3ABN's booth at GC

3ABN’s booth was very popular. If you were able to visit the booth, you got to see some of my department’s handiwork: the 25th anniversary blue bag, which went like hot cakes; the 3ABN and 3ABN Latino pens; the lapel pins, which were also extremely popular; the Origins DVD; the Latino DVD; the Catch the Vision magazine; the 3ABN World magazine; the Kitchen Favorites cookbook; the Day by Day devotional book; the door hangers and fliers; the coloring book; the Pillars CD and DVDs. These items were each designed partially or completely by my assistant Adam Dean and myself. All of the items were received very well, and we ran clear out of most by the end of the convention.

Working the booth was very tiring; the hours were long, and I’m not accustomed to standing all day, so my feet were a bit sore at the end of the day. But it was a good experience, just to see how much people liked 3ABN and the items we carry.

It was nice to see friends and family there, although I saw only a portion of the people I know who were there. In fact, my brother and his wife were working at a booth not 10 or 20 feet from the 3ABN booth, but I never saw them until the second day I was there, it was so busy!

I didn’t make it to many of the meetings. But the Sabbath morning sermon by Ted Wilson was extraordinary. (Sadly, the audio in my section was so bad, due to reverb or echoing, that it was very difficult to make out his words for the first portion of the sermon. I had to cover one ear, and this helped me concentrate on the sound from a particular set of speakers, which let me hear better. Thankfully the audio problem was fixed partway through the sermon, and after that everyone in my section could hear just fine.)

If you’d like to hear his message, you can watch it here:

You can also read a transcript of his sermon.

I wanted to attend the Parade of Nations, but decided to head home early. Unfortunately because of that, I missed the tribute to 3ABN and the performance of one of the songs from our Pillars of Our Faith album. 3ABN received scant official recognition during the event (to the point that recognition was notably absent, not only from our perspective, but also from our viewers and supporters), and in fact even the tribute to 3ABN was not carried by the Hope Channel who were doing all the taping and broadcasting of the main meetings, so even that was missed by the larger TV audience. But it was good that on the last day of the event, at this popular ceremony, 3ABN has honored before the attendees.

All in all, it was a good experience, although not something I would do for pleasure. I had hoped to also see the Georgia Aquarium while I was there, but I didn’t even find the time to do that. Still, for the sake of my role at 3ABN, I was glad I could be there. And I have high hopes for the administrative changes that occurred.

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.

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.

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 compilation 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.

I grew up in the church, and over the years I saw many pictures of the tabernacle of Moses, Solomon’s temple, and Herod’s temple. However, the first time I saw a scale diagram of the tabernacle and its courtyard, I was amazed. Here is a scale model:

Since I am a graphic designer, there are two points that stood out immediately to me: First, it is mostly empty space. Second, it is very geometric. This is what we will be exploring in a moment. But first, a few numbers and explanations.

The diagram is on a grid; each grid space represents 10 cubits. (Each grid square is 10×10 cubits, or 100 sq cubits. For the curious, a cubit was roughly 1.5 feet.)

The outer rectangle represents the courtyard. The entrance to the courtyard for those coming to offer sacrifices was through an opening in the middle of the right side, which was the east side. The small square on the right side of the courtyard is the altar of burnt offering. The rectangle on the left side is the tabernacle. That rectangle is further divided into the most holy place (the square part on the left), which contained the ark of the covenant; and holy place (the rectangular part on the right), which contained the altar of incense, the table of shewbread, and the candlesticks.

Here is a highly simplified 3D model. Note that it does not reflect the exact shape or height of the sanctuary once the covering curtains were added. The altar does not show the steps, and the brass basin and other objects in the courtyard have not been included. Also, the gate is the correct width and position, but the styling is merely a simplified aesthetic interpretation. A person has been added to show scale.

If you want extra credit, you can look these details up on your own. You can find the dimensions of the courtyard in Exodus 27:9–13. The courtyard is exactly 100 x 50 cubits. The other dimensions are given in Exodus 26; however, the verses are a bit confusing. The tabernacle is 30 x 10 cubits, and the altar 5 x 5 cubits. In 1 Kings 6:2, we find a somewhat clearer description of Solomon’s temple, which had exactly double the dimensions of Moses’ tabernacle (60 x 20 cubits).

If you want further support for this model, you can find a scale diagram of the sanctuary in the popular paperback edition of the book, The Sanctuary Service, by M. L. Andreasen, page 6. (Not all editions may have this diagram.)

Now, back to our story:

Right away I could see that many of the paintings and drawing of the tabernacle and its courtyard that I had seen as a child and young adult were poorly proportioned. What’s more, I could also see that there was an obvious geometrical arrangement to the sanctuary. Could there be some significance to that?

THE GEOMETRY

There are some easy observations one can make about the courtyard’s geometric arrangement.

If you divide the courtyard in half, forming two equal-sized squares, you will find that each square has at its center an important piece of furniture. To emphasize, you may wish to draw a large “X” through each square, and note where the lines of the “X” cross.

In the left square, you will find at the center the ark of the covenant:

In the right square, you will find the altar of burnt offering:

There are other geometric relationships, but those are for your own study.

That alone is quite fascinating, and we could stop here. But not long after I noticed these relationships, I was struck by some compelling relationships between the tabernacle and its courtyard, and another structure from the Old Testament: the Garden of Eden.

THE EDEN CONNECTION

What follows is not some deep knowledge that everyone needs to know, but it makes sense to me, and I think it adds something to the Bible story of salvation.

The first connection we can draw is this: The Garden of Eden was a sanctuary itself. The tabernacle and courtyard are called a sanctuary in the Bible. But the Garden of Eden was the first sanctuary, for it was there that God and humans first met. Furthermore, in 1 Kings 6:29 and Ezekiel 41:18, we find a description of the temple walls. These verses tell us that on the walls were images of palms, flowers, and cherubs. Don’t those images remind you of the original paradise?

In Genesis 2:9 and 3:3 we read of two trees located in the “midst” of the Garden of Eden: the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Notice they were both in the “midst” of the Garden. It is doubtful that these trees were side by side, considering the nature of the Tree of Knowledge and what God had said about it — that Adam and Eve were to stay away from it.

One possibility is that the two trees were at the centers of two ends of the Garden of Eden, not unlike the arrangement of the ark of the covenant and the altar of burnt offering within the courtyard. That may seem like an arbitrary point, but you’ll see why I think so as we go along.

When created, Adam and Eve were granted immortal life. As such, they could partake of the Tree of Life. But because they sinned, in eating of the forbidden tree, they were cast out, and a flaming sword guarded the gate to the Garden. Notice that the gate to the Garden was on the east side (Genesis 3:24).

In the sanctuary service, anyone who was a sinner — a fallen person like you and me — could enter through the east gate. At the altar of burnt offering, they received forgiveness of sins. Because of their sin offerings, they were able to participate in the Day of Atonement. On that day, the high priest entered the most holy place, and represented each person as he stood before God’s presence that rested above the ark of the covenant. Although only the high priest could enter the most holy place, he represented all the people. Through him, everyone could come in before God, symbolically.

Within the ark of the covenant were the tables of the Ten Commandments, representing the law of God. In this way the sanctuary showed that drawing close to God through forgiveness of sins also draws us close to His law of love.

So, to sum up the big picture of what we’ve seen so far, humanity moved from access to the Tree of Life to partaking of the Tree of Knowledge. In consequence, they were thrown out of the Garden by the east gate. Through the sanctuary, they could come in by the east gate, receive forgiveness at the altar, and find holiness in the most holy place. In doing so, they could ultimately be restored to the Tree of Life in heaven.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

So far, this may seem like a nice coincidence, and interesting devotional thought. But consider the following:

In what sense was the Tree of Knowledge a knowledge of both good and evil? We know the evil part very well: Eating that fruit brought sin and suffering into our world. But how did it bring a knowledge of good? Consider this: It was through the Fall that the universe came to understand the awesome love of God in a far deeper sense. Against the incredible ugliness of sin came an unprecedented and inexplicable demonstration of divine compassion. Jesus died for us. So yes, tasting of the Tree of Knowledge brought a knowledge of both good and evil.

Does the altar of burnt offering have a similar dual meaning, showing good and evil? We know that in the sacrifice of lambs on the altar, the death of Jesus for us was symbolized (see John 1:29, etc.). The altar represents the cross. Did the cross bring a knowledge of good and evil? Consider the words of Ellen White:

At the cross of Calvary, love and selfishness stood face to face. Here was their crowning manifestation. Christ had lived only to comfort and bless, and in putting Him to death, Satan manifested the malignity of his hatred against God. He made it evident that the real purpose of his rebellion was to dethrone God, and to destroy Him through whom the love of God was shown.

By the life and the death of Christ, the thoughts of men also are brought to view. From the manger to the cross, the life of Jesus was a call to self-surrender, and to fellowship in suffering. It unveiled the purposes of men. Jesus came with the truth of heaven, and all who were listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit were drawn to Him. The worshipers of self belonged to Satan’s kingdom. In their attitude toward Christ, all would show on which side they stood. And thus everyone passes judgment on himself.

Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, 57, 58 (emphasis mine)

Another clue is found in 1 Corinthians 1:23–30: The knowledge of the cross is “foolishness” to the world. It requires a flip in human thinking. Just as the Tree of Knowledge caused a flip in human nature, causing humanity to love evil and hate good, so the revelation of the cross reverses that flip, and causes us to see things in their true perspective.

So we see, then, that the cross was, like the Tree of Knowledge, both a revelation of good and evil. The cross was a demonstration of the most vile act of sin and the most marvelous love of God, the very knowledge represented by the forbidden tree. All of this was symbolized in the sacrifices of the altar of burnt offering, and by partaking of the fruit of the forbidden tree. The sin in eating the fruit brought all of this knowledge to us; the cross makes it all the more clear and sets it in its proper perspective.

So far we have two connections: Both the sanctuary and the garden had a gate on the east; and both had a “tree” (literal or figurative) that represented a knowledge of good and evil. The “tree of knowledge” in the sanctuary was the altar, representing the cross.

The entrance and altar are two of the main features of the courtyard. What about the tabernacle? Are they any correlations between the ark of the covenant and the tree of life? Consider the words of scripture:

“The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life.” Proverbs 11:30.

“Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding…. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.” Proverbs 3:13, 18.

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Revelation 22:14.

Obedience was the condition of maintaining eternal life in Eden. Obedience is the conditional of regaining eternal life in the earth made new.

“To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” Revelation 2:7.

So through the sanctuary we come full circle. Try drawing this diagram on a sheet of paper: the Garden of Eden in the top half of the sheet, with the Tree of Life in the left center, and the Tree of Knowledge in the right center, and the gate on the right (east) side. Then the sanctuary in the bottom half, with the ark in the left center, and the altar in the right center, and the gate on the right side. Draw a line from the Tree of Life, through the Tree of Knowledge, and out through the gate. Continue the line through the gate of the sanctuary, through the altar, and through the ark. From the ark, continue the line back to the Tree of Life. Then you should see clearly how it all fits together.

And finally:

“As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for goodness, exists in every heart. But against these principles there is struggling an antagonistic power. The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man’s experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist.”

Ellen White, Education, p. 29.

The tree of life was designed to perpetuate immortality. Adam and Eve could eat of that tree, and enjoy its rich immortal fruit, until they transgressed the command of God. Death was then pronounced upon them, and all that should ever live upon the earth….

Then if you keep all the commandments of God, the Sabbath with the rest, you may through the merits of Christ, be brought back to the tree of life.

Ellen White, The Youth’s Instructor, August 1, 1852

“Through His humiliation and poverty Christ would identify Himself with the weaknesses of the fallen race, and by firm obedience show man how to redeem Adam’s disgraceful failure, that man by humble obedience might regain lost Eden.”

Ellen White, The Review and Herald, Volume 1, p. 140.

Any comments would be appreciated.

* * *

I didn’t include these two points in the main article, because they are more of a curiosity with me. But here they are for your consideration:

Interestingly, in the New Testament, the cross is called a “tree.” See Galatians 3:13. And Jesus describes Himself as fruit/food. See John 6:30–59; Matthew 6:26–29. Thus we could say, symbolically, that the cross was another tree, and from it came new food/fruit to eat.

Also, both “trees” had a serpent: In the Tree of Knowledge was a serpent, a medium of Satan, who spoke lies and whose words led to death. On the cross was One represented by a “serpent” (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4–9), whose sacrifice brought life.

The verses about “eternal fire” in the Bible (also called “everlasting fire,” etc.) have troubled annhilationists, such as myself, endlessly. The verses about eternal fire are viewed as a constant threat to our belief in soul sleep, conditional immortality, and the annihilation of sinners. After all, if there really is eternal fire, wouldn’t that also mean we must accept eternal torment?

I have found that nearly all of my fellow Seventh-day Adventists explain away the concept of eternal fire by referring to the “for ever” statements in the Old Testament. For instance, a servant who loved his master and the family given him, could choose to serve his master “for ever” (Exodus 21:6). The obvious meaning is that the servant was a servant until his death. There are other Old Testament verses illustrating the same usage. In the New Testament, Jude 7 is used as the ultimate illustration that eternal fire just ain’t so — Sodom and Gomorra, it says, were burned with eternal fire, but those cities are long gone. The conclusion of most Adventists is that “for ever” and “eternal” mean that something continues unabated “until the end.”

However, in doing this, I believe we are jeopardizing our position. In other words, I believe the Bible’s testimony regarding eternal fire is so emphatic that we cannot deny its existence. While “forever” clearly has a common usage that allows for an end, the word “eternal” does not. If we do not come to terms with this, people will see us as closing our eyes to the plain sense of God’s Word. True, Jude 7 and other verses have helped us put things in perspective (for example, eternal fire doesn’t mean eternal burning of the wicked). Also, it is true that the conventional Adventist line of reasoning has led many thousands to accept the truth.

I believe there is a better way, and a more consistent way, to explain eternal fire, that does not deny its eternalness.

No eternal torment

First of all, let’s be clear that none of the “eternal fire” statements in the Bible say the suffering of the wicked will be eternal. None of them say that the wicked will live forever. There are three verses that seem to say this:

1. Matthew 25:46: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” Our question must be, what is the “punishment” spoken of here as “everlasting”? The suffering? Or the sentence of death? Again, scripture leads us to the conclusion that the destruction of the wicked — their annihilation — is what is everlasting. See 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (note the linking word “punish” in both verses). This conclusion is also implied by a careful reading of Matthew 25:46; if the righteous are given “life eternal,” then clearly the wicked do not have it, in hell or anywhere else.
2. Revelation 14:11: “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night.” But even in this case, the “for ever and ever” refers to their “smoke,” not the lives of the sinners themselves. It’s an unusual word picture, with a meaning that is not entirely clear; but it does not say the wicked live forever. When we compare scripture with scripture, we can see that anyone who reads eternal torment into this verse is making an assumption. Whatever may be the case with the smoke of the wicked, after the time of suffering the sinners themselves will be burned up. (See Isaiah 47:14, Matthew 10:28, etc.)
3. Revelation 20:10: “And the devil that deceived them [the nations] was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” The first thing we can note about this verse is that it speaks only of three particular entities: the devil, the beast, and the false prophet. It does not say anything about people in general. Since every doctrine needs to be based on a clear, precise declaration, this verse alone cannot be used to teach the eternal torment of sinners in general. § Furthermore, the expression “for ever and ever” (KJV) is from a Greek expression that literally means “unto ages of ages.” It is a more emphatic form of expressions found in verses such as Matthew 21:19 (“for ever”), Luke 1:55 (“for ever”), Luke 1:33 (“for ever”), and elsewhere. Sometimes those related expressions mean “eternal,” and other times they mean “to the end of the age” or “to the end of its time”; the meaning is always contextual, and thus a matter of interpretation. § The expression used here is unusual and somewhat puzzling, but one possible explanation is this: The ordinary lifespan of a being suffering this punishment would be very short; thus the Greek expression normally expressed as “for ever” would suggest a quick death. However, the Bible says all sinners will be judged “according to their works” (Revelation 20:12–13). In the light of other verses such as Romans 12:19, this passage leads us to believe that punishment varies with the crimes. The more emphatic form of the Greek translated as “for ever and ever” suggests the punishment continues past the natural point of death, until the full punishment has been meted out. An amplified paraphrase would be, “and shall be tormented day and night, past the end of their natural existence, to the full end.”

The Bible is also clear that man is mortal. God alone has immortality. Only those who are saved are granted immortality. See Romans 2:7; 1 Timothy 6:15, 16; 2 Timothy 1:10, etc. There cannot be an immortal sinner, because eternal life is a special gift to those who are saved; therefore, there cannot be eternal suffering of sinners in hell.

But there is eternal fire

Having said this, let us admit that the Bible plainly speaks of eternal fire. “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.” Matthew 18:8. “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” Matthew 25:41. “Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.” Luke 3:17. And our Adventist favorite: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” Jude 7.

My fellow Adventists typically dismiss these verses by explaining that “everlasting” really isn’t, well, everlasting. We take people through the “for ever” statements of the Old Testament. We have them think about Sodom and Gomorra. “Are they still burning today?” we ask. If we’re fortunate, the listeners are convinced. But is there a more consistent answer?

If we’re honest, we have to admit that there is a difference between “for ever” and these other expressions: “everlasting” and “eternal.” If I say I will keep a memento “forever,” that’s one thing. We know that means until I die. But if I claim that I will hold onto it for “eternity,” that is quite another. You would ask how I intend to take it with me to heaven. So it is not reasonable for me to explain away “eternal fire” as a figure of speech like “for ever” is. The words “eternal” and “everlasting” are emphatic; they are not like the generalization of “for ever.”

I really do believe that there is an eternal fire. The phrase is used in at least two different ways in Scripture:

1. “For our God is a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:29. God is a fire. God is eternal. Hence, eternal fire.
2. There is an “everlasting fire” that destroys the wicked (also called “hell fire”). As a facet of God’s presence, which is eternal, this fire is truly everlasting. It exists only in the immediate presence of God, but lashes out against sin. However, its function as hell fire is limited to the duration of sinners. It does not continue to burn the same matter perpetually. See 2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8; Revelation 20:9; 2 Peter 3:10-13; Leviticus 10:2.

The everlasting fire that destroys the wicked is an aspect of the sin-consuming presence of God. “As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.” Psalm 68:2. Also note the phrase, “in the presence of the Lamb,” in Revelation 14:10, where the torment of the wicked is described.

Christians in eternal fire

A powerful verse about eternal fire — all but ignored by most Christians — is Isaiah 33:14, 15: “Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?” Notice the shocking answer: “He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil.” The righteous are the only ones who can stand in the fiery presence of God. There’s eternal fire, all right, but it will consume the wicked.

For further expansion on this idea, see the burning bush story (Exodus 3:2), and Revelation 15:2. Also, there are angels known as seraphs who minister in the presence of God (Isaiah 6); the word seraph can be translated “burning one”; compare with Hebrews 1:7.

Summary

In summary, eternal fire is Biblical. Eternal torment is not. The righteous can stand in the everlasting fire of God’s presence. The wicked will be completely consumed and destroyed.

I don’t recommend that my fellow Adventists go around telling everyone that they believe in eternal fire. It can be an interesting conversation starter, though, especially at Adventist dinner tables.

The importance of this understanding lies in its ability to build bridges. When someone comes to me who believes in eternal torment, I can treat their key verses with credibility. We don’t weasel our way out of the eternal fire statements. Instead, we show that the “annhilationist” view on the destruction of sinners is fully compatible with those key verses on eternal fire. We can accept their plain sense reading, while upholding the clear Biblical teaching that sin and sinners will be fully destroyed.

[This article was first emailed to friends some years ago, but never published online. In the meantime, I've heard others sharing views similar to my own, and so I decided to refine and post this to my blog. Perhaps it's a belief whose time has come.]

Current features include:

• Bookmarking
• Notes
• Boolean searching
• Chapter jumping
• History (see what you’ve read lately)
• Cut, copy, paste

It currently sells for 99¢, and the developers claim the contents are officially licensed from the Ellen G. White Estate.

Over the years I’ve heard reports of problems in our school science departments, but had always assumed it was a single rogue teacher here and there. From all that I’ve personally seen, the church leadership and its official publications have remained firm on the traditional Adventist view of origins.

Recently the well-respected, young pastor-evangelist David Asscherick of ARISE dropped a bombshell when he wrote a letter to church leadership, drawing attention to the teaching of evolution at a particular SDA school, La Sierra University (LSU). Somehow the letter slipped from one of several people he had sent it to for review, into general circulation. It was forwarded as an “open letter,” and spread like wildfire.

Subsequently, the president of LSU responded with an open letter of his own. Unfortunately this letter did little to stop the rising tide of indignation. No doubt this is partially because he did not deny Asscherick’s basic accusation. His letter could be summarized like this: “We are not atheists. We are a Christian school, we do mission projects, we are engaged with the SDA church. Students get baptized here. We believe in diversity and not telling our students what to believe.” (My very loose paraphrase.) No word in defense of Genesis 1.

Shortly thereafter, others responded openly to the president’s letter, and noted its shortcomings in owning up to the alleged endorsement of the Darwinian worldview given by members of its biology and religion departments. A website, lasierrauniversity.net, sprang up to discuss the matter (not affiliated in any way with LSU — quite to the contrary!). [Update: LSU subsequently took ownership of the lasierrauniversity.net domain; the former website is now hosted at educatetruth.com.]

I was very surprised when the board of Adventist Laymen’s Services and Industries (ASI) decided to weigh in with a letter. ASI is the strongest network of officially recognized ministries and independent but supporting entities within the church. It’s a very influential and deeply respected organization within the church. Usually ASI seems to shy away from any controversial topics. But now they boldly called the church’s leadership to account over the drift of various unnamed educational institutions towards Darwinism.

On the heels of all this, while attending 3ABN’s Ten Commandments Weekend, I heard Nathan Renner pound a nail or two on this subject. He was talking about the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” and in his hour-long talk spent a few minutes saying explicitly that someone teaching evolution at an Adventist educational institution is stealing, in the same sense that an employee who promotes the interests of a competitor on his company’s dime is stealing from his employer. There was a hearty wave of “amens” in response, indicating that quite a number in the audience understood what he was getting at. Renner is a close friend of Asscherick.

I’m glad to say I have never personally heard a fellow Seventh-day Adventist advocate the view of evolution over millions of years. I attended Adventist schools all the way through college; but the high school and college I attended were private, “self-supporting” schools. I certainly heard about evolution, both in my classes and in other venues (popular TV, magazines, museums, etc.). Some of the biological aspects (heredity, genetic variation, survival of the fittest, etc.) were clearly taught as scientific facts in my classes. But these were always moderated by class instruction about the limitations of evolution to account for all the diversity in life, and about the weaknesses in data used to support the evolutionary paradigm (how we interpret carbon dating, rock strata, fossils, etc.), and about the Bible’s plain teaching on the subject. I firmly believe there is no way to blend Darwinism into the Adventist theological package — or with Christianity, for that matter.

It will be interesting to see how all this shakes down. To be honest, I cannot see any possible win-win outcome.

Of course, using Apple’s Boot Camp, it is possible to install Windows on a Mac, and run the EGW software that way. But this involves tedious rebooting each time you want to switch to Windows. Or it is possible to run the EGW software under a virtual environment such as VMware Fusion or Parallels. And that is what I had been doing; it works, but it’s slow (open VMware, wait for Windows to awake, start the EGW software, which then runs a bit slow in the virtual environment).

Recently, a friend, Nathan Tyler, tipped me off to the fact that the EGW software works great under Wine, a software environment for running Windows apps under UNIX-based operating systems (such as Linux or OS X). There is a special build of Wine for OS X, called Darwine. He claimed that the search software ran faster under Wine than it does on his Windows machine. (Edit: I guess he just claimed it was fast!) And guess what? I found that to be true for me as well.

It is not trivial to set up the EGW software to work this way, at least not yet. First I downloaded Darwine, and configured it. (The main thing to configure was mapping the folder where I would put my Windows apps to a drive letter.) Then I copied all the EGW software files from my Dell over to my Mac. Then came a tedious process of finding all the related Windows registry entries on my Dell, exporting them to files, copying those files to the Mac, editing them so the paths to the files are correct, and importing them into the Windows registry running in Darwine. (This is necessary because those registry entries contain the license information needed to run the software. The installer writes the license information to the registry, but I have not learned a way to run the installer from the CD-ROM under Darwine. Thus I had to do it myself.) Then I had to copy a file, “egwhite.lcf,” from the main EGW software folder to the subfolder “Books,” because for some reason I got an error saying the file had to be there instead. After that I could run the EGW software, but it was a bit tedious to launch. So then I created a shell script to open the EGW software using Wine, and then used the freeware application Platypus to create an OS X application that can be opened from Finder. And for a finishing touch, I copied the EGW icon to that OS X application.

Now I have a cool little OS X application that I can open with a simple click, and the EGW software is blazing fast. Faster at opening than on my Dell, and much faster than going through VMware Fusion.

The new 3ABN SonBeam Channel website has been launched. Not everything is working perfectly, but it is now much more functional than before. We will be doing updates over the next couple months to add features, iron out bugs, and bring in eye candy.

Some significant new features are Verse of the Day, which is pulled from a database. You can find this on the home page. It’s a different verse to memorize each day. There is a TV spot on the SonBeam Channel that features the same verse each day. (It may not sound like much, but it was a bit tricky to coordinate an automated website feature with what is happening on TV.)

The SonBeam program schedule is also online. So now you can see what is coming up each day.

Please be patient. Some of the links are not working yet. Hopefully within the next 24 hours most of those issues will be worked out.

If you would like to learn more about this new channel, please see the SonBeam Channel About Us page.

Most of the website design was the work of my assistant, Adam Dean. The website programming is the work of our 3ABN webmaster, Steve Nelson. Some of the program or segment logos were designed by my other assistant, Nicole Issa. I was the creative director and manager of this project.