Jon Roberts Page 73

By Nathan Brown … A few years ago, I wrote a chapter in a book about what faith means in the context of following Jesus. I carefully built the distinctions between believing about Jesus, believing in Jesus and—more simply but deeply—believing Jesus. I thought this was a clever way of explaining it, particularly the experimental aspect of seeking to live and follow in the ways that Jesus taught in order to know more of who and what He was about—until I was talking with a friend about the formulation that I had set out in the chapter and he responded, “Oh, you mean trusting Jesus.”

“Yes . . . yeah, that’s . . . exactly . . . what I meant,” I stammered a reply, suddenly realizing that I had not invented any new or particularly clever insights, even if my distinctions had helped me understand the question I had been wrestling with through writing.

This brief snippet of conversation stuck in my mind. Not only is it a helpful reminder of my need for humility, but I have also continued to reflect on the nature of faith, belief and trust. And, more recently, I have been prompted to think that there might still be more to understand about what it means to believe.

The New Testament word that we most often read as faith is pistis. And like many of the Greek words that make up the original text of our Scripture, the word does not offer a direct match to a single English word. This has been a topic of renewed study by theologians in recent years, particularly in the context of different ways of talking about what we describe as the Gospel. One of the vital rediscoveries of the Reformation was that salvation comes “by faith”—as Galatians put it, “The just shall live by faith”—but a more recently-debated question has been what the Bible means when it talks about “salvation by pistis.”2

I understand that this might be primarily of interest to theology nerds, but allow me a couple of short paragraphs to set out the parties and then we can get to the practical implications for why this discussion matters.

Continuing to argue for the more commonly accepted “salvation by faith,” meaning accepting the death of Jesus for forgiveness of our sins, are voices including John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Albert Mohler and others associated with organizations including Together for the Gospel and The Gospel Coalition. Critiquing the narrowness of this understanding are voices led by N.T. Wright, Scott McKnight and Matthew Bates, among others.

This second group of “gospel allegiance” theologians point to statements as simple as Jesus’ opening announcement of the “Good News” in the Gospel of Mark: “The Kingdom of God is near! Repent of your sins and believe the Good News!” (Mark 1:15). They argue that neither individual salvation nor faith are the gospel, which is encapsulated instead in this announcement by Jesus—and the apostles after Him—that the kingdom of God has come. “Believing, the faith activity, the pistis action, is better understood as the required response to the Gospel.”3 If the Gospel is the announcement of the Kingdom, the pistis is allegiance to this Kingdom—which is a meaning that fits with this original language—and the saving death of Jesus is a benefit that is then applied to those who give their loyalty to this Kingdom.

It might seem a subtle change in wording and emphasis, but significantly this tends to shift the focus away from us to God and His faithfulness—and there are some aspects of this assertion of “salvation by loyalty” that are of interest to Adventist theology.

Practical

Adventists have long talked about questions of loyalty to God and His ways. This has kept us perpetually teetering on the brink of legalism and, in reaction, has seen many in re- cent generations embrace the good news of God’s love and grace as a refreshing breeze. The grace of God is a truth that must not be lost; we are loved by God unconditionally and we are offered the gift of renewed relationship with God freely. We can trust that the thief crucified with Jesus was fully saved in that moment of conversation with Jesus (see Luke 23:40–43).

But we are to receive and accept this gift. And the reality of this acceptance is practical. Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 seems to challenge a simplistic “saved by faith” argument, until we recognize that this story is not about how people are saved, but about how saved people—those loyal to the kingdom—live, even if demonstrated unwittingly. In His dealings with human beings, God is al- most always less spiritual and more practical than we expect.

Wholistic

Related to this practical understanding of salvation, Adventist theology has insisted that we are whole beings. Our souls are not and never will be separate or detached from our bodies. Faith is a slippery concept when we insist on it as mere intellectual assent, but is truly transformative when understood wholistically: “Saving faith is not primarily interior mental confidence that Jesus died for our sins. Rather, saving allegiance (pistis) faces outward relationally in response to Jesus’ kingship [and] is inescapably embodied.”4 Wholistic faith is not something we do only with our minds or hearts, but also with our hands and feet, voices and bodies.

As James would urge the early believers, faith without works is dead in the same way as a body without works is dead (see James 2:26). But there is only one order to this equation: a dead body does not come to life by action, but there will be action of some kind if there is life. So, works do not initiate or replace faith, even if we might fool others or even sometimes ourselves. But we should expect that true faith—allegiance and loyalty—will lead to action as fits our time, opportunity and resources.

Apocalyptic

Focusing on the book of Revelation, Adventists have focused on a choice between allegiances to opposing forces amid a great and ongoing conflict between good and evil. With the growing urgency of the end times, the call is to give worship and loyalty to God rather than following the forces of evil in this world and the spiritual realm, defeated though they be (see Revelation 14:6–12). But there is a sense in which the whole of the New Testament presents an apocalyptic call and claim on our allegiance. From the first announcement that the Kingdom is near to the description of its final fulfillment (see Revelation 21 and 22), the central claim is that Jesus and His Kingdom offer an alternative inaugurated and inevitable reality for our lives and our world. This was also the content of the first proclamations of Jesus’ followers: “So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!” (Acts 2:36). Choose a side—they urged— turn around, give your loyalty to the One who is the true Lord of all people and all creation.

Believing Jesus

So, I have come to appreciate more of my earlier formulation of believing Jesus. Yes, trusting Jesus is an important aspect of this posture of humble faith. But giving allegiance to Him and practicing loyalty feel like they include this and more. Loyal to the reality of Jesus, we embody the good news of the Kingdom to others, we seek to live in the way that He taught—and we trust Him to care for our salvation. Responding to the faithfulness, grace and love of God, we step out into our world as citizens of the kingdom into which we have been invited. As agents of goodness, truth, beauty, justice, healing and hope. As ambassadors of Him.

–Nathan Brown is a writer and editor at Signs Publishing in Warburton, Victoria, Australia. Check out the website for Nathan’s newest book, “Of Falafels and Following Jesus” at www.FalafelsandFollowingJesus.com. Email him at: [email protected]

References

1See Why I Try to Believe (Signs Publishing, 2015), Chapter 6, “Believing Jesus.”
2For an extended discussion of the meaning of pistis in the context of Revelation 14:12, see Sigve Tonstad’s dissertation published as Saving God’s Reputation: The Theological Function of Pistis Iesou in the Cosmic Narratives of Revelation, Continuum, 2012.
3 Matthew Bates, Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ, Brazos Press, 2019, page 41.
4Ibid, page 175.

By Nathaniel Gamble … The Importance of Loyalty in Human Life

Regardless of era and place, people have constantly devoted their attention to matters of loyalty. Loyalty to country, family, ethnic or cultural community, and even religion, are matters of daily consideration. In discussions of loyalty, the specter of disloyalty—breaking faith with people or ideas which you should implicitly support—can also haunt the conversation.

The pursuit of loyalty always carries the potential for conflict, since many dispute whether a person can have multiple loyalties and to whom or what loyalty is due. In the Seventh-day Adventist Church, there has been much discussion for the last couple of decades regarding the real or perceived dichotomy between loyalty to God and loyalty to the denomination.

The Bible and Issues of Loyalty and Disloyalty

The Bible, too, extensively wrestles with the issue of loyalty. The Old Testament most often uses the concept of “covenant faithfulness” or “loving kindness” to describe loyalty, while the New Testament utilizes the word “faith” (with its semantic meanings of truth and trust, faithfulness, reliability, and even allegiance) to discuss the practice of loyalty. Likewise, both testaments use the terms “duplicity,” “double-mindedness,” “apostasy,” and, in its skeptical form, “being doubtful,” to talk about disloyalty to someone or something.

These notions of loyalty and disloyalty show up in many well-known Bible stories. Adam and Eve’s disloyalty to God’s instruction in Genesis 3 results in the stories of human rebellion and disloyalty that follow, as well as the repeated story of God’s redemption and faithfulness: the biblical stories of disloyalty under Cain (Genesis 4), Pharaoh (Exodus 1-12), Israel in the wilderness (Exodus through Numbers), Achan (Joshua 7), the Levite and the twelve tribes (Judges 19-21), Israelite and Judean kings (1 Kings through 2 Chronicles), and God’s people before and after exile (the prophets and the Gospels) are offset by stories of partial loyalty under Seth (Genesis 5), Noah (Genesis 6), Abraham (Genesis 12), Moses (Deuteronomy), Joshua (Joshua 1-6), a few leaders (Judges), a remnant of Israel after the exile (Ezra and Nehemiah), and the early Christians (Acts).

The Key to a Biblical Theology of Loyalty

The story that provides the key to the Bible’s theology of loyalty, however, is actually found in two pieces of poetry— Philippians 2:5-11 and Ezekiel 28:11-19. In these biblical passages, one a song, the other a prophecy, we find all the stories of the Bible considered in the light of loyalty: how loyalty to God was faced in the Garden of Eden and at the cross of Christ.

Philippians 2:1-4 encourages believers to take care of each other in imitation of Jesus, and then describes how Jesus exhibited care in His relationship with God and other people in Philippians 2:5-11. Jesus existed in the form of God, but did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped (Verse 6). There has been much debate among theologians about what it means for Jesus to exist in the form of God and how Jesus could have grasped at equality with God, but what is readily apparent from this hymn is that Jesus’ story begins with His relationship with God—a relationship that had already existed well before we encounter the story—and Jesus’ story purposefully intersects with another narrative that has already been told in Scripture: the tale of a figure in a garden, as told in Ezekiel 28.

In Ezekiel 28:12, God gives a prophecy about the king of Tyre. In relating this prophecy to Ezekiel, however, God chooses to talk about Tyre and its king by referring to a much older setting and set of characters: the Garden of Eden and the first human and first angelic rebel. Since the human king of Tyre is first referenced in Verse 12, it makes sense that the character in the Garden of Eden is Adam, the first man; it is entirely within reason to initially see him as the “seal of perfection” and “full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.” But Adam was never clothed with precious stones or gold (Verse 13), and we eventually discover that a supernatural being who was present in the Garden of Eden is also being referenced: the “guardian cherub” (Verse 14).

Even prior to his presence in the garden, this cherub had been on God’s holy mountain—in the very presence of God —until “wickedness” (literally “violent injustice” in Hebrew) was found in him (Verses 14-15). This violent injustice be- came manifest in this cherub as cruelty and oppression of others (Verse 16), the twisting and perverting of skill or ability that was intended to serve and help others (Verse 17), and actively polluting or corrupting places of refuge by crimes and mischief against those seeking sanctuary (Verse 18). The tone of this prophecy, which harkens back to the rebellion of Adam in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3) and the rampant violence in Noah’s day (Genesis 6), suggests that all these angelic actions are deliberate acts of disloyalty. And the tone of the song in Philippians 2 suggests that the author of the hymn is aware of this story and wants to tell a narrative about the divine-human figure who remained loyal to God.

The term in Philippians 2:6 for “grasp” actually means “violently seize” or “take advantage.” It bears connotations of rape, manipulation, even torture and brutal aggression to get what you want—in short, disloyalty. But instead of “grasping” at equality with God, Jesus used his equality with God to demonstrate continued loyalty to God. Jesus demonstrated his loyalty by first making himself “nothing” (with a linguistic nod to doing the opposite of vainglorious violence), then embracing the position of a servant, and finally becoming a human being (Verse 7). Still equal with God, Jesus further demonstrated his loyalty by humbling himself (thus deepening his opposition to vainglory and violence), being obedient to God, and going to such lengths in his obedience to God as to die on a cross (Verse 8). Because Jesus was loyal to God in humility, God showed his loyalty to Jesus by exalting and glorifying him (Verses 9-11).

Unlike Adam and Lucifer, who are portrayed in Ezekiel 28 as being disloyal to God and creating models of disloyalty that are imitated throughout the Bible’s stories, Jesus is shown in Philippians 2 as the example par excellence of what it means to be loyal—to God, to yourself, and to others. According to Scripture, a theology of loyalty entails humility, obedience, and love, because the Bible’s theology of loyalty is Jesus Christ.

Lingering Questions about Loyalty

This central biblical story answers the dominant question: what does it mean to be truly loyal? Loyalty means to follow and imitate Jesus. But in good biblical fashion, this central story also raises several troubling questions. In light of Jesus’ model of loyalty, what does it mean to give to Caesar and to God (Mark 12:17)?

Even more puzzling, how do you exhibit loyalty in society—all of which are technically opposed to God? What is the difference between loyalty and idolatry, or even selfish- ness? Is there a relationship between loyalty and sacrifice? Perhaps the ultimate question Jesus’ loyalty to God (and us!) poses, especially in light of the faithfulness of Jesus in Revelation, is this: is there such a thing as “bad loyalty”—loyalty that is not disloyalty, but is still used for evil purposes?

In the final analysis, these kinds of questions are absolutely essential for Adventists to consider, because the insurmountable loyalty Jesus has for God and people is the foundation of our imitation of Jesus’ loyalty.

–Nathaniel Gamble is pastor, among others, of Fort Lupton Seventh-day Adventist Church and Aspen Park Seventh-day Adventist Church. Email him at: [email protected]

By Tony Hunter … Loyalty is evil.

Perhaps that’s a bit harsh and exaggerated. Anyone who thinks about that statement for 2.7 seconds will be able to cite at least one example of loyalty that isn’t evil. So, let me try again.

Loyalty without honesty is a recipe for abuse to happen unchecked. In that context, loyalty can allow evil to thrive because there is an absence of integrity. Is that still too strong a statement? Maybe you haven’t experienced that reality. But if you want the proof for it, just ask anyone who was abused by a parent, or a teacher, or an employer, or a pastor, or [insert abusive person or group here].

Ask the wife who was regularly beaten and raped by her husband, but never told anyone because she was taught to uphold the sanctity of marital loyalty above all things until death do they part. She was forced by upbringing, culture, and religion that doing the right thing was to be loyal to her husband. This meant never sharing what was happening and keeping private things private, not sullying her husband’s reputation and the bounds of their marriage. It meant she needed to do what was right and be strong for the sake of the perception of the relationship and the greater good.

What greater good would that be? The perception that good Christians don’t leave each other because in Christ all wounds are healed and all relationships restored. That good was to preserve the sanctity of Christian rule. Don’t get divorced. Don’t betray your spouse. Except—except in order to do that, both spouses had to do one important thing.

Lie.

In order to uphold what the church needed, in order to maintain loyalty to the marriage and to church rule, they had to be completely dishonest.

Some of you may not believe me. You may think that I am distorting the facts to fit a point. But I assure you, I’m not. I’ve been in ministry almost my entire adult life. I’ve pastored churches that had members with horrifying views on marriage and abuse. Abuse was wrong, they said, but to be disloyal to the marriage by allowing the abused party to leave would be worse because it would taint the institution designed by God, and break the promise made to God. Of course, they ignored the fact that the abuse did that the very first time it took place. Who could say, they argued, how the husband might change if she stayed and continued to show love and patience? Eventually God would reward her with dedication and loyalty. God would prevail.

I can’t begin to tell you all the things wrong with that logic. We have all lived long enough to know that God doesn’t stop every evil just because we are dedicated and loyal to something. That’s just one of the problems. But this isn’t the point.

You may be thinking that just because some church members thought that way doesn’t mean they were taught that by the church and its leaders. I used to believe that as well. They would tell me that some pastor, when they were young, told them it was the greater sin to dissolve the marriage because of abuse than it was to allow abuse to continue. Why? Because abuse was never spoken of in the Bible in relationship to divorce, but that divorce was spoken of as bad. It’s an insane argument, the details of which are for a different article. I never believed it.

Until I met one. Then two. And more. All of whom were convinced it was better to hide these things for the sake of the marriage so that they would not sin with divorce. That’s almost a direct quote.

But let’s pull this back into context because this article isn’t about divorce and marriage. It’s not even about abuse specifically. It’s about something more foundational.

It’s about who we are as children of a Divine and Holy God of Love and Truth. The God who said, “Thou shalt not lie.” The God who said, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The God who said in Micah 6:8, “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (NIV).

What is it to be like Jesus? Did Jesus act dishonestly just so He could be in line with any given group? What does it even mean to be honest as a child of God? Be honest with each other? To be honest with ourselves about who we are and what we believe as an individual? And how that relates to us within a group? Does honesty and the goal of a Christ inspired character allow us to live and support a belief we don’t actually believe or agree with?

But what if the organization we believe in teaches a thing we aren’t convinced is correct? What do we do? Do we assume them infallible and just agree? If we do that, we make two mistakes. First, we assume the organization is infallible. Second, we hand over our free will and intention and remove it from our journey. We then start to rely on someone else to make our spiritual and religious decisions for us. We become puppets for some other human’s ideals.

We either become victims or victimizers in their name.

A number of years back I worked in a conference where a black female colleague was being regularly abused by a conference official. The abuse was racial and gender based, but not physical. It was verbal abuse levied with the power of his authority to end her career. Every week he would summon her and make her stand in his office and repeat phrases and sayings that he wanted her to say and believe. And when she didn’t say it right, he would tell her to “say it in that black girl voice” while making sassy gestures.

I found out about it when I stopped by her office after my weekly meetings and she was weeping behind her desk. She talked and I listened. I held her hand and we prayed together. But here is the point that relates to our topic. She refused to tell anyone. I begged her to. But she wouldn’t. I asked her why and she said this: “If I report what is going on, it will get out, and I don’t want my selfish need to ruin the reputation of the Adventist church.” I was stunned because she is insanely intelligent, and yet there were so many things wrong with that sentence. I asked her what her husband had said about it when she told him. She hadn’t told her husband because she knew he would act. Eventually, she did tell. And to be clear, I reported it immediately to the Union. Also, to be clear, they did nothing, and for largely the same reasons as she stated. “Tony, we really can’t do anything, but these things will work out in the end when one day God brings justice to us all.” I had never been so ashamed to represent Adventism as I was in that moment.

I tell you that story so I can make two points.

Point one. We do not exist to serve Adventism as an organization. It exists to serve us and the community around us. The church is not the point. It is a vehicle to greater community. A resource we use, not one that uses us. When we forget that, we lose all power and agency in our spiritual journey and work.

Point two. Truth isn’t about information and facts. These things change as we grow and learn. Truth is always about character. It’s about being honest with ourselves and about who we are, whose children we are and what that means.

Loyalty isn’t about people or groups. They will lie, cheat, and steal, or worse. Be loyal to something greater. Be loyal to honesty and integrity. Be loyal to love. Loyalty to these ideals is to be loyal to the ingredients of righteous character as exemplified by Christ.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is an organization that provides resources for people to more effectively do the work of mercy, justice, and love, but it is humanity we serve in Christ’s name and His character we represent. To flip flop that dynamic is to live a disloyal lie, and no one wants to live a lie.

So, my advice? Don’t.

–Tony Hunter is a Seventh-day Adventist pastor and a hospice chaplain working for Elevation Hospice in Northern Colorado. Email him at [email protected]

By Jessyka Dooley … Who’s your team? People in Colorado love the Broncos, like really love them. When my husband and I picked up our sweet puppy Paddie, we were given a Ziplock bag of her food, a few toys, a little Broncos baby blanket. As a transplant to the Denver area, the Broncos are not my team. Needless to say, the Bronco blanket is not on display, but rather folded nicely in the back of a closet.

So much gets wrapped up into our affiliation and loyalty with sports teams. I’ve watched grown adults shed tears over games and take days off of work or school to mourn their losses. Entire cities erupt in geographical joy when their team brings home a big win. It’s a little over the top if you really pause to think about it—a bunch of men in uniforms getting paid incredible amounts of money to play a produced version of a game kids play at the park. Why is this? Because, it’s more than a game. Loyalty to sports teams creates a deep sense of belonging and community. While staying loyal to a team can increase the quality of life for fans, The Wall Street Journal contains an article on the benefits for players who stay loyal to one team for the majority of their career. Shirley S. Wang wrote: “Professional football players also may benefit from sticking with one team. Football statistician Rupert Patrick observed that players perform better initially in the year following a change, but in the long term, those who remain on the same team for at least five years do better.

Wang writes, “Players may have greater motivation when they get to a new team, or the coaching staff may be more willing to highlight the player and give him more playing time, says Mr. Patrick. . . . But when a player isn’t moving around, he works with the same playbook and teammates, which can help in the long run, he says.” You see, loyalty has great long-term effects on players when they are able to actively work on a familiar team. Then why is it so common for players to be traded around? Where is their loyalty to their team?

Much like NFL football players, the Millennial generation was born with little opportunity to stay in one place. LinkedIn conducted a survey reporting that Millennials do more job-hopping than any other generation. Where is their loyalty to their workplace? I believe there is a strong correlation between NFL players hopping teams and Millennials hopping jobs; neither will stay where they are not valued and where they are being underpaid. Their loyalty does not lie with a team or with a company, but rather in themselves and the value they can bring.

Young people’s lack of loyalty to the church and their mass exodus from Adventism is a redundant topic, to say
the least. It’s redundant because there is nothing new to share. The information is there, but a solution is it seems just as ambiguous as the problem itself. What if, metaphorically speaking, we have benched the next generation for too many games? What if we’ve paid minimum wage without benefits for too long?

The church often asks, “Why are they leaving?” When for many young adults still in the church the question is, “Why haven’t you left?”

I’ve been asked a handful of times about my loyalty to the Adventist Church. “Why do you stay?” “Why do you stay if you cannot be recognized the same as your male colleagues?” “Why do you stay when the church is silent on moral and social justice issues?” “Why do you stay working for an outdated system?” “Why?”

It has taken me a few years to fully form an honest answer, but at the end of the day, it’s quite simple: “Because I get to be a part of positive change and growth in the church.” I don’t get benched . . . at least not every game, but I’m the exception. I can count on one hand, one hand, the number of people my age that work within our conference. Seats at the table are just not being insisted upon for the next generation. Let’s give this generation, and the next, and the next, a place to sit, a place to stay. The upcoming generations are fiercely loyal, but not in the traditional sense. They are not specifically loyal to organizations, but rather to values. Do not just assume they will be fans of your team because of the name itself. Being loyal to a church organization and being loyal to God are not always synonymous.

Team sports give us something to believe in. Religion gives us someone to believe in. It brings us together. We’re willing to tough it out with teams when they’re going through tough patches and just can’t seem to win a game. Millennials are willing to tough it out with the Adventist Church, but the church needs to recognize that the next generations aren’t merely fans, rather we are on the team. We bring fresh energy, new plays, and a love for the game.

Put us in, Coach!

–Jessyka Dooley is RMC associate youth director. Email her at: [email protected]

*“A Healthy Dose of Loyalty; Being Loyal Is Our Innate State, Scientists Say; It Yields Benefits,” June 21, 2011.

By Lonnie Hetterle and Pat Chapman … The thesaurus gives as synonyms for “loyalty” words such as devotion, commitment, honesty, dependability, and trustworthiness. Perhaps loyalty is an outdated word in today’s society. What is there that I can be “loyal” to? I used to shop at Montgomery Ward, Woolworth, and Thrifty Drug, relics young people don’t even recognize. Even in 2020, chains closing all or many of their stores include Pier 1 Imports, Men’s Warehouse, J.C. Penney, Forever 21, and Lord and Taylor, which has been around since 1826. Many from a previous generation were regular customers of Sears, people who loved their Craftsman tools. Sears has joined with K-mart, yet both chains are rapidly heading for oblivion. Change, change, change—can someone slow this world down a little and let me catch up?

The challenge for Adventist education is to prepare children and young people for a world that is in constant change and flux. Someone once said that the three most important attributes for being a good teacher are adaptability, adaptability, adaptability. Such adaptability was sorely tested this past year as we changed from being in-person teacher schools to distance-learning teacher schools almost overnight. Fortunately, all our schools have opened over the past couple of weeks as in-person teaching schools and have done very well with proper protocols and processes closely implemented and followed. We pray this continues as both students, teachers, and parents realize anew the importance of direct social interaction.

As Seventh-day Adventist Christians, we see the events of today through a world view that makes sense and gives us understanding. While we appropriately struggle to put faith and loyalty in institutions, or people, or organizations, we are blessed to know that we have a God who is our “refuge in time of trouble” and who is still directing this world toward its promised end and His Second Coming. His pledge that “He changes not” is reassurance in this time of turmoil and strife.

One definition of loyalty is: protecting those we love from harm, from others looking to harm them, and even from themselves. Especially now, in 2020, as we have opened up our schools to in-person education, this definition of loyalty was demonstrated in the first few days of the new school year. Our teachers are educating by example that loyalty is a positive character trait that must be demonstrated to be taught. They are teaching their students that developing loyalty will create a sense of community and true loyalty results in action. The true definition of loyalty is God. Even when we are faithless and disloyal to God, He demonstrates His faithfulness to us by remaining faithful.

A few years ago, a team of Rocky Mountain Conference (RMC) educators developed core values for the education of students in every school, calling it C.H.E.R.I.S.H., which illustrated the values Christ-Centered, Honor, Exploration, Responsibility, Integrity, Service and Heroism that our teachers are instilling in the young people in their care with the ultimate goal of loyalty to God and others. This overarching guiding principle also follows the statement by Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke that the first rule of life is to love the Lord with all our heart and the second, to love our fellow man as we love ourselves.

This is also in line with the statement from Education, “The world does not so much need men (and women) of great intellect as of noble character.” It brings to mind the biblical question, “What does it profit a person if they gain the whole world yet lose their own soul?” George Knight, in his book Myths in Adventism states, “Every topic within the curriculum and even human life itself, takes on new meaning in the light of God’s word. It is imperative, therefore, that Christian schools teach every subject from a biblical perspective.

Especially in this day of Covid-19, with its expectations and challenges for education, the teachers of Rocky Mountain Conference are going above and beyond to instill loyalty to God, to family, and to community. We are blessed in this conference to have the finest teachers in North America teaching and reaching our children for eternity. Adventist education is not simply regular classes with worship and a Bible classes added. Take a look at the Encounter Bible Curriculum introduced into our RMC schools. Students and teachers are reporting a real emphasis on knowing the Bible and building a saving and trusting relationship with Jesus. This is what I want for your children and mine. Without this, I would argue that Adventist education would not be worth the millions of dollars that go into the 7,500 schools employing more than 85,000 teachers who instruct 1.5 mil- lion students around the world. In the North American church, we have 941 schools, 9,917 teachers, and more than 77,000 students.

Our desire, and the desire of teachers in the Rocky Mountain Conference, is to love, nurture, and instruct these children and young people in the highest academic, social, physical, and spiritual way possible. Their success now is vital for future years, but their place in the earth made new is the ultimate goal and objective of Adventist education.

We want to express gratitude to individuals and the churches who have been a vital part of Adventist education with their prayers, financial support, and team approach to the raising of solid, successful, and spiritually focused students. It does indeed take “a village” to raise a child in today’s world. We would like to encourage those churches who do not have their own school to consider “adopting” a school in RMC and to make it successful. In RMC Education we are striving to make your schools the very best in every way.

A promise from God about loyalty is found in Revelation 2: 25-27. “But until I come, you must hold firmly to what you have. To those who win the victory, who continue to the end to do what I want, I will give the same authority that I received from my Father.” We wish this for your life and for ours. Thank you for your loyalty!

–Lonnie Hetterle is RMC education superintendent. Email him at: [email protected]. Pat Chapman is administrative assistant for the RMC education department. Email her at: [email protected]

By Shayne Mason Vincent … Chuck Swindoll tells the story of Ted and Bessie, great-grandparents who were celebrating their 50th anniversary. Over the years, Ted had lost much of his hearing, yet they still got along well and were proud to celebrate their golden wedding anniversary. Their entire family came over and enjoyed a full day of celebration. Finally, towards sundown, all the kids went home, and Betsy and Ted decided to close out the beautiful day on the front porch swing watching the sunset. The old gentleman leaned back, loosened his tie and pulled his wife near. Betsie looked at him in wonder and said, “You know, I’m really proud of you.” Ted looked at her quizzically and quipped, “Well fine then, I’m tired of you too!”

Ahh, to grow old together. To ride the wild rollercoasters of family, kids, bills, and personal growth. I knew a couple married for 74 years when I worked in hospice. We all wept when they passed within hours of one another. Such devotion and love are inspiring to behold. We can devote ourselves to many things in this world such as our ideals, or the needs of others, or even to objects. For example, you see brand loyalty between Chevy or Ford, between Michael Kors or Gucci. There is also loyalty to the principles of one’s country. Or devotion to your faith or a cause. But to be loyal in marriage is to be faithful to only one person for decade upon decade, for as long as you both shall live.

The Merriam-Webster’s Thesaurus gives many insightful synonyms for loyalty such as, “allegiance, commitment, dedication, devotedness, faithfulness.” And antonyms like, “disloyalty, falsehood, treachery, unfaithfulness, infidelity.” To use gardening as a metaphor, flowers take work and weeds grow naturally. To be committed to your marriage means you have to water it, feed it nutrients, give it sunlight, and pull weeds out by the roots before they choke the marriage. If we are to be loyal to our marriage, we must protect it from falsehood and infidelity in all its forms. We must commit ourselves to nurturing our love for one another.

So, let’s take a look at five principles on how to nurture a healthy vibrant marriage:

Prioritize: Take time for one another. Go for hikes, travel, or even go shopping, God forbid (he can survive by going to Best Buy while you are at the mall). Don’t self-sabotage the marriage through the extremes of workaholism or irresponsibility. Instead, prioritize one another’s goals and dreams. Work together in the give and take of meeting each other’s needs. (Colossians 3:14: And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.)

Respect: Honor your spouse with a sense of personal dignity and individuality. Don’t abuse your spouse’s generous heart through your tongue or your fist. Appreciate them for what they do well and encourage them, both privately and publicly. Allow them both strengths and weaknesses, loving them for who they really are. Respect is something you must earn. (Matthew 7:12: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.)

Boundaries: Maintain your own individualities and don’t get swallowed up in one another. Be firm with your own needs, while also being liberal with the needs of your spouse. Never go out into public or private places with the opposite sex without a third party. And while you should share fiscal responsibility and your bank account as one, don’t make excuses about bills, or careers, or your kids as a way to avoid individual needs. (John 21:21-22: When Peter saw John, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”)

Communication: Marriage requires honesty. Secrets should never be tolerated. Therefore, make your marriage a place where trust can thrive. Confess your faults to one an- other; forgive one another. Listen when the other person needs to be heard, but make sure your own needs are heard as well. Don’t hide behind the needs of the other person in codependent humility. Have a backbone. But do its graciously. (Ephesians 4:2-3: Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace)

Integrity: Character is the basis of dignity and it is how we earn trust and respect. Yes, we all have flaws, but integrity admits them. Integrity seeks to grow, to honor, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health. It doesn’t hide, it doesn’t blame, nor does it avoid, but rather it grows and grows in the piercing light of God’s authentic, Spirit-filled love. (Proverbs 11:3: The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity.)

When I was younger, I once knew an African king by the name of Opinin Giami. I asked him whether or not I should marry, and he replied incredulously, “Of course! It is a gift from God to help us grow up!” After nearly 17 years with my beautiful and affirming wife, having gone through our own rollercoaster of growing up, I often jokingly say that marriage is 50 percent love and 50 percent torture. But seriously though, aside from the personal character growth, marriage is the joy of a best friend, a lover, a confidant and counselor, a snuggle buddy while you sleep, and truly is a gift from God.

So be faithful and devoted to one another. In your needs. In their needs. With the children. With God. And with your society. Prioritize one another, respect one another, talk to each other, share your toys if you will, and do it with true love. If you do, you will ride a long and happy rollercoaster and someday, the two of you will be watching a sunset together just like Ted and Bessie, and will say, “Well fine, I’m tired of you too!”

–Shayne Mason Vincent is lead pastor of the Casper, Wyoming, district. Email him at: [email protected]

By Becky De Oliveira … “So many vows . . . they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It’s too much. No matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or the other.” —Jaime Lannister, A Clash of Kings

Once, in college, I was taking an elective class in business with a friend, and she got into a public altercation with the professor sometime during the first week. She stood up, collected her things, stormed out of the room, and headed straight for the registrar’s office to formally drop the class. The professor looked me, knowing we were friends, that we had travelled to this overseas college together, and asked, “What about you? Do you share your friend’s feelings?”

The honest answer was yes, I did share my friend’s feelings—but to a lesser degree. My feelings were not—for me— worth engaging in battle over, not in this particular case. I wanted to get through the class, get the credit, graduate on time, avoid drama. If the professor chose to insult me or people like me, I would affect a pleasant but distracted expression and go to the beach that is ever present in my head. I would ignore the insults and get what I needed from the situation. I would not take a stand, would not make any grand gesture, would not stomp or slam the door. I am no one’s idea of a hero. So, I shook my head. “I do not,” I lied.

Betrayal? Lack of loyalty? Perhaps. But to whom or what? To whom or what did I owe loyalty in the first place? Should I have supported my friend no matter what her decision? Raise your hand if your parents ever asked you this question: “If so-and-so jumped off a bridge, would you?” My friend would have felt better supported if I had walked out that door with her, but my loyalties were not clear cut. I owed something to my parents, who were paying my tuition, and to my own sense of integrity, to my belief that I can show respect for someone even if they show none for me.

Clearly, we collectively recognize that loyalty has its limits. We also know that loyalty can be severely misplaced. One of my favorite books, The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro, is about a butler who has sacrificed his integrity to a Nazi-sympathizing employer, only realizing his misplaced loyalty when it is perhaps too late to do much of anything about it. His loyalty is to duty, to the status quo—even when it means making immoral choices.

Sometimes loyalty is urged, required, forced, although not usually by friends. The only truly friendly oath of loyalty I can think of is the marriage vow. A person whom you love pledges loyalty to you; you pledge it in return, “until death do you part.” The most commonly-recited loyalty oath is likely the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance, which many of us memorized as children, and can still recall decades after having uttered the words. History shows a certain enthusiasm for professions of loyalty in the United States. Civil War confederate prisoners of war signed an “oath of allegiance” as a condition of release. Depression-era Boston school children swore an oath of loyalty as “good American citizens” to support the National Recovery Administration through their purchasing. (If that isn’t performative, I don’t know what is.) President Truman signed an executive order in 1947 that required anyone suspected of holding membership in certain organizations to take a loyalty oath and submit to a background check. In 1950, the Levering Act required California state employees, specifically those at the University of California, to take an oath disavowing “radical beliefs.” The famous psychologist Erik Erikson refused to sign and lost his position. Another 31 faculty members were fired for refusing to sign the oath. Public school teachers were routinely required to sign loyalty oaths, swearing that they were not supporting communist ideas, and that they were, conversely, promoting respect for the flag and other patriotic American actions. More recently, the George W. Bush presidential campaign, in 2004, sometimes required rally participants to sign loyalty oaths, or pledges of endorsement. Some states require such oaths for their employees. I signed one when I worked at Front Range Community College, promising to uphold the constitution and “faithfully perform the duties of the position upon which I am about to enter.” I thought it was weird, and I made a few inquiries. “In what way I am specifically supposed to uphold the constitution?” I asked.

“No idea,” I was told. No one knew what it meant.

Most employees, like me, simply sign these oaths and move on; others, compelled by conscience, refuse to do so and lose their jobs. In 2008, an adjunct instructor at the University of California refused to sign because of her religious beliefs. As a Quaker, she wanted to amend the document to state that she would only defend the state “non-violently.” She was finally given her job back after undertaking an appeal, and still had to sign the oath, with the provision that there was no “obligation or requirement that public employees bear arms or otherwise engage in violence.” Another adjunct professor, novelist James Sallis, announced his resignation in 2015 rather than sign the loyalty oath required by Phoenix College in Arizona.

Michael S. Rosenwald, in an article for the Washington Post, notes that “loyalty oaths are almost always rooted in paranoia.” Harold M. Hymn, author of To Try Men’s Souls: Loyalty Tests in American History, calls them “crisis products” that come out of “the felt needs of authorities during wars, rebellions, and periods of fear and subversion.” The Seventh-day Adventist Church sees its share of action regarding loyalty oaths, with one unofficial group circulating a Statement of Harmony certificate in late 2018, asking pastors and individual church members to sign a pledge of loyalty to the General Conference. There have been attempts to get loyalty oaths from professors at Adventist colleges, as well. I learned an interesting anecdote about my own alma mater, Walla Walla University, which conducted a mini-Inquisition against its religion faculty in the 1930s, seemingly designed to verify their loyalty to a set of tightly-scripted beliefs.

According to Terrie Dopp Aamodt, author of Bold Venture: A History of Walla Walla College, a questioners during one of these sessions pointed to a black hat and said, “If Mrs. White had written that your black hat is white, it would be white to me.” This seems to imply something very specific about loyalty; that it requires not just faithfulness to a person or to a set of ideas, but a complete override of sense, of reasoning. Is this really necessary? The professor, in case you’re wondering, responded like this: “God gave me eyes to see things white and things black and things in between, and as long as I am normal, I will not substitute the word of Mrs. White or anyone else for what my eyes tell me. If I do not use the sense with which I am equipped, I cease to function as a man.”

I consider myself to be a pretty loyal person but with reservations because, well, things change. What if my country, my employer, my church, ceases to be the thing I thought it was when I made the pledge? Or what if one loyalty simply trumps another? For instance, I am loyal to Vista Ridge Academy. I think its teachers are truly outstanding, smart, hardworking, and caring people. My younger son loved the time he spent there, and I am forever indebted, in particular, to Mrs. Hodgson, Mrs. McLachlan, and Mr. Jones for the time and attention and love they poured into him. So, I am a loyal supporter of Vista Ridge Academy.

Or am I? Because, see, I didn’t choose to send my older son there. My kids are PKs (pastor’s kids) and we moved to Colorado in 2014, when my oldest boy was 14 years old, just about to start high school. What does everyone know about PKs? They’re bad kids, they suffer from the weight of public scrutiny, from being dragged all over the earth and never having any say in the major decisions of their lives. They rebel hard, take drugs, hate the church. My husband and I have tried, in various ways, to mitigate the possible negative effects of our children’s association with us, and everything that entails. Our oldest is now 20 and a junior in college and we both have a very good relationship with him, which has been our primary goal. He is realistic about the church without being bitter about it. I call that a win.

But back in 2014, when we as a family decided to send him to Boulder High School, because he felt that Vista Ridge. Academy was too small and could not offer the classes and opportunities he wanted in high school, people thought we were disloyal. It was the right school for one son but not for the other. I stand by that decision still. It was the right thing to do. And yes, it was disloyal to one obligation but absolutely loyal to another. Before God, I can say I did what I thought was the right thing. I remember someone back then asking, in an accusing tone, “If you, the pastor’s family, don’t send your children to the Adventist school, how are you supposed to convince other people to send theirs?”

Interesting question. Here’s my answer: It’s not my job to convince anyone of anything. I’m not the Holy Spirit. My best hope is that looking at my example will make some people—people who need to make different decisions—understand that it is OK to do so. There are lots of ways to be faithful, to be loyal, to live a life of integrity and meaning. There is not one path. We are not paper dolls. And you know, those teachers I mentioned earlier? They got from me by love what no one can ever take by force: genuine respect and loyalty. What is that saying about flies, honey, vinegar?

–Becky De Oliveira is a doctoral student in research methods at the University of Northern Colorado. Email her at: [email protected]

By Carol Bolden … In the decades leading up to the Civil War the United States saw some dramatic changes. Having begun as a third- world country with its people living on isolated farms, those decades before the Civil War were pivotal in bringing about changes in transportation, communication, and manufacturing that brought America onto the world stage and made it a global economy.

For even longer than those few decades, the people and the politicians of the Northern and Southern states had been warring over economic interests, cultural values, and the power of government to control states and slavery in America.

The war that eventually materialized was an exquisitely painful experience for this new world power, pitting brother against brother and father against son. What could be done in the aftermath of this wrenching war to bring the states and the people back together?

There’s no quick fix for broken relationships, and there’s certainly not an instant one, whether concerning an entire society or individuals. Healing requires time, trust, and connection. It requires commitment. In this instance, the people felt betrayed by opposing views. The North felt betrayed by the South’s secession from the Union; the South felt betrayed by the North taking away their means of financial support; and Blacks, whether from the North or the South and having little say in these events, were tossed to and fro by the turbulent politics of the day.

During World War II, a young Jewish girl, Stella Kubler, unable to get a visa to leave Germany, was arrested by Nazis and subjected to torture. To avoid deportation, she agreed to become a “catcher” for the Gestapo, finding and turning in other Jews, some of whom she had known from school days.

Stories of disloyalty throughout history abound. Think of Brutus who stabbed to death one of his closest friends, Caesar, then emperor of Rome. Or Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus with a kiss. Brits will remember Guy Fawkes who tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder. There was Dona Marina, a Nahua woman sold into slavery at a young age who aided Cortes in his conquests, using her linguistic abilities to serve as translator. Remember Tokyo Rose? A name for several English-speaking women, at least one from America, they transmitted anti-American scripts by radio to lower the morale of Allied troops. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, an American couple, were accused of spying for the Soviet Union during the Cold War by providing thousands of top-secret reports on aeronautics and atomic bomb construction to the Soviets. They also recruited sympathizers.

Why all this betrayal? Where did it begin? What’s behind it? Can we do anything to assuage it?

When Lucifer, that beautiful and talented being created by God and placed in the highest position in the universe next to God, began to harbor jealousy toward his Maker, it led to the biggest betrayal of all time. Using his position of privilege, Lucifer began to plant doubts in the minds of other angels, causing them to mistrust the One who not only created them, but sustained them.

When Jesus sailed to the country of the Gadarenes opposite Galilee and a man with demons (or fallen angels) met Him, the demons said to Jesus, “I beg You, do not torment me!” Satan’s lies were still imbedded in the minds of fallen angels thousands of years after the original lies were told.

How did God handle that one?

And what happens to those who choose to betray others? Unable to handle the guilt of their betrayal, both Stella Kubler and Judas Iscariot chose suicide. Betrayal, as a hostile action, affects both the betrayer and the betrayed.

Sometimes, it’s difficult to know how to handle being on the receiving end of betrayal. The hurt of it overwhelms, consumes us. Emotions run deep, with anger and hurt often at the core. Desire for revenge may rage. Perhaps we can learn something about responding to betrayal by looking at responses to betrayals already mentioned.

In his second inaugural address of March 4, 1865, then president Abraham Lincoln, sought to heal a once-divided nation, setting forth plans for healing the nation and establishing a standard for relations between the factions. He ended his address with these words, “. . . with malice toward none, with charity for all . . . .”

Forgiveness and acceptance were the path Lincoln chose to handle betrayal. He sought not only to forgive, but to restore those states that had seceded from the Union. His goal was to provide a way back to unity that would save face for those who had left, and which was not too difficult, a way that would begin to heal the wide rift that had opened up between the North and the South.

Forgiveness releases us from all the negative emotions that accompany betrayal.

When Lucifer rebelled, the heavenly councils pleaded with him to mend the rift. The Son of God presented before him the mercy, the greatness, the goodness and the justice of the Creator, and the sacred, unchanging nature of the law. But the warning, given in infinite love and mercy, only aroused a spirit of resistance. Lucifer allowed his jealously of Christ to prevail and he became the more determined.

Sometimes, there’s no remedy for betrayal and we must allow the betrayer to go their own way.

When we find ourselves recipients of betrayal, we should remember we are not alone. Jesus experienced it at the hand of Lucifer, from His chosen people, from Judas. And let’s not forget our own culpability.

As members of divided communities and even a divided church, what steps can we take to rectify the divide, to avoid betraying our brothers and sisters, to heal the sting of betrayal?

We can follow the advice given by Crosby, Stills & Nash in their early ’70s song: “You, who are on the road must have a code that you can live by. . . .” Our code of love, blessing and loyalty to mankind must be lived out and passed on to our children so they too can live well, so they become a blessing to the generations that follow.

–Carol Bolden is traveling through the United States in a motorhome with her husband Thom. Read her blog: (https://outlookmag.org/off-to-see-america-traveling-by-motorhome/). She was communication assistant at RMC until her retirement. Email her at: [email protected]

By Rajmund Dabrowski … Loyalty has many meanings. So do freedom and compassion. A personal story comes to mind, a part of my family’s experience from exactly 40 years ago. How it came about is of no consequence. What is etched in personal memory is what matters.

Michael had been born just three years earlier and my wife and I were pushing him in a stroller to join thousands of others at the Castle Square, a historic square in front of the Royal Castle—the former official residence of Polish monarchs—in Warsaw, Poland. We were joining a demonstration in support of Solidarity.

Peaceful protests often turn into mayhem. That’s what happened that day in Warsaw. Songs and chants for freedom were met by the force of the state with water cannons and gas pellets shot into the crowd. Soon we were on the run, covering our faces and wiping Michael’s face from the unwelcome burning tears.

He remembers little, if any at all, though he said to me recently that he is thankful for the experience. He was being introduced to what it means to stand for freedom. Some- times at a cost.

Even today, I ask myself if it was reckless. But being passive, letting others stand up against a restricted way of life— was that a “better” option? We could not then and would not today.

This experience is etched in my mind and connects with Christian values and the larger experience of scores of others who remind us to stand for what is right. A pleiad of God’s people is an example of fidelity. A list of them in Hebrews (Chapters 11 and 12) refers to a “cloud of witnesses.” There is an element of solidarity that connects us with each other. We are connected through flesh and blood, work and language, suffering and humiliation. At times, though not as often, we are joined together through joy and happiness. But all too often we do not realize our togetherness, this human solidarity with a community of people.

When Apostle Paul writes that we should carry each other’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), he seems to suggest that solidarity with the other cannot be forced from the outside. Solidarity prefers infirmity above violence. It prefers light above darkness.

Reflecting on fidelity, philosopher Józef Tischner, wrote: “When we speak about fidelity, we are seeing a statue of the great father of faith, a statue of Abraham. He was faithful. To be faithful means to be a chooser. A chosen one and the one who chooses, together. Abraham heard a call in the desert: ‘Abraham! Abraham!’ He answered: ‘Here I am.’ He was called and he chose to answer. We remember another moment when God used a similar call. He said to Adam: ‘Adam, where are you?’ But Adam answered God’s call by hiding. He didn’t wish to be seen. Abraham was–as it were– fixing Adam’s error. He chose to answer God’s choice by choosing.”*

Abraham is referred to as a father of religion. It all started with him as a choice, and when the choice gave the fruit of faithfulness, a community, a nation, was born.

When we walked toward the Castle Square, we walked with a clear choice–to express solidarity with the people. It was our loyalty to the community. And we couldn’t do it any other way.

–Rajmund Dabrowski is RMC communication director. Email him at: [email protected]

*Wiara ze słuchania (Faith Through Listening), pp. 131-132.