That is the nature of our modern world. Yet, I can say for myself that I do not need to enjoy Christmas in that way. I believe it can be used for good.

Why I Love Christmas

I think of Christmas as a very happy time. It is fun to get together with family and friends. It is nice to share special meals and exchange special gifts. These practices draw us together, countering the fragmented individualism that our culture promotes. By small tokens we represent that we love and care for others.

I love Christmas music. I am cheered by the seasonal decorations of evergreen and lights. I like to watch the falling snow, and sit in front of a warm fireplace. While this may all seem like pointless sentimentalism to icy Christians, it is in fact part of human nature — designed by God, I believe — to enjoy these simple sensory experiences.

Christmas brings out the good in many people, and opens opportunity to talk about spiritual things. For one season our culture gives abundant attention to a day whose very name points to our Savior, Jesus Christ. Even the little wars that we fight over the word “Christmas” and the use of nativity scenes help to get people talking about important subjects.

After Thanksgiving, I believe Christmas is the best holiday of all. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights.” James 1:17. Considering the good we can find, or make, of this holiday, this verse would seem to indicate that there is something of divine origin in Christmas, rightly practiced.

Other Testimony

For my Adventist friends, I submit the following statements from Ellen White:

The Day Not to Be Ignored. As the twenty fifth of December is observed to commemorate the birth of Christ, as the children have been instructed by precept and example that this was indeed a day of gladness and rejoicing, you will find it a difficult matter to pass over this period without giving it some attention. It can be made to serve a very good purpose.

The youth should be treated very carefully. They should not be left on Christmas to find their own amusement in vanity and pleasure seeking, in amusements which will be detrimental to their spirituality. Parents can control this matter by turning the minds and the offerings of their children to God and His cause and the salvation of souls.

The desire for amusement, instead of being quenched and arbitrarily ruled down, should be controlled and directed by painstaking effort upon the part of the parents. Their desire to make gifts may be turned into pure and holy channels and made to result in good to our fellow men by supplying the treasury in the great, grand work for which Christ came into our world. Self denial and self sacrifice marked His course of action. Let it mark ours who profess to love Jesus because in Him is centered our hope of eternal life.

The Interchange of Gifts as Tokens of Affection. The holiday season is fast approaching with its interchange of gifts, and old and young are intently studying what they can bestow upon their friends as a token of affectionate remembrance. It is pleasant to receive a gift, however small, from those we love. It is an assurance that we are not forgotten, and seems to bind us to them a little closer….

It is right to bestow upon one another tokens of love and remembrance if we do not in this forget God, our best friend. We should make our gifts such as will prove a real benefit to the receiver. I would recommend such books as will be an aid in understanding the word of God or that will increase our love for its precepts. Provide something to be read during these long winter evenings.

“Shall We Have a Christmas Tree?” God would be well pleased if on Christmas each church would have a Christmas tree on which shall be hung offerings, great and small, for these houses of worship. Letters of inquiry have come to us asking, Shall we have a Christmas tree? Will it not be like the world? We answer, You can make it like the world if you have a disposition to do so, or you can make it as unlike the world as possible. There is no particular sin in selecting a fragrant evergreen and placing it in our churches, but the sin lies in the motive which prompts to action and the use which is made of the gifts placed upon the tree.

The tree may be as tall and its branches as wide as shall best suit the occasion; but let its boughs be laden with the golden and silver fruit of your beneficence, and present this to Him as your Christmas gift. Let your donations be sanctified by prayer.

Christmas and New Year celebrations can and should be held in behalf of those who are helpless. God is glorified when we give to help those who have large families to support.

Provide Innocent Enjoyment for the Day. Will you not arise, my Christian brethren and sisters, and gird yourselves or duty in the fear of God, so arranging this matter that it shall not be dry and uninteresting, but full of innocent enjoyment that shall bear the signet of Heaven? I know the poorer class will respond to these suggestions. The most wealthy should also show an interest and bestow their gifts and offerings proportionate to the means with which God has entrusted them. Let there be recorded in the heavenly books such a Christmas as has never yet been seen because of the donations which shall be given for the sustaining of the work of God and the upbuilding of His kingdom.

These are but a fraction of her many statements about Christmas, but I believe they are a fair representation of her positive views on the subject. These and many, many more can be found by searching for the word “Christmas” on the CD-ROM of her published writings, or by using the search feature at the Ellen White Estate website.

Wrapping It Up

I think that Christians need not fret over the ancient past and what pagan traditions may or may not have wound their way into modern observances. It is enough to look with open eyes at what those traditions mean today, and how they affect us personally. I believe we can make good of this holiday. And I intend to do so.

Receiving the Word, by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim

A thorough and convincing study on the nature of inspiration and the trustworthiness of the Bible. Shows the far-reaching implications of “higher criticism” in Bible study. Includes an eye-opening look at the challenges to our SDA beliefs posed by “progressive” Adventists in academic and theological circles, as well as answers to common objections and explanations of common “problem texts.” It deals directly with many of the so-called errors, contradictions, and discrepancies in the Bible that are used to justify unbiblical beliefs and practices today.

Besides dealing with the theological-philosophical issues of higher criticism and skepticism toward inspiration, the book also touches upon the following contemporary debates which hinge on our view of the authority of Scripture:

• Use of alcohol
• Homosexuality/lesbianism
• Origins (Darwinism)
• Integrity of our doctrinal foundations (prophecy, atonement, etc.)
• Dress and adornment
• Women’s roles in the home and in church
• and more

Dr. Samuel Koranteng-Pipim is a frequent and admired presenter at events like Generation of Youth for Christ (GYC), and is widely read or listened to within Adventist circles.

368 pages.

Available from Amazon.com and other outlets.

Freedom of Simplicity, by Richard Foster

Is your life a ceaseless round of conflicting demands and more tasks than one person can accomplish? Does your family, church, or community impose burdens on you that you feel you can no longer bear? Do you long for the peace and joy of knowing that you are doing the will of God? If the answer to any of these questions is Yes, then this book is for you! Excellent reading, full of practical Bible-based counsel.

Freedom of Simplicity, paperback

Although this doctrine seems egalitarian and scores high on political correctness, it fails the test of biblical accuracy. It is also an avenue through which unbiblical attitudes and policies are drawn into the church.

Why It Matters

The false claim that all sins are equal is one of the prime directives of those who oppose church discipline. It is one of the first objections offered to any move toward corrective action. It is virtually implied by those who advocate this error that either “everyone should be punished all the time,” or “no one should be punished at any time” — with a definite nod toward the latter. However, the obvious practical implications of this view are contrary to the obvious teachings of Scripture, which tell us that church discipline is not a human invention, but instead is a sacred responsibility.

A true understanding of the degrees of sin is also useful to our own self-discipline, when we think about our personal responsibilities and priorities.

What the Bible Says

The primary scriptural argument — often the only one cited — for the belief that all sins are equal is James 2:10–11: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.”

At first glance, that verse could be understood to mean that all sins are equal. Indeed, it does teach that all sins are equal in principle: They are all violations of the same law.

Nevertheless, we do not build doctrines from a single verse. Neither James 2:10–11 nor any other passage tells us that all sins are equal in degree. Other verses plainly tell us that sins are not equal; sins are diverse in their punishments and consequences, and guilt for sins varies between individuals.

• During His trial, Jesus said to Pilate, “He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.” John 19:11. Jesus did not say Pilate was guiltless; however, he said that the one responsible for his arrest had the “greater sin.” Thus Jesus Himself did not see all sins as equal.
• Jesus’ words to the Jewish leaders contain several examples of degrees of sin. In Matthew 23:13–33, we find expressions such as “therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation,” “ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves,” and “[ye] have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.” These phrases suggest degrees of guilt, degrees of sin, degrees of importance. Note: One might argue that degrees of punishment are tied only to the quantity of sin (the number of sins committed), but this is not consistent with what Jesus is saying in this passage. If you read the full passage, it is clear that the types of sins the Pharisees and scribes were committing was the reason for their greater guilt, not the number. This is especially clear from verse 14, where Jesus condemns the practices of “devouring widows’ houses” and pretentiously making long prayers; for these the Pharisees would receive “the greater damnation.”
• In Matthew 11:20–24, Jesus compares the judgment awaiting the Jewish nation of His day with that of various pagan cities of the past that were destroyed by judgments of God. His words imply that increased light means increased responsibility, which in turn carries greater guilt if neglected.
• The expression “great sin” occurs several times in the Old Testament. One example is Exodus 32:30–31, where Moses pleads for the Israelite’s sin of making the idol at Mt. Sinai. This usage (“great sin”) itself implies degrees of sin.
• In Leviticus 4, we find a detailed description of the sacrifices for various classes of people. If a priest or the whole community of people sinned, the sacrifice was to be “a young bullock” (the young of a cow or ox). See verses 3–21. If a ruler sinned, he was to offer a young male goat (verse 23). If “any one of the common people” sinned, he or she was to bring a young female goat (verse 28). In an agricultural society, each of these animals had a different value. This value was based on how much work the respective animal could do, its procreative ability (males were seen as more valuable), and how much meat was on its bones; and the animals are listed in order from highest value to lowest. The implication is that a sin of a priest was just as serious as a sin of the whole camp, and these sins required a costlier sacrifice. A secular ruler’s sin carried a lesser penalty, and a common person’s sin carried the least penalty.

Other Commentary

I think these two quotations provide a good summary:

• “God does not regard all sins as of equal magnitude; there are degrees of guilt in His estimation, as well as in that of man; but however trifling this or that wrong act may seem in the eyes of men, no sin is small in the sight of God. Man’s judgment is partial, imperfect; but God estimates all things as they really are. The drunkard is despised and is told that his sin will exclude him from heaven; while pride, selfishness, and covetousness too often go unrebuked. But these are sins that are especially offensive to God; for they are contrary to the benevolence of His character, to that unselfish love which is the very atmosphere of the unfallen universe. He who falls into some of the grosser sins may feel a sense of his shame and poverty and his need of the grace of Christ; but pride feels no need, and so it closes the heart against Christ and the infinite blessings He came to give.” Ellen White, Steps to Christ, 30.
• “[God] would assure sinners that sins of the greatest magnitude can be forgiven if the transgressor seeks for pardon, surrendering himself, body, soul, and spirit, to be transformed by the grace of God, and changed into His likeness.” Ellen White, Signs of the Times, October 10, 1900.

Conclusions

There are no “small” (insignificant) sins in God’s eyes. All sins are violations of the same principle of love — love to God, and love to our fellow humans.

But not all sins are of equal magnitude or degree. Factors in the degrees of sin include:

• how much knowledge/experience the sinner had in the truth and ways of God
• how much influence/responsibility the person had in the eyes of others
• their calling as pastor, teacher, priest, leader, king, etc.
• the actual effects of the sin (how much damage, hurt, and/or rebellion resulted)
• the sin’s effect of the sinner’s own spiritual nature

Many sins that we tend to regard as greater sins — prostitution, theft, etc. — are often only greater in terms of the immediate physical, psychological, and interpersonal consequences (as opposed to immediate or long-term spiritual consequences). From a spiritual standpoint, the greater sins are often the ones we think of as lesser offenses — pride, covetousness, hypocrisy. So while the Bible does not teach that all sins are equal, its valuation of sins may be the opposite of our intuition.

On the other hand, neither civil law nor church discipline is based on inner spiritual ills. It is only outward acts, with outward consequences, that must be dealt with. For example, pride is spiritually a great evil — but one doesn’t get pregnancy or syphilis from pride itself. Hate bottled up inside may be equal to the spirit of murder (1 John 3:15), but it’s the act of murder that will put someone in prison.

In both the Old and New Testament, people were never punished for inner feelings or hidden attitudes. The basis for punishment in the Old Testament theocracy, or for discipline in the New Testament church, was always behavior. Indeed, it should be obvious that this can be the only basis for punishment of any kind that is administered by human agencies, since no human can read the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). Even when God was directly involved in the punishment or sentence, it was always on the basis of behavior. Very likely this was because the punishment had to make sense to third parties. The fact that behaviors are punished, and not mere attitudes, does not mean the behaviors are worse; it simply reflects the limitations of human judgment.

Despite the degree of the sin a person has done, no one should be treated in an unloving manner. “Treat others as you would want to be treated, if you were in their place,” remains the Golden Rule (although it requires a great deal of maturity to apply this rule in a disciplinary way). And remember that no sin is too big for God or man to forgive when it is confessed.

Finally, the more we know, the more accountable we are. And this subject also helps remind us that the “weightier matters” are not dress, music, and soy, but the spiritual virtues that should adorn the human life.

If he [Jesus] were to come today as he did then [working as a carpenter in Nazareth], he could carry out his mission through most any decent and useful occupation. He could be a clerk or accountant in a hardware store, a computer technician, or construction worker. He could run a housecleaning service or repair automobiles.

In other words, if he were to come today he could very well do what you do.

In other words, Jesus’ earthly occupation as a carpenter was His way of connecting with us at the intersection of our ordinary lives. He could have lived any life—He could have chosen something far more exalted in our human estimation. But He chose an ordinary family, and adopted an ordinary job in a small town in a country with little political status. This was not meant to confer some special status on Middle Eastern carpenters. It was meant to show that God accepts and blesses the most ordinary of human lives.

This leads to a profound conclusion. Willard finishes:

Our human life, it turns out, is not destroyed by God’s life but is fulfilled in it and in it alone.

In other words, what would happen if God Incarnate was born in a carpenter’s home? Would He turn His back on so lowly and earthly a life? No—He’d become a carpenter. And the same is true of any career. Assuming a job is not inherently immoral, it is exactly the kind of job God in human form would do. “Let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” 1 Corinthians 7:24.

There can be no doubt that some people are called to a special role in ministry. But, apart from such a calling, our job in following Jesus is to do what we already do, and to do it to the best of our ability, to the glory of God.

The essential lesson of contented industry in the necessary duties of life is yet to be learned by many of Christ’s followers. It requires more grace, more stern discipline of character, to work for God in the capacity of mechanic, merchant, lawyer, or farmer, carrying the precepts of Christianity into the ordinary business of life, than to labor as an acknowledged missionary in the open field. It requires a strong spiritual nerve to bring religion into the workshop and the business office, sanctifying the details of everyday life, and ordering every transaction according to the standard of God’s Word. But this is what the Lord requires.

Ellen White, God’s Amazing Grace, 301

For that reason, I thought it would be fun to create a list of my favorite songs, in the hope that it might be helpful to others like me who are looking for wholesome, inspiring suggestions. I wish I had direct links to song samples for all of these; however, most of them can be found on iTunes or other music services if you want to try before you buy.

These songs tend to be either contemporary songs sung in a traditional manner, or else traditional songs sung with contemporary but conservative stylings. The instrumental formula is basically “acoustic without syncopated percussion.” I prefer real instruments; however, some of these songs use synths. Caveat: Naturally there are components of taste, personality, and culture in the songs I like. One person’s definition of “worldly” may not satisfy another’s. I hope you enjoy this, but I can make no guarantees!

These are 20 of my current favorite songs, in no particular order:

• “My Life Flows On” sung by Aled Jones, Aled
• “Jesus, I Am Resting, Resting” sung by Alisa Dishong, Surrender
• “And Now My Lifesong Sings” sung by Casting Crowns, Lifesong
• “Give Me Jesus” sung by Emily Felts Jones, Songs Of The Messiah
• “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us” sung by Kathy Troccoli, Draw Me Close
• “How Great You Are” sung by Kathy Troccoli, Draw Me Close
• “Knowing You” sung by Kathy Troccoli, Draw Me Close
• “Light of the World” sung by Christine Denté, Come to the Cradle (Michael Card)
• “Raining on the Inside” sung by Sandra Entermann, Rest
• “That’s the Day” sung by Sandra Entermann, Rest
• “Belong to Me” sung by Sandra Entermann, Treasure
• “Before the Throne of God Above” sung by Selah, Hiding Place
• “In My Life/If We Never Meet Again” sung by Selah, Press On
• “Gentle Healer” sung by Selah, Bless the Broken Road
• “Faithful One” sung by Selah, Bless the Broken Road
• “Bless the Broken Road” sung by Selah, Bless the Broken Road
• “Peace, Perfect Peace” sung by Wiley Beveridge, How Sweet the Sound
• “Come Ye Disconsolate” sung by Wiley Beveridge, How Sweet the Sound
• “Ancient Words” sung by Michael W. Smith, Worship Again
• “Benediction” sung by Brian Dunning and friends, Benediction

Honorable Mentions

• “This Season” sung by Camila Aguilar, Compelled
• “My Cathedral” sung by Chris Rice, Run the Earth, Watch the Sky
• “Mighty Is the Power of the Cross” sung by Chris Tomlin, Arriving
• “How Long O Lord” sung by Eden’s Bridge, Celtic Psalms
• “Shadow of Your Hand” sung by Eden’s Bridge, Celtic Worship
• “Give Me Jesus” sung by Fernando Ortega, Give Me Jesus (EP)
• “In Your Mercy” sung by Jennifer LaMountain, Abundantly
• “You Thought Of Us” sung by Jennifer LaMountain, Abundantly
• “What Matters Most” sung by Jericho Road, What Matters Most
• “Not Too Far From Here” sung by Jericho Road, What Matters Most
• “You Melt the Madness” sung by Jericho Road, What Matters Most
• “Come Just As You Are” sung by Kathy Troccoli, Draw Me Close
• “Awesome In This Place” sung by Kathy Troccoli, Draw Me Close
• “Word of God Speak” sung by MercyMe, Spoken For
• “He’s Watching Over You” sung by Michelle Tumes, Listen
• “For the Glory of Your Name” sung by Michelle Tumes, Very Best of Michelle Tumes
• “Remember Me” sung by Sandra Entermann, If I Stand
• “Were It Not For Grace” sung by Sandra Entermann, If I Stand
• “The Strength of the Lord” sung by Sandra Entermann, Rest
• “Too Many Times” sung by Sandra Entermann, Rest
• “This Peace” sung by Sara Groves, All Right Here
• “You Cannot Lose My Love” sung by Sara Groves, All Right Here
• “He’s Always Been Faithful” sung by Sara Groves, Conversations
• “Treasures of Jesus” sung by Steven Curtis Chapman, All Things New
• “When You Speak to Me” sung by Twila Paris, True North
• “I Will Listen” sung by Twila Paris, Where I Stand
• “The Voice of God” sung by 4HIM, The Basics of Life

If you thought this list was helpful or interesting, and you have similar tastes, I’d love to hear your favorites!

My brother and I at Bedrock City, South Dakota

The above photo shows my brother Eugene and I on an imaginary horned turtle from the Flintstones cartoon. Although such a creature probably never existed, there have been some remotely similar fossilized creatures. I have always thought the ankylosaurus was very cool.

The Puzzle

From a creationist standpoint, the disappearance of the dinosaurs (or their rediscovery as fossils) is somewhat of a mystery.

Today, most Christians who believe in a short age of life on earth (6,000–10,000 years) tend to adopt one of several views:

1. Dinosaurs were created by God, and probably were on Noah’s Ark; they died out later.
2. Dinosaurs were created by Satan, and thus were not preserved through the Flood.
3. The existence of dinosaurs is an unsolved mystery.

Options in the Adventist View

Seventh-day Adventists have an interesting perspective on dinosaurs, since our cofounder, Ellen White, is regarded as an inspired authority, and gives some scant but intriguing insights about dinosaurs and fossils. She never had much to say on the subject (there are only seven instances of the word “fossils” on the 1998 CD-ROM of her writings, and these are just repeated references to a single travelog; the word “dinosaur” does not occur), but her few comments are sufficiently interesting that they are well-known throughout the church where her writings are readily available.

Amalgamations: By far her most well-known comment on these extinct creatures is from Spiritual Gifts, Volume 3, 75, where she says, “Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood.” (Note that her use of “species” in this case, written in 1864, is not necessarily the same as our usage today.) This statement is so common that many take it as the be-all, end-all of an Adventist view of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were somehow created by blending qualities of existing creatures to make new forms. Many who hold this view believe that those people living before the Flood were not primitive, but were a highly intelligent and advanced race; and somehow they were directly involved in the “amalgamation” of the creatures God had created. However, this is not a view that Ellen White herself directly endorses or elaborates on. (Ellen White says elsewhere that Satan is involved in the process of amalgamation, such as the creation of “noxious herb[s].”)

Left behind: Another statement from Ellen White says, “There were a class of very large animals which perished at the flood. God knew that the strength of man would decrease, and these mammoth animals could not be controlled by feeble man.” (Spiritual Gifts, Volume 4A, 121.) Apparently some creatures were not taken on the ark simply because they were too big and would have been a problem for humankind after the Flood. This statement is far less known, but is very significant. She does not say what kind of problem these animals would have caused, and so it is not clear if she meant competition from plant-eaters, or threats from predation, or a combination of the two. But it it certainly a significant concept, since many dinosaurs were very, very big.

A further aspect of this “left behind” category is that it seems no marine animals were taken aboard the ark. We are told in the Bible that land animals walked in by twos and sevens, and birds came by twos and sevens. However, marine life was apparently left to fend for itself. Thus, the marine creatures alive today are the ones that happened to survive the Flood and post-Flood conditions. Ellen White also says that God did not preserve all the original plant kinds, and the ones He did preserve happened to be some that Noah took on the ark and some that providentially survived the Flood (Spiritual Gifts, Volume 3, 76–77); this adds weight to the view that the ark may have contained only a representative collection of the basic, essential species, and that it was not God’s plan to preserve every variety.

I find this element of Ellen White’s view encouraging, because unlike some other Adventists and other Christians, I think many of the dinosaurs may have been beautiful and interesting animals, and I would be pleased to see them when the world is recreated. Personally I think it would be quite fun to fly around on the back of a pterosaur like Quetzalcoatlus.

Early extinction: We have no definitive statements from the Bible or Ellen White on this topic, but it is certainly possible that some dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures became extinct prior to the Flood. Most believers in a short history of life on earth think as many as 2,000 years or so passed between Creation and the Flood. The Bible tells us that in those years the earth was filled with violence (Genesis 6:11–12). Ellen White adds, concerning the exceedingly corrupt people of that time, “They loved to destroy the lives of animals” (Spiritual Gifts, Volume 3, 63–64). Considering how many animals have gone extinct in the last 2,000 years (A.D. 1 – A.D. 2000), it is certainly possible that many may have died off in those first 2,000 years. Perhaps the remains of some pre-Flood extinction creatures were preserved by the Flood.

Later extinction: Some Adventists, and other Christians as well, believe that some dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures may have been preserved on the ark, and later became extinct. This is the view held by the Christian group Answers in Genesis. Some of these believe this is the basis of tales of dragons and such that persisted well into the Middle Ages and beyond. This view is plausible at least to an extent, because we have very good evidence that many large prehistoric creatures (not necessarily dinosaurs per se) survived well into and past the so-called Ice Age.

However, it is also possible that early discoveries of fossils contributed to belief in dragons and monsters. After all, many of the most educated in Europe believed in unicorns until the 1600s or later, on the basis of “unicorn horns” that were circulated far and wide (now believed to have been narwhale horns, rhinoceros horns, etc.). In fact, I recently found a page from an old Bible that shows unicorns going into Noah’s ark. With that in mind, it is not hard to imagine how the discovery of something like a dinosaur skull could inspire all sorts of fanciful conclusions. Belief in dragons and various mythical creatures was widespread, and not merely by the uneducated.

Conclusions

Personally I look forward to seeing all the wonderful animals God made, in Heaven and in the new Earth. And I also suspect that throughout the universe there are many other amazing creatures, different from the ones we have here.

As for the dinosaurs, we don’t have everything spelled out for us as to their origins and cause of demise. But with an open mind we can keep learning and appreciating what we do know.

You can believe a man is committed to a cause when he is willing to lay down his life — literally, willing to die — for the cause’s sake. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran theologian who was martyred during World War II in Germany for the sake of Christianity and the German people. His story is movingly told in the video Hanged on a Twisted Cross. (There is also a dramatized version, Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace, which I have not seen yet.)

Bonhoeffer wrote a number of books. The one I’m reviewing here is The Cost of Discipleship, one of his best-loved classics.

Overview

At some point those of us who call ourselves Christians face the question of what being a Christian is all about. Is it living for ideas, doctrines, and theologies, and defending them against skeptics and other proselytizers? Is it understanding conspiracies, prophecies, and hidden knowledge? Is it feeling good about ourselves? Is it a moral, ethical, or holistic lifestyle? Is it ministering, witnessing, caring, or doing good deeds? Is it simply a ticket to heaven when we reach the end of the road? At times Christianity may take the form of any of these things, and sometimes it can be confusing to sort it all out. Is there a unifying view that brings it all together?

In The Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer takes up the task of showing what Christianity really is at its foundation, and how that affects the various ways we live out our Christian lives.

In a nutshell, Bonhoeffer shows that Christianity is all about discipleship — and not merely the church or fellow Christians discipling one another, but being discipled by Jesus Christ Himself. It is a teacher–student (master–disciple) relationship between Christ and each believer. Of course, this idea may seem unsettling to some, perhaps a little too personal or ultra-spiritual. But if there’s one thing this book does, it is showing that true Christianity can be no less than that. Mere cultural Christianity is worthless, and better discarded sooner than later.

The book is divided into four sections:

1. Grace and Discipleship (five chapters)
2. The Sermon on the Mount (fifteen chapters)
3. The Messengers (six chapters)
4. The Church of Jesus Christ and the Life of Discipleship (six chapters)

The first section, “Grace and Discipleship,” deals with what it means to be a follower of Christ in the first place. Who is called, and how? And what does it mean to accept the call? This section is powerful and practical.

The second section is by far the longest, and it is very rich. Bonhoeffer takes on each section of the Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Matthew chapters 5–7, with practical insight. In his view, the Sermon on the Mount defines much of the day-to-day walk of a Christian-disciple’s life.

Part three, “The Messengers,” deals with the evangelistic aspect of discipleship. Bonhoeffer does not fear to tell his readers that spreading the Good News could be very costly — it might even cost their lives. Yet he reminds us that the reward of soul-winning is well worth the cost.

The final part deals with various miscellaneous questions of baptism, church order, and growing into the image of Christ.

Conclusions

This is one of my favorite Christian books.

I have not yet found a modern book with a better explanation of the interrelationship between grace, faith, works, and obedience. Perhaps you’ve heard the expression “cheap grace”; according to various sources, Bonhoeffer is the one who coined the term. In this book he presents the alternative to this counterfeit grace, which he calls “costly grace.” And this costly grace is what gives the book its title, The Cost of Discipleship. If you want clear statements about why obedience is necessary — even though we are saved by grace through faith — then Chapter 2, “The Call to Discipleship,” is worth the cost of the book. It is really that good. In fact, the whole first section is excellent.

I found the “Memoir” section at the front of the book, before the “Introduction,” to be a bit long and dry. However, being the kind of person who tries to read books cover-to-cover, I did read it. It has some interesting parts, but if you find yourself dozing off, you may want to skip it. (It does contain a few examples of Bonhoeffer’s sublime and evocative poetry.)

The book does have some difficult passages. In general, I found it clear and presented in laymen’s terms. However, Bonhoeffer does not hesitate to throw in some Greek here and there. There are sections that are not exactly light reading. But persistence pays off, and in the end the committed reader is rewarded.

I must say that as a Seventh-day Adventist, there were some doctrinal statements peculiar to Lutheranism that I disagreed with. But I do not consider them major problems, nor were they a significant part of the book.

Because so much of this book is about the Sermon on the Mount, I would recommend it as a good companion study book for Ellen White’s Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing.

I must confess that I do not feel I have reached the standard of Christianity described in this book; nevertheless, I feel it is an accurate and vivid picture of what Christian faith is meant to be.