Blog

By Ed Barnett … Loyalty is absolutely critical in today’s world. Where do your loyalties lie? Is it hard to prioritize them? Politicians are now in a race to win the November 3 elections in the United States. They want your loyalties.

During a recent Zoom meeting with RMC pastors, I presented a list of loyalties and priorities relative to pastoral ministry. The three simple beliefs presented were: 1) Ministers must first have a firm relationship with Jesus. He is our number one priority. Our loyalties must begin with Him; 2) Our second priority must be families. Our loved ones need our loyalty as well; 3) Lastly, we need to be loyal to our pastoral duties.

Our country deserves our loyalty as well.

How do you choose who and what gets your loyalties? Is it based on a biblical belief? Is it simply based on your feelings? What rationale do you apply when choosing your loyalties?

The Bible offers help for making this choice. In the words of Jesus Himself, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24, KJV).

Wikipedia offers an explanation of mammon: “Money, material wealth, or any entity that promises wealth, and is associated with the greedy pursuit of gain.”

The words of Jesus clearly state that loyalty to God must come first. Loyalty to God is primary, as opposed to the pursuit of gain. Yes, we all need to earn money and make a living, but this can’t be the central goal of life.

At one time, Jesus was confronted by a group of Pharisees who were trying to trap Him. They came asking if it is lawful to pay taxes. He had a blunt response:

But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away. (Matthew 22: 15-22, ESV)

Once again, Jesus made it clear that our loyalty must be with God first and then we should abide by the laws of the land. Scripture is clear as to what comes first—our primary loyalties are to be with Jesus and other loyalties follow.

To underline this loyalty principle, 1 John 5:11-13 points out that “God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.”

The words, “life is in His Son” make it clear why Jesus has to be our first loyalty and priority. Our eternal life is dependent on whether Jesus is our top priority.

May you be sure that your first loyalty is Jesus. You can count on His loyalty and be assured of eternal life.

***

Recognizing the importance of loyalty in our broken world, we are presenting this edition of Mountain Views as a contribution to our personal and church evaluation of who and what should be the object of our loyalty.

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

By Ron Price … A friend of mine likes to use the term “simplex” to de- scribe various life-enhancing concepts. By that he means the concepts are simple to understand and implement, but complex in scope and depth of impact. To me, loyalty is a simplex term. You and I would likely agree somewhat on its meaning, but we might differ significantly on its application.

When I hear the term “loyalty,” whether it be in reference to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, my Seventh-day Adventist Church, my spouse, my clients, etc., I correlate the term with “commitment.” While there are varied components of loyalty, commitment is one that should be considered essential, for without commitment, you cannot have loyalty. Commitment is, to many among us, a scary word.

Numerous stories abound about one gender, in particular, being unwilling to commit to marriage. Since I happen to be numbered among that gender, we will, for the moment, let it remain unidentified.

On a more serious note, commitment should be a bit intimidating. It puts you in a position of making choices that, at times, will go against your preferences or desires. As author and psychology professor Scott Stanley says, “Commitment is making a choice to give up other choices.” For example, once I committed to my wife, I chose to give up my right to be physically or emotionally intimate with any other female on the planet. Once I committed to membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I chose to support that church with my contributions of time, finances, defense, etc., first and foremost above any other denomination.

Commitment does not mean I abandon my ability to think for myself and voice concerns when I see behaviors or attitudes with which I cannot entirely agree. It does, however, mean that I must address those differences civilly and biblically. It means I do not just “cut and run” when decisions go against my preferences.

While the act of committing imposes certain limitations, it also brings in its train a degree of empowerment, freedom, and peace. When confronted by a situation that might threaten my marital vow, I don’t need to give it another thought. I don’t have to get entangled in a mental debate of “should I or shouldn’t I?” God said, and I’m confident my wife would agree, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” My commitment to God and to my wife, help me easily avoid entering into a debate on the topic and making a decision I would indeed live to regret. (Please see Hebrews 13:4 for further convincing.)

I believe that between Gethsemane and Calvary, the former was more difficult for Jesus to endure. Please stay with me as I explain how commitment made the difference. On that awful night, our Lord spent in the Garden of Gethsemane, He clearly saw the path marked out before Him, and it caused Him to wonder if perhaps there might be another route for Him to take other than to the Cross. He pleaded with His Father, “Take this cup from me.” He was not fully committed to His mission at that point. His humanity led Him to seek a more comfortable alternative.

This is by no means meant to imply that the Cross was in any way a “piece of cake.” But I am convinced that due to the finality of the commitment He made to His Father the night before, Christ entertained no thoughts of doing other than what He was called to do. He won the battle at Gethsemane, and commitment gave Him the strength He needed to face agony the likes of which we can never fully appreciate.

None of us will ever be called upon to give our lives for the salvation of people, many of whom resent our intrusion into their lives. We will not be asked to choose to die that others may live. But God does call us to live our lives with Him firmly in the driver’s seat. He has laid out a path for us to walk, and He warned us that our way would be filled with danger and disappointment (see John 16:33). But He also gave us His assurance that as we live our lives fully committed to Him, we can expect a great reward to follow.

No one ever said life is, or should be, easy. I’m convinced, however, that the more committed one is to live his or her life by established principles, the easier their life will be. I base this view in part on the wisdom found in Psalm 37:5 (NLT), where David wrote, “Commit everything you do to the LORD. Trust Him, and He will help you.” I also appreciate what Solomon wrote, as found in Proverbs 16:3: “Commit your actions to the LORD, and your plans will succeed.”

So, I hope you will choose to look at the concept of commitment in a positive sense. Please be very careful to whom or to what you determine to commit yourself, but once committed, please let no thing or no one prevent you from carrying out your commitment. By doing so, you can expect to enjoy healthier relationships with yourself and others. Honoring your commitment to Christ will also enable you to one day hear those beautiful words, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”

–Ron Price is a member of the RMC Executive Committee and lives in Farmington, New Mexico. Email him at: [email protected]

By Reinder Bruinsma … The United Kingdom is in many respects unique, and this also applies to its governmental structure. It basically has a two-party parliamentary system, with the governing party on one side of the aisle in the House of Commons, and Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, with its “shadow cabinet,” on the other side. In the Brexit debates in the recent past, the system may not have worked in an optimal way, but the underlying principle of the system is clear: Opposition is not bad and can actually play a very constructive role in politics.

I live in the Netherlands, a country with a multi-party system. When we go to the polls, we seldom have fewer than ten parties to choose from, which must then divide the 150 seats in the Second Chamber and the 75 seats in the First Chamber of our parliament (comparable to the House and the Senate, respectively, in the US). Presently, the Dutch cabinet consists of ministers from four different parties. It can count on the support of a majority of just one in the Second Chamber, while it does not have majority-support in the First Chamber. In many cases the cabinet must seek support from one or more opposition parties. This requires a certain degree of loyalty from the opposition and presupposes from the government a willingness to listen to the opposition and, often, to seek reasonable compromises. Interestingly enough, when during the pandemic crisis the cabinet post that deals with hospitals became vacant, a member of one of the opposition parties was asked to temporarily fill that post, as he was deemed to be the most qualified person for the job.

I am so used to this political system that in my mind the concepts of “loyalty” and “opposition” do not necessarily conflict. But what about a “loyal opposition” in the church— at its various levels? Those who have sat on local church boards, conference boards or other church committees, know how awkward things can be when there is a person who is opposed to any proposal that might come from the chair, or when there is a small group which is always com- plaining about various programs and policies, and is always suspicious that administrators are keeping vital information from them. And, unfortunately, all too often pastors and other church leaders are confronted with constant accusations about their alleged lack of orthodoxy. That kind of opposition can easily poison the atmosphere and have a toxic influence on the church. Yet, at the same time, it must be admitted that not all complaints and criticisms are unjustified. But is the idea of a “loyal opposition” in the church not too far-fetched?

Independent Ministries and Critical Voices

To define “loyal opposition” is far from easy. Let’s first look at the phenomenon of independent ministries. Christianity in the United States, much more than elsewhere in the world, is characterized by innumerable “independent ministries.” The fact that in the United States of America these ministries flourish more than anywhere else may well have to do with the American utilitarian spirit: If you see a need, you investigate what it takes to respond to that need, and then you start a “ministry” to do deal with that need. No one knows how many independent ministries are operating in Adventism. They vary from one-person-led websites to well- oiled organizations with multi-million-dollar budgets, and everything in between. Traditionally, the church has established a number of criteria to differentiate between “supportive” and “non-supportive” ministries. One of these criteria is whether a ministry truly supports or competes with the denomination or with denominational entities, in particular with regard to financial resources. It seems to me that organizations that are truly supportive may be classified as “loyal,” even when they may have their special emphases, that the church may see as one-sided, and may be critical of some tendencies and methods of the church. The church should not too easily feel threatened by the activities of such supportive ministries. Continuous dialogue between the church and these independent entities can only be beneficial for both parties.

There is, however, another kind of opposition that is not always thought of as loyal. Some independent publications are very critical of particular denominational policies and some authors’ books—either published by Adventist publishers or elsewhere. They point to tendencies in the church that they want to warn against in no uncertain terms. And quite a few lecturers tour the world with messages which a section of the church finds quite objectionable, while another section at the other side of the theological spectrum warmly welcomes this point of view. It is clear, however, that these popular speakers in most cases do not represent middle-of-the-road Adventism.

Do the publishers of these journals, the authors of these books and these traveling speakers belong to the church’s loyal opposition? It is impossible for me (or anyone) to give a definitive answer. Whether opposition is “loyal” depends to a large extent on the methods that are used (which are at times quite dubious) and the underlying motivation. Do they build and strengthen the church or is their own status or organizational structure their primary concern?

Dissent

It is crucial that those who see themselves as part of the “loyal opposition” continue to recognize the authority of the church and its duly elected leaders. Gilbert Meilaender, a professor in Christian ethics at the University of Valparaiso, makes an important point when he maintains that the authority of the church must be respected, because the church is addressed by the Lord. However, he adds that there is also another aspect: “The believer is also addressed singly. That is, each believer is addressed not only by the Body of Christ, but also by the Head of that Body, the Lord Himself.”1

While it is true that individual church members or groups of members must listen to the voice of the church, the church also has the obligation to listen to, and examine, the views of the loyal opposition. “Even if found unacceptable in many respects,” such opinions may contain “a part of the truth, which can then be opened up in fuller and richer ways.”2 Johannes A. van der Ven, a Dutch professor in practical theology, is of the opinion that the church is always in need of reformation and that this reformation will never take place without conflict. It may actually be a sign that a church is quite dead, when there is no diversity of opinion and when no dissenting voices are heard. 3

It is important that the church—at all its organizational levels—find productive ways to deal with persons, groups and organizations that challenge it with respect to methods and policies, the use of resources, and yes, also with regard to theological and moral issues. Dialogue is of the essence. Listening to each other before speaking (and condemning) can prevent misunderstandings and will prove to be enriching.

There may, however, come a point when the tension between the official views of the church and those of the “opposition” rises to a point where the church must take measures to protect its identity and unity. The church has the right to discipline members (including pastors), when they manifest a persistent lack of loyalty and no longer support the essential Adventist beliefs. History has, however, provided ample proof that this should always be a measure of last resort. Re- moving dissenting voices has usually resulted in acrimonious controversy and widespread polarization.

Love for the Church

In a world church of over twenty million members, with a large number of cultural and historical backgrounds, diversity is not only inevitable but also a great enrichment. Church members who make up local churches also tend to come from very diverse backgrounds and are at various stages of spiritual growth. It is to be expected that opinions differ about spiritual issues as well as organizational and material matters.

The fact that individual or corporate opposition arises in various forms can help the church to develop, to avoid and correct errors and to find new and promising ways of ex- pressing and spreading its message. The one absolute condition is that all forms of opposition are “loyal.” Opposition must always be anchored in love for the church and for the Lord of the church. In his famous chapter about love, the apostle Paul expressed what loyal opposition looks like from a biblical perspective. Just exchange the word love with the term “loyal opposition”:

Loyal opposition is patient, loyal opposition is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Loyal opposition does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)  

–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]

References

1Meilaender, op. cit., p. 37.
2Ibid., p. 35.
3Johannes A. van der Ven, Ecclesiology in Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), p. 381.

By Barry Casey … Whoever is loyal, whatever be his cause, is devoted, is active, surrenders his private self-will, controls himself, is in love with his cause, and believes in it.1

Sometimes the most consequential moments of life arrive when we’re looking in another direction. I was nineteen when I realized that what I enjoyed doing could become what I did for a living. In high school, studying under an admired teacher, I thought I wanted to teach religion and history to high school students. I had read Neil Postman’s Teaching as a Subversive Activity, and Jonathan Kozol’s Death at an Early Age, and I saw myself blazing new paths in education. In college, with a sharper focus and a new awareness of my strengths and limitations, I realized how much I loved learning. I also recognized that I needed to leave high- school teaching to others and aim for college and university classrooms.

Sometimes we need an image, a token, something to write out and recite to ourselves, a liminal window through which we can imagine a sacred place for ourselves. I found this:

The Lord God has given me
The tongue of a teacher
And skill to console the weary
With a word in the morning;
He sharpened my hearing
That I might listen like one who is taught.

And I found this:

He will not break a bruised reed, Or snuff out a smoldering wick . . . 3

These texts brought up the ideal teacher, one who teaches in humility because he or she is still learning, and who hopes to encourage the broken and dispirited. Ten more years of second-guessing myself, a lot of hard work, and several degrees later, I finally entered the classroom. I had found a cause which would hold my loyalty for decades. I also had a standard before me to which I could aspire.

***

As children, we begin in loyalty almost by default. We are loyal without realizing it, without knowing why, only that it is right to be so. We discover it first when something or someone we love is at risk. Later, conscious of the power and imperative of choice, we commit to a cause.

The complexity of loyalty as a virtue begins with the warning flag, “blind loyalty.” The blindly loyal, we imagine, follow someone or some cause without question. We, of course, don’t think ourselves that stupid. We’ve carefully considered the cause, weighed the cost, and only then made a choice.

We don’t want to think we’ve given our total support to someone who is deeply flawed. Even more, we don’t want to think we weren’t aware of those flaws. But since all of us are flawed, how can loyalty be something that is truly given? Does anyone deserve our full loyalty? And is a conditional loyalty even real loyalty?

When we pledge loyalty to some cause—or someone— we place ourselves in an active field of moral choice. The conventional political idea of loyalty is one of total allegiance. It is the loyalist, after all, who provides the spirit and power to overcome setbacks and endure to victory. It is the loyalist who shows up at the rallies, rings the doorbells, wears the T-shirt and the funny hat, and sacrifices time, money, and energy to the cause. The loyalist does not begrudge the cost, however, for the cause and its success is the reward. The question is whether that can be achieved without moral compromise.

Our loyalties conflict. Sometimes they cut us up and spread us out in little pieces between family, friends, neighborhood, city, state, country, religion, sports teams, schools. How do we choose? Do we pick the one with the least personal consequences and/or the greatest reward? There are many causes which we are implored to support, and every time we do, we give away a piece of ourselves. The tendency is to recoil and withdraw, if only to preserve some sense of autonomy in our choice-making.

Nevertheless, we are drawn to causes, said Josiah Royce, in his The Philosophy of Loyalty, one of the few philosophical examinations of loyalty. “A man is loyal when, first, he has some cause to which he is loyal; when, secondly, he willingly and thoroughly devotes himself to this cause; and when, thirdly, he expresses his devotion in some sustained and practical way, by acting steadily in the service of his cause.”4

Royce said we live in a paradox that defines our loyalties. The causes we commit to and the standards we try to uphold come from outside ourselves. But the will to commit and the assurance that we are committing to a worthy cause, can only come from within. We might be wrong about the depth of our commitment, and the cause to which we commit might not be all that we think it is. Yet, we make those choices and stand by our loyalty because it is what draws the many strands of our life together. It gives us purpose and meaning, and it reveals to us what we love. It is the risk through which we find ourselves. The principle that guides, said Royce, reflects the triad of a marriage: there are the two lovers and there is their loyalty to the marriage itself. Loyalty to loyalty. In the words of Gabriel Marcel, another philosopher who wrote about loyalty, “I hope in thee for us.”

Given the fact that our moral view is formed from the outside in, how do we know if a cause is right? What reason can we give for why this duty should be our duty? “My duty,” says Royce, “is simply my own will brought to my clear self-consciousness. That which I can rightly view as good for me is simply the object of my own deepest desire set plainly before my insight.”5

I read this as clarifying and revealing what my own heart longs for, but my head has not yet understood. This is where the Holy Spirit impresses us to move ahead or hold back. In the parable of the sower and the seed—that wildly improbable but liberating analogy—we become the good soil. What we find to give ourselves to is proven right by the effects it has in our life—and the lives of those we touch.

“Loyalty is for the loyal man . . . chief amongst all the moral goods of his life,” comments Royce, “because it furnishes to him a personal solution of the hardest of human practical problems, the problem: ‘For what do I live? Why am I here? For what am I good? Why am I needed?’”6

Recently, a friend sent me an article about Bobby Kennedy’s last days. My friend had dropped out of college in his freshman year to work on Kennedy’s presidential campaign because he was inspired by his ideals. Even now, over fifty years later, he recalls what a pivotal decision that was in his life. “It was the year I learned the meaning of grace from a candidate for president,” he wrote.

Reading his remarks and the words of Kennedy as he consoled and inspired a crowd of mostly Black Americans hours after Martin Luther King, Jr., had been murdered, my eyes filled with tears. Not just for the experience of my friend, and not only for the depth of compassion in Bobby Kennedy’s spontaneous speech, but also because it reminded me of my own admiration for him as a man whose ideals were aimed at the healing of the nation, ideals to which I was loyal as a 16-year-old and still find worthy today.

Our loyalty to Christ, rendered real through experience, allows for both commitment and doubt. It is not blind nor is it unthinking. It rises from gratitude and grace, not from fear or greed. It is conditional in the sense that we are fallible; it is firm because we find our true home within it.

–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. More of the author’s writing can be found on his blog, Dante’s Woods. His first collection of essays, “Wandering, Not Lost,” was recently published by Wipf and Stock. Email him at: [email protected]

References

1Royce, Josiah. The Philosophy of Loyalty. With a new introduction by John J. McDermott. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, 1908, p. 12.
2Isa. 50:4, NEB.
3Isa. 42:3, NEB.
4Royce, p. 9.
5Royce, p. 13.
6Royce, p. 28.