Blog

07 Jan

International students find second homes for the holidays

In

By Campion Academy Student News – Loveland, Colorado…Even though most of Campion’s international students couldn’t return home due to COVID travel restrictions over the holidays, they were able to find comfort in welcoming host families.

Jarrod and Greg Lang, two brothers from China, haven’t been able to return home since they came to Campion in August of 2019. Jarrod explained that dealing with homesickness can be difficult. “I miss my family and the food they cook, especially my grandma’s cooking,” he said.

Brayan Martins, international student from Brazil explained, “I’ve definitely felt homesick, but it helps that I’ve been calling home every day and talking to my mom through FaceTime.”

The students mentioned that host families helped them have a positive experience despite being far from home.

“The families have made me feel really comfortable and the kiddos of the families loved me like their own; it felt like home. Throughout break, I got to know three new families, eat a lot of good food, and make new friends,” said Brayan.

Jarrod further commented, “My host families helped me do things that I never thought I could accomplish, like doing a five-foot drop-off on my [mountain] bike with Matt Hasty.”

Local families opened their homes over the break, enriching their family lives with young people from other cultural backgrounds

—Campion Student News Team; photo supplied

07 Jan

Commentary — Will this be the year?

In

By Ron Price — I cannot recall ever welcoming a new year more than I do 2021. Somehow, I do not think I am alone in that regard. Someone recently said that 2020 will soon become a common expression in our culture to describe anything tense, unsettling, discouraging, frustrating, etc. I could go on, but please do not be surprised to hear in the coming weeks, months, and years something negative described as a “2020 thing.”

For many of us, 2020 was a nuisance and great inconvenience. It was, however, devastating for some of you, and my heart goes out to you if that is your case. Hopefully, this new year will be a vast improvement.

As with all trips around the sun, a new year inspires us to choose goals or different living ways.  So, have you yet made your new year’s resolutions? As I write this, we are on day five, so I must also ask if you are still keeping those you made? I do not know the statistics, but the vast majority of us abandon our hopes and aspirations quicker than we like to admit.

While there are numerous reasons why this failure is so common among us, I want to focus on a couple of hints that might help you stay the course and accomplish what you decide is essential in your life.

My source for this post is Jon Acuff, a fabulous author who offers wise counsel in living life well. The first point I’ll share is what he calls “the day after perfect.” When you set out to bring about a change in your life, you are typically highly focused, motivated, and determined. The first day or two is a proverbial piece of cake. But sooner or later, you will have a day when you miss your target. You fall back to your old ways and do not live by your new desired standards.

That day is “the day after perfect.” Up till that point, you have enjoyed success and the fruits thereof. You’ve been on a roll and feel a great sense of accomplishment. And then the crash comes, and you face a critical decision. All too often, that decision is “well, I blew it, so I might as well eat the whole cake,” or “smoke the whole pack,” or “drink the whole bottle,” or you fill in the blank.

That’s why the day after perfect is so important. If you can somehow refocus and marshal your energy to resume the effort, you will be well on your way to success. When attempting to bring about any change, please expect setbacks, and determine in advance that they will be momentary stumbling blocks, not deal-breakers.

On a side note, as a former smoker, I noticed that whenever I abstained from cigarettes for any length of time, after my first smoke, I would invariably increase my normal usage for about that same time to sort of balance out what I had missed. This was not intentional, I promise you, but it seems to be a common fact of life that when we stay away from a destructive habit we increase our usage after we relapse. Hopefully, that can provide you with some incentive to rejoin the battle quickly after a setback.

The second tip from Mr. Acuff – and he has plenty more in his book Finish, is to cut your goal in half. He suggests two ways to do this. One is actually to cut it in half. If your goal is to have $1,000 in the bank by a specific date, change the goal to $500, which is more achievable. Since success breeds success, you will likely be motivated to go on and reach the full destination of $1,000.

The other way to cut a goal in half is to double the time required for its achievement. Again, if you desire to have $1,000 saved within 30 days, give yourself 60 days to complete it. Doing this should increase your chances of success and spur you on to go after other pursuits you desire.

Nobody ever said life is or should be easy. However, I believe the harder you are on yourself; the more manageable and more enjoyable life can be. Also, please remember that you are worth the effort. Though it is a cliché, the statement that there is not another just like you anywhere on the planet is also true. And the rest of you are counting on you and pulling for you to succeed.

— –Ron Price is a member of RMC executive committee from Farmington, New Mexico. Email him: [email protected]; photo by pixabay

06 Jan

MHA BUS TAKES FINAL TRIP

In

By RMCNews – Highlands Ranch, Colorado … After 27 years, the Mile High Academy bus, which has carried many students and faculty to multiple events, has left campus for the final time.

The bus quit working in August and according to MHA, parts have become non-existent and the knowledgeable service mechanic retired, selling not only his shop but also comparable spare-part busses. Based on the uphill challenge for the bus, the administration decided it was time to sell MHA’s iconic transportation mode.

Reflecting on the quintessential bus, Brian Howard, upper school teacher, said, “It was a way to get where we were going, but it was also much more than that. It was a safe place to hang out. It was a place to learn new and interesting things about our friends and colleagues as we talked while rolling along. It was a place to learn new games. It was a place where friendships were made and strengthened.”

Upon hearing the news of “Blue’s” final trip, alumni began posting memories on Facebook.

“So long, Old Blue. The stories you could tell. A piece of MHA history is gone on [to] the bus farm in the sky,” Amy Rasco, MHA alumnus commented.

Greg Shick, another MHA alumnus, recalled his in-school suspension resulting from the bus, “I got ISS (in-school suspension) for locking Marcus Smittick in the cargo hold of that bus.”

A committee has started researching several gently-used buses and is working on finding the right one for MHA.

–This article was adapted from an article which originally appeared on Mile High Academy’s website; photo supplied

06 Jan

10 Days of Prayer 2021 – Seeking Revival

In

The Rocky Mountain Conference prayer ministries team would like to invite RMC members to join them over the next 10 days, January 6 – 16, at 6:30 a.m., 12 noon, and 6:30 p.m. for prayer.

Also Mid-America Union Conference will host a virtual inspirational gathering each night at 6:00 p.m.

For more information please click here.

05 Jan

MANY FACES, ONE BODY

In

By Ed Barnett — With all of the talk and concerns about social justice today, I couldn’t help but stop and ask how it applies to the church. Do we have areas that we need to improve in the Seventh-day Adventist Church? How have we done in the past when it comes to social justice? To be totally transparent, I think we have done poorly in many ways.

Addressing unity in the church, Apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 12:12,20: “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. . . . But now indeed there are many members, yet one body.”

Today, scattered all over the world, our church has 21.5 million members. They are believers of every color, culture, and status in life. In the Rocky Mountain Conference, with 18,000 members, we belong to the worldwide Adventist family. Some of us may say that we have endeavored well in taking the gospel to the world. Yet, we need to ask ourselves how we’ve done locally? How have I done as an individual called by Jesus to share the gospel? “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

Locally, how well are we doing in reaching out to everyone from any nation, every status in life? How are we responding to the poor and the rich? What about those who look different than we do? How are we at reaching out to the LGBTQ community? Has ethnicity caused us to carefully sort out whom we reach out to?

When reading the Gospel Commission, I hear Jesus saying it is our job to take Him to the entire world, not just to those we would like to have in the church or to those who look like we do.

When considering the situation in Denver, I am amazed that we don’t have a single church in the downtown area. Across the North American Division in general, we have done very poorly in the big cities. We struggle to reach those who are down and out. We are afraid to address issues of race and inequality as we struggle to reach the many ethnicities next door to us, especially in the metropolitan areas. We do much better in the suburbs where we reach out to those who look like us.

Sad as that is, I believe it is a true assessment of how we are doing with social justice in many areas across this continent. Perhaps the saddest commentary on this is the fact that

our church in the United States is divided into two separate conferences—one for (mostly) white people and one for mostly Black people. In my view, besides not being right, this is also a waste of money. Historically, I understand its beginnings, but today, there is not much of a rationale for having separate conferences based on skin color. I think this would be abhorrent to Jesus.

Recently, one church from our conference, the Littleton Church, joined with a church from Central States Conference (a Black conference) to hold a united worship service. Weeks since, many church members still talk of an inspiring, tremendous Sabbath gathering.

This shouldn’t be a special day for Adventists, but a common Sabbath occurrence. We have done poorly with Adventist mission presence in the big cities because we have left that work to someone else to do. We’ve left it to our brothers and sisters in the Black conferences. We would much better represent God’s love for everyone if we were united with all our brothers and sisters, learning about each other and from each other how to reach out to all.

Someday soon, Jesus will be coming to take His children home. In Revelation, Jesus says: “And behold, I am coming quickly, My reward is with Me, to give to everyone according to his work” (Revelation 22:12).

When Jesus says “to everyone,” I think He is talking to His disciples from all of the nations.

Can we do better at social justice and equality in the Seventh-day Adventist Church? I believe the answer is yes! Think about what you can do as an individual member to reach out to every child of God as you fulfill the Gospel Commission.

–Ed Barnett is RMC president. Email him at: [email protected]

05 Jan

ACTING JUSTLY, LOVING MERCY, AND WALKING HUMBLY

In

By Reinder Bruinsma — During the recent Annual Council of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, some 300 participants from all around the world voted two official statements. One of these expressed the church’s continued confidence in the ministry of Ellen G. White. It was agreed to put this on the agenda for the next World Session of the General Conference of the Church in Indianapolis (May 2021) for endorsement by the world church.

The other official statement was the response of the Adventist Church to recent social developments in society, in particular in the United States. It was titled, “One Humanity: A Human Relations Statement Addressing Racism, Casteism, Tribalism, and Ethnocentrism,” and dealt with the issue of social justice.

The statement reads: We maintain our allegiance to the biblical principles of equality and dignity of all human beings in the face of historic and continuing attempts to use skin color, place of origin, caste, or perceived lineage as a pretext for oppressive and dominating behavior. . . . We accept and embrace our Christian commitment to live, through the power of the Holy Spirit, as a Church that is just, caring, and loving.

Some will undoubtedly wonder what impact such official denominational statements have. Will they be read by a major portion of our worldwide membership, let alone be noticed by the society around us? A few members, here and there, will probably analyze every word of the statement and ask some critical questions. Is the document clear enough and complete enough? Or does it fail to mention some important injustices—for instance, the widespread discrimination against those who have a “different” sexual orientation?

Some church members may also wonder whether accepting full gender equality does not require that female pastors receive the same status as their male colleagues. Others will welcome the statement as it was voted and consider it important that the church raises its voice to make clear where it stands in this time of #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, and amid continued global injustice at a horrendous scale.

Perhaps the recent statements about social justice and confidence in the ministry of Ellen G. White are more closely linked than many might think. After all, Ellen White was quite outspoken about a number of important social issues in her time—an aspect of her work that some of her loyal followers today could pay more attention to.

Rules and Church Policies

Dictionaries define justice as the quality of being just and as pursuing righteousness, equality and moral rightness. To be just is to uphold the justice of a cause. To maintain justice in a society requires a judicial system, that operates on the basis of a body of just laws.

When we speak of social justice, we refer to fair and just relations between the individual and society. It has to do with such elements as equal opportunities, regardless of gender, race and ethnicity, and with such things as a defensible distribution of wealth and uniform access to education and health care. A democracy must develop a legal system that provides a solid basis for administering the kind of justice that is, indeed, “just,” and applies in the same way to every citizen and inhabitant of the country.

Churches must also operate on the basis of a clear set of rules. In the Roman Catholic Church and some other denominations, internal laws have, through the centuries, developed into a body of canon law. This has become so complex that ecclesial lawyers and ecclesial courts are needed to administer it. Most mainline Protestant denominations have a “church order” which regulates the way in which the church is governed and may be updated from time to time. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has collected its internal rules and regulations in two basic documents: The Church Manual and the General Conference Working Policy Book.

The focus of the Church Manual is on the inner workings of the local church and on its relationship to the conference to which it belongs. Its history goes back to 1932 when the first edition appeared. Amendments and additions are voted when the world church meets in its quinquennial world congress. It is no secret that in much of the non-Western world, the Church Manual plays a much more important role than in most of the western world. In some parts of the world, the Church Manual seems to have acquired a semi-divinely in- spired status!

The origin of the General Conference Working Policy Book (and its derived division and union policy collections) also goes back almost one hundred years. It has grown over time from a modest pamphlet that summarized the past decisions of the church’s leaders into a book of more than a thousand, fine-print pages. Each Autumn Council of the General Conference has a policy section on its agenda—as part of the constant updating of the “black book,” as the corpus of “Adventist canon law” is often referred to by church leaders. Increasingly, the issue of “compliance” with the policies by all organizational entities in the Adventist Church has become a hot issue, particularly with regard to financial management and the matter of ordination.

Acting Justly, Loving Mercy and Walking Humbly

Applying the rules of the Church Manual and the regulations of the denomination policy book demands a consistent concern for justice. This is, in fact, what God demands of us. In a famous Old Testament text, the prophet Micah is adamant that God requires that we act justly (Micah 6:8). This most definitely applies to leaders at all levels in the church. But the prophet immediately adds that God is not interested in mere outward compliance with a set of rules. “Acting justly” must be integrated with “loving mercy.”

Christ taught us to look at principles and to always apply justice together with mercy. Uppermost in our mind should be the thought that God is never in the hurting but always in the healing business. Acting justly does not first and for all mean that we follow the letter of the law, but that we apply rules in such a way that they will ultimately benefit and bless the people involved.

During my years as a church administrator, I appreciated the fact that the church needs rules and regulations, but I never felt that the letter of church policy was the ultimate answer in every situation. In some cases, I concluded that a statement from the Church Manual needed a creative approach, and that a strict application of church policy would not be fair or in anyone’s interest. In some instances, I have always felt, it may be even morally questionable to go by the letter of the policy book. “Acting justly” demands not just sternness and determination, but also intelligence and “loving mercy.”

Micah reminds us that another important aspect is connected with “acting justly” and “loving mercy.” God also requires, the prophet says, that we “walk humbly” with our God. Church boards, pastors, conference and union officials, and other church leaders may at times be confronted with complicated matters when no existing rule seems to provide a good solution, but a decision must be reached. They must always realize that having been called to a leader- ship role does not make them infallible, and in all humility, they may have to admit that they made a mistake that needs to be corrected. It is never easy for leaders (or, for that matter, anyone else) to admit that they did not “act justly” and/or failed to “love mercy”. However, “walking humbly” is a key aspect of what God requires.

The Long Term

“Acting justly” implies looking at the long-term impact of what we do. We see this powerfully illustrated in the story of King Solomon, when he was asked to adjudicate a case that involved two prostitutes. Both women had given birth to a baby. One baby had died, and then hell broke loose. Each of the women claimed to be the mother of the baby that was still alive. Solomon had to act justly. And he did. Reading and analyzing the story in 1 Kings 3:16-28, we discover that Solomon had a long-term view.

His aim was not just to satisfy one of the two women. His concern was: What is in the long-term interest of the baby that is alive? How could the future of the child be best protected? Who was the “real” mother? The woman who agreed to the extraordinary suggestion that the child be killed so that they would each get part of its dead body? Or the woman who was prepared to do anything to ensure that the child would live? This is an important consideration whenever we seek to “act justly”: not to focus on immediate short-term answers that push the real issue toward the future. Some of us are good at that, but we must look further ahead. “Acting justly” opens up a future for those who suffer and seek justice.

There is one further important aspect: Voting a statement about the importance of social justice remains a public relations gesture if those who voted it are not determined to put the principles the statement emphasizes into practice as they seek, in all humility, to “act justly” and to “love mercy” in their decision-making practices.

–Reinder Bruinsma, PhD, has served the Seventh-day Adventist Church in publishing, education, and church administration on three continents. He writes from the Netherlands where he lives with his wife Aafie. Among his latest books is “I Have a Future: Christ’s Resurrection and Mine.” Email him at: [email protected]

05 Jan

WAS JESUS A SOCIALIST?

In

By Barry Casey — “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” So said Inigo Montoya in one of my favorite movies, The Princess Bride. The word under scrutiny in this article is “socialism,” and it was used in the last U.S. presidential election to demonize, terrify, and coerce people.

Many of those who feared the outbreak of socialism, should the Democrats prevail, came from lives upended by communism, the centralization of power in the state, power to control the economic means of production and every aspect of social interaction. Power to repress religion, censor artistic expression, rewrite history, and co-opt athleticism for the glory of the state. Marx’s dream of the state withering away under communism turned into the nightmare of the state becoming all-powerful. No wonder they were afraid. I have been reading books about socialism, the better to understand and decide whether Jesus was a socialist. Once you enter the forest of such books you learn that you walk always in the hours before sunrise, never in the light of day. The sky, when you can see it through the trees, is an indeterminate shade of gray: it could be cloudy, or it could just lack light. But daylight does not come. The promise cannot be fulfilled.

It’s not that there is a lack of definitions, it’s that there are too many of them. There are so many precisely because there are so many variations of socialism that one definition cannot characterize all of them. The one that seems to me the closest to the ideal is Michael Newman’s. “In my view,” he comments, “the most fundamental characteristic of socialism is its commitment to the creation of an egalitarian society.”

That is a commitment that I share and that I believe most Christians could share. It is a hope that is rooted in the Gospels and in Jesus Himself. And Jesus held it because it was an ancient calling to righteousness that Yahweh, through the prophets, had held up to God’s people.

But we do not get far into discussion of socialism—or any social and political movement, for that matter—without running up against the nature of humanity. What kind of creatures are we?

Christians say we are made in the image of God and that image has almost been effaced in all of us. It’s still there, traces of it, sometimes more in the ideal than in the actual, but it is our highest and best hope for an egalitarian society. A society of people who regard each other the way God regards each person.

Christians thus believe that humanity has incredible potential, but that it is bent away from that potential by sin— by willful disobedience, by ignorance of the truth, by an inability to hit the mark because of our finitude.

Those are three options in this game of life and the one we choose to view ourselves and others by makes a lot of difference in how we go about doing anything in this world. For many Christians, what is most striking about their view of human nature is how low a value they put upon actual, present, living, human beings as opposed to the abstract principle of Life. They echo Linus in the Peanuts cartoon, “I love mankind . . . it’s people I can’t stand.”

Generic socialism, based on a materialistic philosophy of life, looks to the empirical as its foundation and believes that our failings are through ignorance. Knowing rightly makes acting rightly possible, hence the emphasis on education and even re-education.

Ignorance as a cause of injustice is also reinforced by the appalling conditions of poverty and oppression imposed by a system that exploits the many and benefits the few. That is something many Christians can agree with.

Yet, there are plenty of Christians who make the argument that Jesus endorsed capitalism, not socialism. They point to Jesus’ refusal to make a man’s brother split his inheritance with him, and they hold up the parable of the talents as Jesus’ stamp of approval for capitalistic investment. The parable of the Good Samaritan, they claim, calls us to aid those who are hurt, not to fund the welfare state through our taxes.

Likewise, the story Jesus tells of the landowner who hires workers at the end of day and pays them the same as those who worked all day, is a testament to supply and demand, the right of private property, and voluntary contracts, not socialism. They assert that Jesus’ command to help others is rooted in free-market capitalism, the only thing that has generated wealth. Individual responsibility, not coercion by the state, is what Jesus wants.

That would be ideal if all of us, acting in our God-given freedom and from our moral responsibility, were to care for each other. But as we’ve seen in this pandemic, millions of us cannot be relied upon to care for others through the simple act of wearing a mask and social distancing.

Here is the weakness in trying to build a society on the notion that Jesus was—or was not—a socialist: both positions misunderstand moral responsibility. Those for free-market capitalism believe they have few, if any, responsibilities to their larger community, while those for socialism don’t trust individuals to contribute to the welfare of the community.

If our individual measure of success is the ability to make and keep as much money as we can, then capitalism is the best means to that end. If our measure of an equitable society for all is our goal, then some form of democratic socialism is our best bet. The problem is that we want both: unfettered opportunity for individual wealth and no poverty in our society.

The most revolutionary statement of human rights is the Sermon on the Mount. To read its three chapters, Matthew 5, 6, and 7, without sanding down its sharp imperatives is to be twisted like a pretzel. We long for such a world, yet we admit, in frustration and even anger, that it is nigh impossible, given our desire for autonomy and comfort. The closest that some have come to it are the Bruderhof, religious communities that hold no private possessions but share everything in common.

But what makes the Sermon on the Mount so revolutionary, so dauntingly comprehensive, is that Jesus includes actions and intentions. Turning the other cheek springs from gentleness and courage; not giving in to lust begins with respect for another; not making a show of your religion arises from faith and humility. In every measure we could apply, Jesus asks more of us than can be achieved, either through personal will or state requirements.

We cannot legislate morality, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore those whom Jesus especially cared for, much less exploit them. If we could do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly as Christians in our society, those actions alone would redress a multitude of sins. If we can speak clearly and courageously to the systemic injustice that locks in exploitation and misery for millions, the text, “I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me,” becomes our means to that end.

Was Jesus a socialist? No, he was so much more, more than any ideology could contain or aspire to. Light of Light, Day Ascending, Word from the Beginning, Alpha and Omega.

–Barry Casey taught religion, philosophy, and communication for 37 years in Maryland and Washington, D.C. He is now retired and writing in Burtonsville, Maryland. Read more of his work on his blog, “Dante’s Woods.” Casey’s first collection of essays, “Wandering, Not Lost,” was recently published by Wipf and Stock. Email him at: [email protected]

05 Jan

SOCIAL JUSTICE THROUGH SABBATH OBSERVANCE

In

By Zdravko Plantak — “I hate your Sabbaths!” This sounds like a pretty strong sentiment, right? “I hate, I despise your feasts, I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, . . . Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of the harps, I will not listen.” These are, of course, God’s words recorded by a prophet. Amos penned them in the context of what seems to be utterly detestable to God–Sabbath assemblies and worships that are not matched by social justice that rolls down like an ever-flowing stream. And Amos is not ambiguous on what is at stake in the same chapter [Amos 5] where he defines the social injustice problems in crystal clarity: “You trample on the poor, . . . you oppress . . . and deprive the poor of justice, . . . you turn justice into bitterness and cast righteousness to the ground.”

Of course, Amos is not the only prophet who suggests similar lines of thinking that link the issues of Sabbath and justice. In Isaiah 1, the community is called to repentance from meaningless worship and evil Sabbath assemblies (Vs. 13), “Sabbaths and convocations. I cannot bear your evil assembles . . . as they have become a burden to [God]” because the faithful do not “seek justice, encourage the oppressed, defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow” (Vs. 17, 22-23). The anger of God is against those who have ruined God’s vineyard (God’s people, Is. 5:7) because “the plunder of the poor is in [their] houses [because they are crushing God’s people] and grinding the faces of the poor” (Is. 3:14-15).

I hope to briefly develop three constructive points, as I think we would do well to look again at the meaning of Sabbath observance and its relationship to necessary social implications and applications through the vision of the prophetic responsibility.

Sabbath’s Universality

Philo’s expression that the Sabbath is “the birthday of the world” and consequently a “festival, not of a single city or country, but of the universe” (Philo, On the Creation, XXX, as cited in Sakae Kubo, God Meets Men: A Theology of Sabbath and Second Coming, 1978), p. 19.), points to the universality of the Sabbath. And the universal Sabbath makes no distinction among people. Instead, it makes all people equal before God.

Sabbath teaching does not involve only the Sabbath day; it concerns the other six days of the week as well. The atmosphere and the principles of the Sabbath will not only “extend beyond the worship service to the dinner table and the living room” (Kubo, p. 27.) on the seventh day, but they would also become a part of the Sabbath attitude which ought to be practiced throughout the week. In the words of Jack Provonsha:

True Sabbath-keeping touches the whole of life. The Sabbath sanctifies the week. One cannot be dishonest on Monday and truly keep the Sabbath, because Sabbath- keeping is essentially a posture toward God that is not a one-day-in-seven kind of activity. (A Remnant in Crisis, 1993, p. 87.)

The concern for other people which the believer is called to have on the Sabbath must be extended to a way of life exercised daily. The Sabbatical concern, which extends from the weekly Sabbaths to Sabbatical years also, was to teach the faithful about the needs of the less fortunate, the poor, the widows and the orphans (Ex. 35:12-33). In a similar way, we must develop a greater “Sabbatical” conscience for the poor, the unfortunate, the racially and ethnically disadvantaged, and the powerless whose basic human rights are denied.

As Karen Mains suggests, without the meaningful Sabbath cycle, our spiritual world is being ravaged, defoliated and deforested . . . as the forests in the Amazon River Basin in Brazil, and with similar spiritual consequences. “We have become a dehydrated people, with meager spiritual life, dwelling in desert places of the soul. God meant when He said, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” (Making Sunday Special, 1987, p. 145)

You see, without true Sabbath observance, without regularly entering that promised rest, our personal spirituality and our social concern can become dehydrated, deforested, and ravaged. We are becoming dehydrated people because we forget what Sabbath could bring to our compassion, relationship with, and love for others. On the other hand, a weekly reminder of God’s Shalom offered through Sabbath observance can replenish our compassion for and interest in others.

In the prophet Isaiah’s vision, in that oft-quoted passage in Chapter 58, that one needs to keep one’s feet from breaking the Sabbath and calling it delight (Is, 58:13) is directly linked to the earlier verses that have explicit social justice connection that elaborates on what may be a day acceptable to the Lord: “to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free, and break every yoke; to share your food with the hungry, to provide the poor sojourn with shelter, to clothe the person you see naked, to spend yourselves on behalf of hungry and satisfy the need of the oppressed” (Is 58: 6.7.10).

Jesus is again the supreme example of the way God desired to have fellowship with man and how He intended the Sabbath to bring meaning to the worshipping community. As “the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28), Jesus took pains to clarify the true meaning of the Sabbath. At the time of Jesus, the Sabbath had become a legalistic exercise of self- righteousness on behalf of different groups of believers who wanted to prove their perfection. Jesus, however, pointed out to the almost forgotten humanitarian function of the fourth commandment. As one commentator notes, To counteract prevailing legal interpretations which restricted humanitarian service on the Sabbath to emergency situations only, Jesus intentionally ministered on this day to persons who were not critically, but chronically ill. (Samuele Bacchiocchi, Divine Rest for Human Restlessness, 1980, pp. 194-195)

In such a way Jesus pressed the Sabbath into salvation history, making it a day intended for the benefit of humankind.

The Sabbath points to equality among all human beings. It is a memorial to God, the Creator. Remembering weekly that God is our Creator, and that all human beings are only creatures among whom the differences are really non-essential, should encourage Sabbath observers to accept and respect others regardless of their occupation, race, culture or nationality, ethnic or economic background, ability or disability, or their occupation, or educational level.

Sabbath’s Liberation

So, the Sabbath becomes the true means of liberation for humanity. It celebrates God’s merciful act of liberation and deliverance from the bondage of Egypt (Deut. 5:15), but it also points to the ultimate liberation from sin and all its consequences.

Charles Bradford remarked in his treatise on “The Sabbath and Liberation” that the Sabbath lay at the very heart of the first great freedom movement. Moses delivered God’s message to Pharaoh: “The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to say to you: Let my people go, so that they may worship me” (Ex. 7:16). This was a direct appeal to Pharaoh to allow the enslaved people to observe the Sabbath rest. Later, God re-established the Sabbath as a sign of their liberation (Deuteronomy 5:15).

Moreover, this arrangement was to be permanent be- cause Sabbath rest and Sabbath observance is directly related to human dignity and freedom. Yahweh never intended for one human being to tyrannize another, or for one nation to subjugate another nation (Charles E. Bradford, “The Sabbath and Liberation: With the Sabbath, No One Can Keep Us Down,” Anchor Points, 1993, p. 28).

Several commentators call Isaiah’s description of the Sabbatical attitude in Isaiah 56:1-7 “Yahweh’s manifesto,” or God’s sign of freedom, independence and liberation. “Maintain justice and do what is right. . . . Blessed is the man who does this, the man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it.” And “Yahweh’s manifesto” is relevant and applicable to the whole human family, especially to the outcasts—the poor, the powerless, foreigners (e.g., refugees) and eunuchs (politically and economically impotent). Bradford adds that, “The Sabbath is a sign in perpetuity
and a constant reminder of the relationships that exist between human beings and their God and between human beings and their fellow humans” (p. 28).

In the words of Sakae Kubo: “Sabbath observance has integral social and humanitarian aspects that we dare not forget. The Sabbath, as sign of redemption, points in two directions—to our own redemption and to that of the oppressed. We must bring rest to those who live in servitude (p. 46).

Ironically, we have many times failed to recognize that Sabbath observance should initiate liberation beyond our own community. Even within the church, the principle of equality was not always practiced rigorously. But, as Kubo concludes, if Adventists “fail to practice true fellowship and genuine equality, they betray a lack of understanding of the Sabbath as a sign of fellowship and equality” (p. 46).

Sabbatical Year Principle Through Annual Sabbaths and the Sabbath of Sabbaths

In Deuteronomy 15, the extensions of the weekly Sabbath idea apply to the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee, and it emphasizes almost exclusively humanitarian aspects. From a week of days to a week of years, God’s desire for the poor and the oppressed to be liberated is the prime concern of the true Sabbatical attitude (Ex. 23:11 and Lev. 25:10).

It is fascinating to notice how Jesus’ programmatic speech in Luke 4, where He said that He came to “set at liberty those who are oppressed and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” resembles the description of the Year of Jubilee. If we listen carefully to Leviticus 25:5.8-11, and also the detailed description of the Year for Canceling Debts in Deut. 15:1-11, we can detect the resonances of Jesus’ announcement of His ministry in Luke 4.

Jesus’ work was the true Sabbatation, the proper celebration of the Sabbatical consciousness. The idea of the land resting (lying “unploughed and unused”) on the seventh year focuses on concern for the poor, the slave, the underdog, as well as the rights which go beyond mere human rights to protect and preserve the environment because God cares about the Earth to the point of destroying those who destroy the Earth.

Theodore Friedman, the rabbi of Congregation Beth El in New Jersey and a former editor of Judaism, wrote that the Sabbath “is the anticipation, the foretaste, the paradigm of life in the world-to-come” (“The Sabbath: Anticipation of Redemption,” in Judaism 16, 1967, p. 443).

True Sabbath keeping is “playing heaven.” Rabbi Friedman concludes his article by saying: “The Sabbath is at once the climax of that primordial time and the paradigm of the future time. Therefore, man should so conduct himself on the Sabbath as if the future time were already at hand”
(p. 447).

–Zdravko (Zack) Plantak, PhD, is professor of religion and ethics at the School of Religion at Loma Linda University. Email him at: [email protected]

05 Jan

POLITICS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

In

By André Wang — Living in Portland, Oregon these last six months has been, to put it mildly, interesting. Once hailed as one of America’s most livable cities, during the summer of 2020, Portland endured more than 100 consecutive nights of racial-injustice protests marred by vandalism, chaos, and even loss of life. Every night, the area surrounding the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse in downtown Portland became a war zone. Violence erupted. Property was destroyed. Businesses were looted.

A riot is the language of the unheard. ~Dr. Martin Luther King

American history is teeming with periods of social mobilization when communities of citizens rise up against injustice with the objective of replacing the existing social order with a more just society. Whether the subject of the movement is based on economics (Occupy Wall Street), race (Black Lives Matter), gender (Women’s Suffrage), the environment (Earth Day), or politics (Tea Party), each movement firmly believes in the moral position upon which it is based.

Social justice movements are a quest, not only for change, but radical change; change that is not incremental, but immediate. According to cultural anthropologist David. F. Aberle, social justice movements can be distilled to two fundamental questions: (1) Who is the movement attempting to change? (2) How much change is being advocated? Change can be focused on an individual level (e.g., addiction recovery) or a societal level (e.g., Black Lives Matter). Movements can also advocate for minor change, such as enacting new legislation or restrictions, or radical change, such as anti-globalization.

Nevertheless, America is an incremental nation. Change— or progress—takes time. Hearts and minds need persuasion. Cultures need to acclimate, and older generations need to adapt. But the form, substance, and timing of the change also depends on the type of change being advocated. According to Dr. Aberle, social justice movements fall into one of four categories: redemptive movements, reform movements, revolutionary movements, and alternative movements.

Redemptive Movements

Sometimes called “religious movements,” these endeavors seek “meaning.” They are usually focused on a specific segment of the community with the goal of provoking personal inner change, philosophy, or individual spiritual growth.

Reformative Movements

These are the most common. These movements seek to bring specific change to the social structure. While they are limited in scope and subject matter, they are targeted at the entire population. Environmental movements, women’s suffrage, and Black Lives Matter are examples of reformative movements.

Revolutionary Movements

Sometimes called “resistance movements,” revolutionary movements seek to bring wholesale change to every aspect of society, with the change being sweeping and dramatic. It is a “resistance” against the status quo. Examples include the Civil Rights Movement or one of the myriad political movements, such as the Abolitionist Movement.

Alternative Movements

These movements are typically focused on self-improvement and limited, specific changes to individual beliefs and behavior. Examples include coaching and support programs such as Tony Robbins, Weight Watchers, or Alcoholics Anonymous.

The lifecycle of a social justice movement is also critically important to its effectiveness. According to sociologists Herbert Blumer and Charles Tilly, the longevity of a movement occurs in four stages: (1) preliminary, (2) coalescence, (3) institutionalization, and (4) decline.

In the preliminary stage, people become aware of an issue, decide action is needed, and leaders emerge. Movements al- ways develop organically; they are never contrived or manufactured and are often triggered by an event. Examples of “triggering events” can range from a personal decision to break an addiction to the dramatic death of George Floyd. The coalescence stage is where a community of people bands together and organizes to expose the issue and raise awareness. The institutionalization stage is where the movement has momentum with widespread support. Grassroots volunteerism is no longer necessary as the movement is now organized, typically with substantial financial backing and even paid staff. Last, is the decline stage where the movement loses momentum or just simply concludes. Perhaps the movement success- fully brought about the change that it sought. Perhaps people lost interest, adopted a new cause, or no longer take the issue seriously.

So, if social justice movements are meant to address and, ostensibly, correct societal injustice, why have they become so divisive? Aren’t we all in support of saving the planet? Don’t we all want everyone to have access to health care? Isn’t racial equality something we should have achieved by now?

From my observation of the protests in Portland, there are three factors to the divisiveness. First, everything has become politicized. Everything is now a partisan issue with two polar-opposite sides. For example, take the current issue of mask- wearing in the U.S. in the fight to curb COVID-19. One side sees it as a basic public health action. To others, it is an unreasonable intrusion on individual liberty.

“We’re in this space in the U.S. where the two [political] sides just really hate each other, and that extends to information. So, it’s not just ‘I don’t like you.’ It’s ‘I don’t like your values, I don’t like your facts,’” explains Dr. Peter Ditto, professor of psychology at the University of California, Irvine.

Most interestingly, issues that normally would be a non- political, common challenge for all of society becomes political when proponents and opponents of a cause weaponize it as a wedge issue. According to Dr. Ditto, we’re in a completely different and polarizing time in history. Humanity, he says, has “a long history . . . that some kind of external threat will bring people together. We may fight and fight and fight when the stakes are low. But when a serious threat happens, we pull together.” But, he soberingly concludes, “That just doesn’t seem to be happening, though.”

Second, “cancel culture” has become an important tool of social justice. Popularized over the last decade, cancel culture is a “modern form of ostracism” that refers to the practice of not only withdrawing support from an individual or business that one disagrees with, but even going so far as to destroy them socially and professionally. Those who are subject to this ostracism are said to be “canceled.”

Because people feel disenfranchised and powerless, cancel culture in the social justice context serves as an equalizer for the sense of powerlessness that many people feel. As ideological divisions seem more and more insurmountable, the line be- tween the personal and the political is vanishing. Even though cancel culture seems to generate few lasting consequences for many—we are, after all, resilient and able to move on—it appears to be part of a deeper trend: an inability to dialogue, listen and extend courtesy to those that hold opposite views.

Most “canceling” is horizontal; that is, it is not done to justifiably or constructively criticize someone with the opposite point of view, but to score bragging points against people who mean no harm. As one friend put it, the people doing the canceling “become the self-appointed guardians of political purity.”

Third, civility in discourse is a lost attribute. Somewhere along the way, we abandoned civility and today, people are demeaned, derided and ridiculed for who they are or what they believe. People have gotten bitter and angry; and not just bitter and angry with those who don’t agree with them—they get bitter and angry with those who aren’t as bitter and angry as they are.

Merriam-Webster defines civility as “politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech.” It has its etymology in the Latin word civilis, meaning citizen or person; hence the term civilization. By its very origin, civility recognizes the inherent dignity of the individual and derives from it the basic code of social interaction.

Civility in discourse requires an immense humility. It is not only an acknowledgment that there is another perspective, but that one could be wrong. But it goes even further than that. Humility mandates that we view our counterparts as our moral and intellectual equals.

In his letter to the church in Ephesus, Paul sought to quell a theological conflict raging amongst the citizenry. In his plea for civility in discourse, he writes this: I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 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. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called. One Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:1-6)

Whatever social justice movement we undertake, whether global or local, partisan or non-partisan, let us remember that we are all children of God and stewards of His creation—and to live a life worthy of that calling.

–André M. Wang serves as general counsel and director of public affairs and religious liberty for the North Pacific Union Conference. He writes from Portland, Oregon. Email him at: [email protected]

05 Jan

MORE THAN EQUALITY

In

By Nathan Brown — It was a relaxed and sunny Sunday morning at a camp- meeting in a distant state. Over a breakfast of pancakes and other good things, I had shared a worship reflection as part of the youth program, situated, as youth venues often are at such events, on the far side of the campground. The program had come to an end and I was enjoying the sunshine and talking with a few friends as the crowd dispersed.

My relaxed conversation and state of mind were interrupted by a phone call, asking if I could do a book promotion before the next session began in the main venue in a few minutes’ time. I arranged to drop by the temporary camp bookstore to collect the books to be featured as I hurried to the stage on the other side of the campground.

The plan went smoothly enough, as I grabbed the books at the front of the bookstore with the ease of an incident-free relay baton change and arrived at the next venue with time to catch my breath before being introduced and delivering a presentation of the two or three books I had been asked to promote to the small morning Bible-study crowd. Returning the sample books to the bookstore at a more leisurely pace, I also returned to my more relaxed state of mind—and then my phone buzzed again.

A concerned someone had posted on my social media wall, direct-messaged me, posted on the host conference’s social media feeds and that of the publishing house I work for, all in quick succession in the few minutes since I had stepped onto the stage to promote the books. The “problem” was the T-shirt I was wearing. Dressed as I was for a Sunday-morning breakfast in the youth program with no time to change as I hurried across the campground, even if it had occurred to me (perhaps a T-shirt was underdressed for the main venue), apparently more “troubling” than my casual dress was the single word on the T-shirt: EQUALITY.

It was only a single complainant, but over the following weeks, he was persistent in seeking an “explanation” and trying to draw conference leaders into the conversation about wearing an item of clothing emblazoned with such a “political” message at an Adventist camp meeting. His protest is symbolic of a sense of uneasiness that many church members seem to have about the language of equality, justice, and tolerance that should be more a part of how we address the world around us.

There are two levels at which we need to think about these concepts in larger and more faithful ways. The first is the primary context in which these ethical principles are usually debated: in the political, legal, economic and cultural structures that organize and regulate our lives together. Here we are called to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed” (Proverbs 31:8).

To this task, we bring insights from our origin story that all human beings are created in the image of God (see Genesis 1:27), and affirmed by the incarnation of Jesus and the invitation He offered to “everyone who believes in Him” (John 3:16) for salvation and citizenship in the present and coming Kingdom of God. In short, we have deep theological reasons to insist that all people are created and valued as equals and society should treat them as such, with a particular focus on and prioritization of those who are most marginalized, vulnerable, and excluded.

Rather than contested concepts, as these tend to be in our societal and political contexts, at the second level in our personal attitudes and actions, they should be considered the bare minimum for our public engagement. Some ethicists argue that Christian love, as it is directed toward those in the world around us, could be defined as “equal regard” and Gushee and Stassen argue that such an understanding “is basic to any Christian understanding of love. . . But it seems somehow incomplete” (Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, p. 113).

Authentic Christian ethics must include equality, tolerance and more careful and thoughtful ways of speaking and acting.* These are actually the least we can do, but our faithful calling is much higher and deeper—a call to lead in all our human and communal interactions with love, humility, service and kindness.

Thinking about equality in this way fits by analogy with a statement from English novelist E. M. Forster, describing tolerance as “just a makeshift, suitable for an over-crowded and overheated planet. It carries on when love gives out” (On Tolerance).

Similarly, equality might be the best we can do if we ignore the Bible’s pre-eminent commands to love others, even to the extreme of loving our enemies (see Matthew 5:44). When we simplify and sentimentalize love, we ignore the depth and transformative nature of the way in which we are called to live. But the Bible does not allow us this superficial response.

Consider the attitude that Paul urged we should have in our relationships with others:

Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves.

Don’t look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too. You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though He was God, He did not think of equality with God as something to cling to (Philippians 2:3–6, emphasis added).

Imagine if that earnestly-concerned church member from that Sunday morning at camp meeting was upset because my T-shirted call to equality was insufficient, that equality—even equality with God—was not something we should be clinging to or promoting because it is a lesser good. Ironically, he probably would not have protested nearly so much if my T-shirt had proclaimed love, humility, or kindness. We have tamed and diminished the power of these “church words” to such a degree that we miss the point that these callings are higher and much more politically, economically and culturally disruptive—if only we would take them seriously enough and live them out to their full extent.

Equality is necessary. A passion for the equality of others is something we must insist upon as a foundation for working and speaking up for justice in our world, in turn built on some of our most fundamental beliefs about our world and what it means to be human. But important as it is, equality is a makeshift for systems and institutions that are unable to love. We are called to more. Our equality is not something to cling to. Instead, we are called to love. Everyone equally—as difficult as that will be, in whatever ways we can.

–Nathan Brown is a writer and editor at Signs Publishing in Warburton, Victoria, Australia. Nathan’s newest book is “Advent,” available from your favorite online book retailer. Email him at: [email protected]

*This has come to be termed and often described dismissively as “political correctness” by critics and, while there are obvious excesses in some contexts, using language that is conscientiously kinder and sensitive to how it is heard by others is something we should strive toward.

1 … 161 162 163 164 165 … 255