Blog

28 Mar

A SOAPBOX OF SARCASM

In

By Tony Hunter … The ability to think is horribly inconvenient.

And, while it’s bad enough that I possess this uncomfortable ability, other people can apparently do it as well. This is both unfortunate and problematic. How are we, as a people, supposed to maintain a perfectly identical and uniform set of beliefs and practices if just anyone can have ideas and inspiration and original thought? How can we all be the same and be comfortable in our homogeny if someone else somewhere else thinks better and differently than the person responsible for the thinking that led to our uniform traditions and practices that allow us the luxury of conducting ourselves without the burden of thought and consideration?

Don’t the newer thinkers, with their more complete palate of information and subsequent alternative perspective, understand that our forefathers already figured everything out? I mean, really. Those original pre-Adventists who became Adventists already went through the trouble of coming from different backgrounds with different ideas and shared them together so that everyone could learn from each other and gain a perspective of God and reality that they didn’t already possess. They already took the extra time to fellowship together, but then encourage each other to continue fellowshipping with their original groups so that they could learn from both sides and maybe come to even greater and better understandings, and maybe help those around them do the same.

As we all now know, they figured it all out so that we didn’t have to put any real thought into our faith and beliefs and God and reality and health and science and love and anything, and then they predicted the end of the world with accuracy so stunning that they sold everything and left their fields unplowed and succeeded in going to heaven.

Well, okay, they got that part wrong, but they gave it a good think, figured it all out again and moved forward through shared ideas about health and the Sabbath and revised it all more than a few times so that we don’t have to. They even took the time to make sure they never formulated a creedal statement or organized a formal religion because to formalize an organized religion would be akin to becoming Babylon because focus would shift from

real progressive thought and continued present truth, to simply doing whatever to maintain the organization at the expense of the true mission. And they never made a creedal statement because they knew we would keep learning and thinking and discovering and if they cemented stuff, new thought couldn’t really take place.

Okay, okay, that’s my bad again. It took them less than 20 years to decide to formalize their organization for the sake of finances and expansion of ministry, and then another 25 or so before the very organization that they started, against their own judgment, started ostracizing the very people who formed it for the high crime of thinking better thoughts and valuing love over tradition. At least they had the clarity of thinking to ship off their primary thought leader, who they believed had an inspired and prophetic gift, to a country far, far away so she couldn’t promote uncomfortable ideas and encourage people to think more.

Whew, right? They totally dodged that bullet.

But at least they never formalized any sort of creed like they said they wouldn’t. At no point did they create a list of fundamental beliefs that in many, and even most, circles became the criteria for baptism instead of the cross of Christ and Him crucified.

I mean, okay, I guess they sort of did that too. But thank goodness, right?! At least then they had this document written down so that people could officially not have to think anymore. Well, sure, they could think, obviously,

as long as what they thought was even better ways of coming to the exact same conclusions they had already come to. Because that’s what thinking is for. It’s for thinking the same thing they thought before and discovering new things, as long as they were the same things they

already knew. Because to come to a different conclusion meant they might fire you and ship you off to another country again.

And really, who can af-FORD that kind of inconvenience?

It’s just really fortunate that we figured out that to use the minds that God gave us and the ability to think with them was a terrible idea. What was God thinking? I certainly don’t know, but He clearly wasn’t thinking it as good as we were. Otherwise, He wouldn’t have let us do it.

Obviously.

God should have known, as we do, that difference and diversity are bad. How can we be all the same with that kind of mess? If someone else starts thinking, they will come to a conclusion that may be different, and then we will have to tell them they are wrong and bad. If people just weren’t allowed to think, then no one would ever be wrong and bad!

See how simple and blissful thoughtlessness can be? It’s such a peaceful, beautiful thing.

If we can just keep thought and thinking away, we can keep everything the way we like it and everyone in their place—all the men where they are supposed to be, all the women where THEY need to be, and all the not-white people in their place too. Because if we think about it

too much and do it with any sort of integrity, another problem to be avoided, we might find that none of us is better than the other and that God doesn’t hate the differences in any of us, and we’d have to treat each other with equality and love.

It’s a good thing we already showed that God doesn’t really know what’s up.

What we really need is to randomly be that one thing Jesus named us, and do it out of context, and just be like sheep. And then just follow whichever fluffy white one is in

front, and if we can all do it, it will be okay. Because when whichever mostly blind sheep in front walks off the cliff, all the rest of us can go down with him.

Okay, now I’m going to step off my soapbox of sarcasm.

Everyone is different. This was an intentional design by our Creator. We look different, sound different, act different, and think different. This is as it should be. It was God’s will and desire and that has not changed. We are finite beings with finite knowledge who know very little. If we want to know more, we have to pray, study, and think. If we want to grow, we have to think.

Muscles only grow when they are placed in tension with themselves and their environment. That is also how we grow. We place our minds in tension with ourselves and the thoughts around us. We don’t already know it all. We haven’t thought all the thoughts.

Adventists don’t know everything. We haven’t thought everything. We don’t have all the facts. And the ramifications of that are huge.

Perhaps that’s something worth thinking about.

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

28 Mar

RIGHTEOUSNESS IS LOVE

In

By Shayne Mason Vincent … Having been a devoted lover of metal music prior to my conversion, it was embarrassing to admit I was a Chris- tian. Most of my young life had been dedicated to anger and being hard. So, when I first came into the Adventist faith, I was relieved by the fact that I didn’t have to share the cheesy “Jesus loves you” line with everyone. Adventism was, thankfully, heady, not sappy.

I remember an experience during those times when I was donating plasma (my gas and cigarette fund). The fella next to me had his machine land on the number 666 and commented on it with a shudder. I saw it as the perfect opportunity to share the mark of the beast! But my captive audience, for some reason, wasn’t so excited (neither were my uncle, my friends, and basically almost everyone I talked with).

A few months passed and I was “witnessing” at a local park. An unwitting passerby had been trapped in my zealous, “fall of Babylon faith” spiel when we heard someone screaming. We looked over to the left where a young lady on rollerblades was rocketing down an embankment that ended abruptly at a solid stone wall. It didn’t end well. Feeling the prompting of the Spirit, I went down to help. But her family was fast on her heels and made it there first. And so, there I stood, clueless and gawking. After a minute or two when someone else walked up, the mother said with steely eyes, “Oh great, another spectator.” I was cut to the heart.

For the first time, it dawned on me how useless my pontificating was when someone was in actual need. It was at that moment that the Spirit sliced open a piece of my hard heart with a recent sermon I had heard, “Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10 NKJV). The preacher pressed his point home, “If the keeping of the law is love, then all our talk about the law, the law, the law, is clueless and blind, because righteousness is love!”

I walked away from the scene stunned as the meaning of his sermon hit home. Painfully, I realized my hypocrisy. It meant that my baptism, my knowledge, my condemnation of other denominations didn’t make me a Christian—only the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit could do that. As it says in 1 Corinthians 13:2 (CSB), “If I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can move mountains but

do not have love, I am nothing.” My faith was powerless because I had viewed the very nature of God as “cheesy.”

Since those days, I have asked congregations, “What is righteousness?” And their answers were always the same, “the keeping of the law.” My heart aches at the many times I have heard in Sabbath schools, “All Christians ever talk about is ‘love, love, love’; we need to get back to the ‘truth’!” But doctrine is cold comfort when you’re in a nursing home and no one visits you. Doctrine is cold comfort for a child who needs a father. Doctrine is cold comfort when your boss is a tyrant and your responsibilities to family give you no option but to stay.

People need more from life than platitudes. They need Jesus. If I truly loved the “law of God” as I claimed, then I should have also been obsessed with “love,” because that is what it means to keep the law. As it says in James 1:27 (TVB), Real, true religion from God the Father’s perspective is about caring for the orphans and widows who suffer needlessly … Needless suffering. Interesting word—needless. It means it doesn’t have to be that way.

I slowly came to realize that righteousness wasn’t something special, apart from normal life, above the “common.” Holiness had become an idol for me, as though it was the vehicle to God, rather than a gift from Him. The Truth I needed to “get back to” was Jesus. His life of love and sacrifice are the fulfillment of the truth! For He is the Truth (John 14:6).

Therefore, when a parent doesn’t yell and shame their kid when they mess up, they have performed a holy act. Instead, they come alongside their child, and with patient kindness, show them a better way. They are being like Jesus. The one who is closest to God is the mother that wakes up at 2 a.m. to lovingly feed her screaming child.

Or the parent who works a 50-hour week doing a job they hate so their kids are provided for. And then when they get home, they love on their children, instead of drinking their troubles away. That is what real righteousness and character look like because it is done in the Spirit’s fruit of love.

Need proof? Here is the biblical “here a little, there a little” formula:

God is righteous (Deuteronomy 32:3-4) and The law is righteous (Psalms 119:75-76)
+
God is love (1 John 4:7-8) and The fulfillment of law is love (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:13-14)
=
If God and the law are righteous, and God and the law are love, then Righteousness is Love!

Just imagine if Adventism was known for its love! If when people spoke of us, they didn’t automatically think, “Oh, the vegetarians,” or, “Oh, the Ellen G. White thing.” What would Adventism look like if the gospel were at the core of all our beliefs:

The Second Coming would be about God bringing hope to those living in a world that is falling apart.
The resurrection for the dead would be God giving hope for those who have lost the ones they love most.
Health would just be something that exponentially improves your life.
Sabbath would be known as an escape from the exhaustion of industrialization.
Church would be known as an experience of acceptance and supportive love and family for those lonely in an isolated world.
The judgment would be reserved for God putting an end to corruption and injustice in this world.
And salvation would be about knowing God and being grateful for what He freely gives us.

That day at the park completely changed the trajectory of my life. I began to love those who were right around me; and it was because I actually cared, not because it was expected, or in the pursuit of salvation. I learned to soften my heart, even with my enemies. And while there have been many ups and downs in my relationship with God, my soul is alive. My walls have come down. I even began tearing up watching Anne of Green Gables for the first time. Believe me, even being able to watch that show was a bigger miracle than quitting smoking!

And best of all, my “Mark of the Beast” evangelism has become a tongue-in-cheek part of my past. My friends and I now joke to the single guys, “Just tell her about the mark of the beast and she’ll be yours.” Or, for evangelism, “Just tell them about the mark of the beast and they’ll be ready for baptism this Sabbath!” Humor aside, there is, of course, a proper time and place for prophecies, especially in the times we live in.

But insofar as redemption itself is concerned, it is my hope that the Adventist church of the future will have finally accepted the implications of a true Pauline New Covenant gospel (without throwing the baby out with the bathwater). That they will come to understand that the fruit of the Spirit is the real antitypical fulfillment of the law. And that righteousness is love. After all, Jesus made it painfully clear what it means to be His follower, His “remnant”: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples if you love one another” (John 13:35 CSB).

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

28 Mar

MORALITY: MINE, YOURS, AND THEIRS

In

By Geoff Patterson … Reading the Bible can sometimes be a startling experience for those with a strong sense of 21st Century morality. For example, Abraham’s nephew Lot finds two strangers in the town square and, as the morality of the day required, invited and urged them not to stay in the town square but instead to lodge with him and his family. Unfortunately, later that night the immoral men of the town came to Lot’s door and demanded he send out to them the men he was hosting that they might have sexual relations with them, a demand to which Lot replied: “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” (Genesis 19:7-8).

In the context of his time, Lot was acting “morally,” for it seems morality demanded that to take someone into your house was to commit yourself to their safety and well-being at all costs. Yet I think it clear enough to you and me that his offer wasn’t just immoral, it was appalling.

Abraham’s failings seem tame in comparison but was it really moral to allow Abimelech to believe Sarah was Abraham’s sister, thus putting his wife in danger of being sexually assaulted simply for the sake of his own safety (Genesis 20). In addition, according to later writings, Abraham was out of line for even marrying his half-sister in the first place (Leviticus 18:9). And was Jacob acting “morally” when he married two sisters, Leah and Rachel, and then, likely without consent, took their servant girls as concubines? Perhaps it was a result of these unfortunate decisions that the counsel we find in Leviticus 18:18 was written.

So, what do we do? Should we cancel Lot, and Abraham, and Jacob, given the obvious immorality they display? Or should we censor the book of Genesis because it lacks trigger warnings and fails to take a strong stand against such blatant immorality?

We do ourselves a disservice when we attempt to hold Old Testament characters to 21st Century morality. But we also do ourselves a disservice when we attempt to hold 21st Century citizens to what serves as Old Testament morality. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem: morality changes. Which leads me to suggest, if we would remain moral in our day, so must we.

Let me give an example from my own lifetime. I will be 57 this year, which makes me no longer young, but not exactly old either. Yet, in my lifetime, I have seen some very significant shifts in “morality”. For example, when I was a child, interracial marriage was considered by much of society and the church to be immoral. In fact, in many places, it was illegal (for example, see Loving v. Virginia, April 10, 1967, eight days after my second birthday). Yet today, anyone taking this position would be viewed as holding immoral views centered in racism, so much so that after George W. Bush visited Bob Jones University in the year 2000, he felt compelled to issue an apology for “failing to criticize the school’s anti-Catholic views and racial policies during his visit to the Greenville, S.C., campus.” (See: Los Angeles Times, March 4, 2000)

Bob Jones University would soon after drop its “no interracial dating” policy: what had once been established as morality was now being dropped as immoral. Yet in the Bible, such moratoriums were well supported. The Bible reports that Nehemiah, when he found that the some of the men had taken foreign wives, confronted them, cursed them, beat them, and pulled out their hair, among other things (Nehemiah 13).

And earlier, before Nehemiah’s time, Ezra had counseled that morality demanded the men of Israel “put away” all the foreign wives and their children, an act that we today would consider the height of immorality (Ezra 10).

Let me go on record with this: I do believe there is such a thing as Truth with a capital “T,” meaning an ultimate, unassailable reality known and established by God. I also believe there is ultimate Right (with a capital “R”) and Wrong (with a capital “W”). Plus, I believe that morality, in every age, is based on these immutable realities. But all too often, if the examples I’ve stated above are a fair indication, it seems morality as manifest in each age, is little more than Truth and Right and Wrong viewed through the lens of current culture.

The good news is that we aren’t expected by God to be “moral” Old Testament believers. And we aren’t expected by Him to be “moral” 1880s believers or 1950s believers. Yet we are expected to be “moral” 2022 believers.

But what does that mean? What is morality for our time? How many of the ancient and not-so-ancient morals have themselves become immoral? And how much of the “new morality” will one day cause horror to those who come after us? How should we, as 21st Century Seventh-day Adventist Christians, live? Is there just one morality for our time? Who gets to decide?

How much room for diversity of thought and even morality should there be within the church? Can the “Black Lives Matter” activist and the “Make America Great Again” proponent live alongside one another in Christian love and respect? Clearly, the “morality” driving both groups is not the same. Are the differences greater than the professions that might hold us together (righteousness by faith, the Creator God, the soon return of Jesus)? Can we live together in peace without a singular morality?

If our moralities are the result of Truth filtered through our culture and experience, does this explain, in large part, why we end up with such different morals? And are the capital “T” Truths big enough to hold us together? “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Does “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” still hold, regardless of BLM or MAGA status?

We all know we are supposed to be moral. The problem is, what does that mean right now?

Perhaps there is wisdom to help us in Ecclesiastes 3:

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die; … a time to kill, and a time to heal; …
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; …
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; …
a time to love, and a time to hate; …
a time for war, and a time for peace.

In this list of actions, we find dichotomous behaviors that might be considered moral or immoral, depending upon the situation. This suggests that when the morality we have chosen traps us on only one side of these dichotomies, we will likely fail to fulfill the duties of our day, and thus fail to be moral 21st Century Christians. There are times when war is moral, but also times when it is not. There are times when speaking up is moral, and times when it is not. There are times when killing is moral, and times when it is not. Are there also times when the drive behind BLM is right, and times when MAGA is the way?

Perfect adherence to any list of rules, no matter who made the list, will never be enough to guarantee we are living moral lives. Moral living takes continual effort of heart, mind, and spirit, and is only achieved through trial and error and a willingness to learn. As the author of Hebrews says: “… solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” (Hebrews 5:14)

There is no perfectly complete list of the moral rules for our day. There never has been a perfectly complete list, even in the days of Israel. Yet we know God calls us to live moral lives. If we would be the church God has appointed for this day, we must always be seeking, learning, and testing ourselves against the convictions of one another. It is the blessing of God, not the curse, that puts us in community with others who see a very different morality.

Let’s be mature believers, like the men of Issachar in the days of David, “… men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do …”

(1 Chronicles 12:32). We are 2022 Seventh-day Adventist Christians. May God grant us the ability to know and do our moral duty.

–Geoff Patterson is senior pastor at Boulder Adventist Church, Boulder, Colorado. Email him at: [email protected]

28 Mar

THINGS THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST

In

By Nathan Brown … As school was opening for the new year in Australia, a Christian (not Adventist) school made national headlines after its new principal sent an ultimatum to parents. An email sent on the eve of the school’s re-opening, included a new enrollment contract that required parents to commit to their children respecting traditional sexual orientation and gender identities. In a heated political and cultural environment, the news about this school’s demands sparked media attention and debate. But talking with a parent from the school, I was struck by the reality that, while this ultimatum was perhaps intended as a shot in the ongoing “culture wars,” it was felt less as a matter of public debate or point-scoring than an action attacking existing members of the school community and destroying much of the school’s hard-earned community spirit.1

Or consider a different kind of example. A recent book I helped publish tells the story of a pastor—the author— who specifically invited six mothers of gay children he was aware of in his “normal” suburban Adventist congregation to meet at his home one Sabbath afternoon. Because not often talked about, most of these women were not aware that they shared experiences in common with others with whom they had attended church for many years. They arrived nervously, but the conversation soon flowed and new understandings and friendships were formed, with affirmation of their love for the respective children.2

More than a decade ago, I wrote a “controversial” editorial that asked questions about how we relate to LGBTQ people and dared to suggest that our first response ought to be modeled on the “scandalous inclusiveness” of Jesus.3 There was much response—a surprising amount of it positive. But one of the most treasured responses came some years later when, at a large church event, I fell into conversation with a retired church evangelist who thanked me for “that editorial.” He told me that the editorial had begun a personal journey for him that had a profound impact in his family over the ensuing years.

When one of his younger relatives had come out, this reputedly-conservative evangelist was the last in the extended family to be told because the family feared how he would react. Instead, he told me, he was able to respond with love—and a number of relationships in his family were strengthened, where they might otherwise have been seriously damaged.

I was struck by how these stories from different contexts demonstrate the introductory comments from a recent book pointing out that the primary challenge when it comes to how we respond to many social issues is not external pressures but internal realities: “We’ve done a disservice by painting sexual minorities as outsiders and painting this issue as originating in the outside world. LGBTQ people are already in our churches, silently observing, asking if they are wanted. We face the primary challenge of gay, bisexual, and transgender people growing up inside our churches and schools. The first challenge is about our own people.” 4

We can apply this recognition, by analogy, to many of the social and cultural issues that create controversy in our churches and communities. As much as we might assume about our neighbors, our family members, those we share a pew with, and those we work with, we are more diverse than we often assume. And we can do damage when we seek to impose our expectations of “normal” faith and action on others. While there are times when we should speak up, our railing against perceived outrages in the world around us are likely to be heard less “out there” than they are heard and felt much closer to home.

This article is not about the specific issues of sexual orientation and gender identities. I am not going to quote any of the Bible verses that are often cited—or employed as cudgels—in these cultural debates. Yet it is no less an article about theology—perhaps more so. It is about the theology of how we live together, love each other, listen to each other, and learn together. Something the Bible says so much more about.

These principles—and questions and challenges—also apply to our lives beyond the church and our witness in the wider world. Some years ago, the then Australian Attorney General made headlines and sparked public discussion when he made a speech to the national parliament in which he asserted that people should have the “right to be bigots.” He was speaking in the context of debating possible limits on freedom of speech, particularly in considering how that speech might hurt or harm others. It was awkward for some to have this question put so bluntly, even if in supporting that right. But there are certainly those among the Christian community who consider being considered a bigot a badge of honor.

Even as we might defend the principles of freedom, we must also recognize that the unbridled exercise of some of these freedoms are not without consequences. Whether in our churches, families, or communities, what we say matters and how we listen and respond matters. This is as true for our neighbor down the street or that mother sitting along the pew or the faceless person you are arguing with on social media. We might insist on our freedom to speak, but others will be equally free to dismiss us as jerks or bigots. Sometimes we and they might both be right—but by virtue of them being right, we are wrong.

When we resort to the language of rights and freedoms to defend what we might say or how we respond to people around us and among us, we have probably already lost the debate, even if only by turning it into a debate. We are called to live beyond the law, above insisting on our freedom of expression, laying down the verse-cudgels of the culture wars. Instead, we offer an alternative vision for life, for community, for well-being and seek to live it out in our churches and in the world around us: “But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!” (Galatians 5:22, 23, NLT).

We might have the right to speak, freedom to insist on our view of the world and how we think it should be, but we have the greater responsibility to love, the calling to kindness and the practices of faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. If we focus more on these, we will not only change our attitude to the world around us, but, it seems will also transform the environment of our churches. Them is us; they are we. That should require us to re-imagine and reformat our churches and communities, and rethink some of our assumptions, even some of how we have formed and expressed our theology in the past. But there’s no law against that.

–Nathan Brown is a writer and editor at Signs Publishing near Melbourne, Australia. His Christmas devotional book Advent: Hearing the Good News in the Story of Jesus’ Birth is great for seasonal reading and gifting. Email him at: [email protected]

1 Concerned Parents of Citipointe Christian College, “Why we, as Christian parents, cannot sign a school contract that condemns gay or transgender students,” The Sydney Morning Herald, February 2, 2022, www.smh.com.au/national/why-we-as-christian-parents-cannot-sign-a-school-contract-that-condemns-gay-or-transgender-students-20220202-p59t68.html

2 Bruce Manners, The Command: Learning to Love Like Jesus (Signs Publishing Company, 2021), pages 90–1..

3 Nathan Brown, “Beyond Assumptions,” Record, October 4, 2008, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/AAR/AAR20081004-V113-38.pdf

4 Alicia Johnston, The Bible & LGBTQ Adventists: A Theological Conversation About Same-sex Marriage, Gender, and Identity (Affirmative Collective, 2022), page 4.

28 Mar

ADVENTISM, SOCIAL NORMS, AND DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT

In

By Dick Stenbakken … The title itself raises red flags.

It is often thought that as Adventists we, along with many other conservative Christians, adhere to theological concepts firmly rooted in biblical truth and practices that are absolute, and do not change. That means (changing) social norms and diversity of opinions (that might challenge prevailing thought) are, at best, as welcome as ants at a picnic. At worst, anathema. But is that true? Or is it an emotional reaction to the never-ending change of life and society?

Any change brings a sense of discomfort and or disequilibrium. For the most part, we are more comfortable with the familiar because, well, it is familiar. True enough, social norms do change. That is the trajectory of history. As an example, many Old Testament patriarchs had multiple wives. Not so in New Testament times, and certainly not acceptable in our congregations today. That is a change in social norms that we welcome and gladly follow.

Diversity of thought also brings the challenge of change. Ancient maps told mariners to avoid certain uncharted areas bearing the stern warning: “Here be dragons.” That would certainly not encourage exploration. And, by the way, folks were absolutely certain that the earth was flat. So, if you dared wander too far from the accepted certainty of the times, you just might fall off the edge of the earth, unless the dragons got you first.

Social norms do change. Diversity of thought, even theological thoughts, change. Does that mean there are no fixed points and we, as a church and as individuals, merely “go with the flow” in an unthinking passivity, wringing our hands in distress? Hardly. There are bed-rock realities articulated in the Bible that set out norms and thoughts that don’t change with time or location. Those are like the magnetic north for a compass which holds true, and from which we calibrate and evaluate all other directional values.

Jesus, concluding His parable of the net, says, “… every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old” (Matthew 3:52 NIV). Jesus values the “old,” but also the “new” treasures. He is not at all “right or wrong” binary, but inclusively open. He mirrors the Old Testament concept in Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.” That contrasts with, “… the way of the wicked is like deep darkness: they do not know what makes them stumble.” The contrast is striking. Truth expands with growing light. Darkness stays static, with no change.

Ellen G. White put it this way: “Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator—individuality, power to think and to do … It is the work of true education to develop this power, to train young people to be thinkers and not mere reflectors of other people’s thought.” (TEd 12)

The real challenges for us as individuals, as a denomination, or as a congregation, is when we begin to sanctify, solidify, and defend thoughts and norms that are actually opinions and interpretations. We then make hard realities out of our own interpretations and norms rather than from clear scriptural reality. The inevitable outcome is division, fracturing, and judgmentalism. If I am right (and in my own mind I certainly am!) then by sheer definition and contrast, you must be wrong. It’s simple. The next step is obvious: I am not only right but righteous. Meaning you are both wrong and evil. You might well think the same of me. Now, we have a serious problem working or worshiping together.

Binary thinking leads to an “us” and “them” polarity feeding exclusivism and strife. That kind of rigid thinking was what drove the Pharisees, Sadducees, and others to kill Jesus. After all, He broke their norms. He actually healed people on the Sabbath! He touched lepers! He ate with sinners! He spoke to heathen women!

Regarding diversity of thought, Jesus really went off the rails according to the religious leaders of His day. They were looking for a savior to deliver them from Rome. They wanted a king to re-establish the political nation to dominance and past glory. He, on the other hand, was about building a spiritual kingdom and deliverance from sin. He said that His kingdom would be open to everyone, including folks not at all like them. He welcomed all, not just one group. Radical thinking for many in His culture.

The tension between what I want and expect, and what is or could be, goes back to spiritual warfare starting in Genesis, and continues with the eternal tension through the rest of the Bible until that tension and warfare ends in Revelation.

Tension isn’t always bad. In fact, we could not live without tension and pressure. Think of your blood pressure: too much is bad. Too little is bad. If the tension/pressure is within reasonable range, all is well.

When we were at the Seminary, we inherited my aunt’s 1956 Oldsmobile 88. Not exactly my dream car, but it ran well. The suspension system was coil springs on each wheel. Driving it was like being on your couch steering your living room. If you hit a pothole or bump, the coil springs absorbed the shock then gave you a lingering, bouncing, bounding, lurching ride. Think bungee cord. It was entertaining. Ten years ago, I fulfilled a life-long dream and purchased a used Corvette. The ride is exponentially different than the Olds. The Vette will take a corner like the Olds never could. The difference is the tension rod stabilizers at the front and rear of the Vette. When you turn a corner, the inside wheels want to lift off the pavement. The torsion bars twist to keep weight, and tires, on the ground to give more traction and control.

Changing or challenging norms and diversity of thought will create tensions personally and corporately. That is inescapable. However, we can use those changing norms and diversity of thought to help us meet the curves and corners. Tension can be used to stabilize us as we navigate twists and turns of our journey, on the road or in the church.

The early church had tensions over norms and diversity of thought. Look at Paul and Barnabas, or Paul and Peter. In early Adventism, there were long and loud debates over beliefs. The Adventist pioneers were not content with “what is.” They were out-of-the-box thinkers who challenged and changed society and theology. They endorsed a woman to speak, write, and teach theology. They advocated abolition and education for people not like them. They impacted things as diverse as breakfast food, health care, and hospitals. They were bold enough to wrestle and wrangle with new ideas, concepts, and theologies. They were open enough to be surprised by, and adopt, new insights. They were not content with the mental laziness of just going along because “That’s the way we have always done/seen/believed it.”

The question is how we deal with shifting social norms and diversity in thought, here, now, in our life and church. We have options. We could take the binary, black and white thinking with no shades. We could just “go with the flow” and pretend all is well. We could be open and exploratory in thought and discussion. We could rebel and walk away. We could sit together and discuss our differing interpretations and opinions, realizing that they are, after all, interpretations and opinions, not necessarily proven facts. Doing the latter, we might all learn something new.

Perhaps an ancient saying, the attribution of which is debated, can be refreshingly instructive:

“In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.”

It’s easy to read. Harder to do. Ah … there’s the creative tension that can keep us open, discussing, loving, accepting, and grounded. Hopefully.

–Dick Stenbakken, Ed.D., retired Army Chaplain (Col.), served as director of Adventist Chaplaincy Services at the General Conference and North American Division. With his wife Ardis, he lives in Loveland, Colorado. Email him at: [email protected]

28 Mar

WE ARE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT TOGETHER

In

By Ron Price … I will be the first to tell you, even if others might not agree, that I am very easy to get along with. Even though I just ended a sentence with a preposition—which everyone knows is not to be done—I really am an easy person with whom to get along. I make this claim because I only place two requests (demands?) on others. One is that they do things my way, and two, that they do so according to my strict timeline.

While I write those words with my tongue firmly implanted in my cheek, so to speak, you likely know people who do strive to live life on those terms. Imagine now, for a moment, that you belong to a church comprised of self-centered people, each of whom believes everyone should do things their way. Well, truth be told—you do.

In the vast majority of churches, most members can put their personal preferences aside for the overall good of the body. Unfortunately, however, most churches also have members who do not choose to make that decision. When that latter group becomes the majority, or at least the vocal, powerful minority, that church is well on its way to becoming irrelevant and anything but God-honoring.

Several years ago, I heard an illustration from motivational speaker Eileen McDargh about two people who were in a rowboat in the middle of a lake when a leak developed in the front of the boat. The person in the front saw the problem and responded by baling as fast as possible. Meanwhile, the person in the back of the boat saw the problem but simply folded his arms and said, “I’m glad that hole is not on my side of the boat.” Wouldn’t it be something if the old saying, “We’re all in the same boat together” was the standard operating philosophy of every church?

So, you may ask, am I implying that we should all be docile people-pleasers who dare not ever “rock the boat?” I certainly hope not! In that same presentation, Ms. McDargh also asked us to consider one person in a rowboat rowing with just one oar and continuously going round and round in circles. I hope what I am saying is that as we all row (and grow) together, we are far more likely to stay on target and reach our destination.

Since churches are comprised of FHBs (fallible human beings), it is a given that divergent ideas and preferences will always be in play. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Unity does not necessitate or even thrive with uniformity. It is how those differing viewpoints and preferences are handled that determines the outcome they will have on the church’s overall health.

The founders of the Adventist church were willing to challenge the status quo, and they welcomed divergent thoughts to hopefully arrive at Truth. They sought the greater good and put their ideas, beliefs, and preferences in submission. Am I the only one who fears we have, to a large degree, lost that aspect of our pioneering spirit? We seem to have devolved to a church, a culture for that matter, where if you disagree with me, you must be my enemy, and I cannot accept you as you are.

So how exactly should we as brothers and sisters deal with our family’s differing viewpoints and preferences? Well, since you asked, I have three suggestions to consider.

First, please always keep in mind that it is not your church, as we read in Ephesians 1:22-23: “God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made Him head over all things for the benefit of the church. And the church is His Body; it is made full and complete by Christ, Who fills all things everywhere with Himself.” When tempted to request/demand that a particular matter be handled according to your wishes, please run it by the Lord before running it by the church leadership. Ask Him to show you your heart and reveal your true reasons for bringing up the matter. Depending on how controversial your thought, you may want to run them by a trusted prayer partner before you even bring it to the church.

My second thought stems from a sermon I heard several years ago titled “51 One Anothers.” Though I have not taken the time to verify, the speaker said there are 51 “one-another” verses in the KJV which tell us how God wants us to treat each other. You’ll find texts such as “Love one another,” “Pray for one another,” “Confess your faults to one another” and so forth. Search as you may, I doubt you will find “Criticize one another,” “Find fault with one another,” or “Ridicule and demean one another” though we, unfortunately, see these behaviors when brothers and sisters disagree with one another. Since I am nearing my word limit, please put this down and read Philippians 2:1- 11, if not the entire chapter. It will give you a wonderful picture of how we are to act with each other.

My third suggestion is to consider the difference between principle and application. A principle is universally true. By that, I mean it applies to every person at any and all times. Principles are unwavering. You may try to go against them if you wish, but you will do so at your own peril. Applications are how one puts a principle into practice. These, by definition, will vary widely and dramatically from person to person. All too often, it seems conflicts arise due to differing opinions on how to apply a principle. Somehow, an image of the Pharisees just popped into my mind, but we won’t go there.

I doubt that any faithful church member would want to see our denomination become just a loose association where anything goes, and all practices are welcomed. I heard the other day of a church that boasted they had “fun worship.” It’s not my place to judge, but is that really the purpose of the church to have fun? On the other hand, I also doubt any would want to go to the other extreme and insist that everyone toe the “company line” or they must be shown the proverbial door. There simply has to be a middle ground, doesn’t there?

Let’s strive to be a church where divergent views are welcomed and encouraged, so long as they are presented in love and with the body’s best interests in mind. Let’s strive to be so secure in our beliefs that those of others are not viewed as an attack on us. I say we should use our diversity to grow the church and hasten, as much as possible, our Lord’s return. What say you?

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

28 Mar

ALWAYS A MAVERICK

In

By Rajmund Dabrowski … As I watched David Bowie in a commercial advertising Audi in the Spring of 2004, what struck me as important was its simple tagline. The ad issued a call to Never Follow.

Honestly, what it communicated to me was the opposite of what I learned from Jesus’ call to His followers: Follow me.

The marketing campaign tried to position the European car-maker as a product that many were to follow. Some did, more so in Europe than in America. Three years later, the company ditched the slogan. “You have to be bold to be noticed in America—certainly bolder and more aggressive than we’ve been,” they said. Well …

On the surface, this slogan does not connect with Matthew, Zacchaeus, and many others from Jesus’ entourage, if I may be so irreverent, except that all of them had to fail first, forsake their ego, and fly into the hands of … wonder.

David Bowie’s involvement in the Audi ad made sense to me. Never follow the crowd! His words, spoken in a video he shot: “There is no progress without failure. And each failure is a lesson learned. Unnecessary failures are the ones where an artist tries to second guess an audience’s taste, and little comes out of that situation except a kind of inward humiliation.”

That’s a lesson from our contemporary culture. For me, there was another lesson, one all of us had to learn and many continue to learn throughout their lives.

In the mid-1980s, a straw vote was requested by the General Conference on allowing the ordination of women. An upcoming world church session was potentially including it on its agenda. I recall voting at the Polish Union Executive Committee. I know how I voted.

We know the history of the ordination of women drama experienced by the church. Years later, I visited my dad, then a church leader in Poland, and I asked him if he remembered the outcome of this straw vote. He remembered the vote and that there was one Yes vote. After a short silence on my part, he looked at me and said, “You have always been a maverick.”

What an affirmation. I responded with a smile!

Nonconformity and free expression were and continue to be a part of my daily breakfast, so to speak. Apart from my own thought processes, as an Adventist Christian, I learned from the best: the pioneers of the Advent movement.

One of them stands out for me—Michael Belina Czechowski, a compatriot and pioneer missionary leader in Adventism. Before embracing Adventism in 1857, this Franciscan reformer-father was heavily engaged in social and political activities which swept Europe in the 1840s. He wanted his then church to change but became disenchanted with Catholicism.

After arriving in America in 1851, he engaged in sharing what he learned about the Second Coming of Jesus among the immigrants mainly in New England. At first, he was supported by other Adventist pioneers, as well as by the sales of his fascinating autobiography, Thrilling and Instructive Developments: An Experience of fifteen years as Roman Catholic Clergyman and Priest but there was an itch to return to Europe and preach there.

His church was not ready to support a foreign mission, but funding was offered to him by the first-day Evangelical Adventists from Boston. He was an example of climbing through the window if a door was closed. In several countries of Europe, Czechowski preached the message of the Sabbath and the Second Coming of Jesus and established numerous congregations in Switzerland, Italy, France, Hungary, and Romania.

In 1871 the church confirmed the missionary accomplishments of Maverick Czechowski. “We deem it duty to acknowledge the hand of God in planting the truth in Switzerland,” the record states.

It often takes a maverick to foster change and ignite progress. Mavericks of Adventism. What a privilege to join them. We have a job to do!

–Rajmund Dabrowski is editor of Mountain Views and RMC communication director. Email him at: [email protected]

24 Mar

NEW PASTORS JOIN OUR CONFERENCE

In

By Mickey Mallory – Denver, Colorado … Several new pastors recently joined our ministerial family at Rocky Mountain Conference. What follows is an introduction in their own words:

Brooke Melendez is the part-time associate pastor at the Adventure Church in Greeley, Colorado. Brooke’s greatest passion in ministry is helping people feel valued and to understand that they belong. According to Brooke, “one of the most beautiful parts about ministry for me is seeing people come to terms with and let go of the baggage that has held them back for so long. Sometimes, it’s beliefs about God that are burdensome, and sometimes it’s beliefs about themselves that are heavy. The freedom and joy that people experience when they come to know who God is and who they truly are because of Jesus is overwhelming in the most positive way possible.”

As the wife of Adventurer lead pastor Ricky Melendez, Brooke shared the one thing that impressed her and Ricky the most about their church: how much the people there loved Jesus and were committed to him being the focus of their church and lives. According to Brooke, “They didn’t care so much about all the peripheral things as they did the Main Thing (Jesus).”

Since starting at the Adventure Church, Brooke says, “It seems like every week there have been a number of things that continue to surprise and excite Ricky and me about the Adventure Church. It has been a delight to feel like we really fit in with our church and can be ourselves with them.”

Leandro Bizama is the associate pastor of evangelism and worship at the Campion Church in Loveland, Colorado. He and his wife, Jennifer, and kids moved to the Campion Church at the end of December. Leandro’s greatest passion is “to help mentor the next generation of worship/music leaders who will guide an inter-generational church in the true worship of the living God in the last days and to inspire all to live a life of service and meet the needs of those around them to allow the gospel truth to flow through them so that the Spirit can use them to bring more people to Christ.”

Coming from a teaching background, Leandro shared, “It was a very difficult decision [to make the move to Campion Church] because I love Adventist education and youth ministry. In the middle of that stressful time when we were trying to figure out God’s will for our lives, I prayed sort of in desperation, “I’d be willing to do anything as long as I know it is your will.” In my heart, I heard Him say, “Are you sure?” “Yes,” I responded and received a certainty of peace. That same day, “randomly,” two different churches reached out to me for the same type of worship pastor position. I had to pursue the conversation at the very least. Later, when we saw that there was a strong community who loved kids and youth and Adventist education, we made the decision to accept the call. Simply said, God answered our prayers for direction in very special and miraculous ways.”

Of all the things that Leandro likes about his new position at the Campion Church, he especially appreciates that “there is so much opportunity and [so many] possibilities in a church with a strong sense of community and a great leadership and spiritual team in the church and in both schools.”

Leonardo Jiminez is the new lead pastor of the Montrose Hispanic, Pagosa Springs Hispanic, and the Durango Hispanic churches. He and his wife, Wendy Medina, moved here from the Denver area.

Leonardo’s greatest joy in ministry is working with people and for people and seeing them give themselves to Christ, change their lifestyle, and live a life full of hope. According to Leonardo, “I am passionate when I have to preach to others about the love of Christ and his transforming power and tell them about the wonders I have seen in my life and the great things that he can also do in their lives and family.”

The main thing that motivated him to accept the call to serve the churches in the Montrose district was the call that he received from an early age to preach the gospel and to help others in their preparation for heaven. According to Leonardo, “Knowing that Christ is coming for the second time and that there is no time to waste led him and his wife to be willing to come to this country. In the same way, we have asked God to show us where to go, and through prayer and hope, God has now given us the opportunity to go to these places.”

Since his arrival, his most exciting discovery is the time he has had with the first elder of the Church of Montrose and his family. According to Leonardo, they have shown him disposition and love for the work of God. The church is a motivating church full of youth leadership. He and his wife feel very excited to be able to serve in a community of people so beautiful and full of Christian love and willing to serve God and his Church.

Daniele Fantoni is the new lead pastor of the Alamosa, Monte Vista, and Pagosa Springs churches. Daniele, and his wife Nayeli Cabrera, arrived in late February from Andrews University. Daniele’s greatest passion is knowing and bringing out the best in people and looking at them with the same loving eyes of God.

According to Daniele, “It was a great surprise when I was offered the pastor position for a three-church district. I was afraid of this possibility, but this was the only viable offer for me by God. So I trusted him and, despite my hesitation, I visited the district. What reassured me and led me to accept definitively, in addition to many prayers, was the welcome of the community and their genuine desire to know me. I saw their willingness to work together and the great potential of the district. Eventually, I put my fears aside and just desired to help this community and do great things with them for the glory of God.”

Since Daniele’s arrival, his most exciting discovery is how God has confirmed his call to pastoral ministry. According to Daniele, “After just one week of work and getting to know people, I realized that pastoral ministry was my vocation.”

Edrey Santos is the new part-time lead pastor of the Castle Rock Church as of February 1. He and his wife, Bobbi, come to us from the Denver area where he served as a chaplain at Porter Hospital. Edrey’s greatest passion in ministry is “the Christian journey and the fellowship that come as a consequence of loving God’s people.”

According to Edrey, the reason he was attracted to Castle Rock Church was “the eagerness and overall excitement of the church members to reach out to the community, but most of all, their willingness to recreate the church’s identity.” He is especially excited about partnering with Castle Rock Hospital to do ministry.

Since being at the Castle Rock Church, Edrey shared that his greatest discovery so far has been “the church members’ desire to recreate their identity, [which] has really shown forth through their willingness to work together, to bring forth fresh ideas, and [their] being receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Personally, for me, I had some initial fears since I’ve been away from church ministry for 14 years. However, because of the helpfulness of the church family, I am humbled to see a strong desire to grow collectively. And that’s such an awesome feeling! God’s love is truly evident!”

“May we remember these pastors and their congregations in our prayers. We should pray, especially, for the Holy Spirit to be poured out on their ministry. We are blessed to have them in the Rocky Mountain Conference,” commented Mickey Mallory.

–Mickey Mallory is RMC ministerial director; photos supplied

Edrey Santos
Daniele Fantoni

Leonardo Jimenez

23 Mar

Bridging the Generational Gap: Having Conversations about Race with Your Family

In

By AdventHealth — The closeness and safety of family during uncertain times can be so comforting. Some cultures have a deep history rooted in the importance of close-knit families. “It takes a village” is a concept lived by many Asian American families who value close relationships with extended family. In a cultural tradition like theirs, the health of the community typically takes precedence over any one individual, especially for the older generations.

With so many important social issues currently at the forefront, we want to highlight our Asian American and Pacific Islander communities, empowering family members to talk to each other more openly about race, family expectations, societal pressure and how mental health is affected. Keeping communication lines open is key to staying well in body, mind and spirit — for families and individuals alike.

Under Pressure

While the intentions are good, when collective health is valued more than individual health, the expectations are set high. There may be many family members who feel pressured to hide any human imperfections or symptoms, preferring to suffer in silence for the sake of their family. Hiding struggles without support from family and friends can lead to mental health issues like anxiety and depression. Perceived failure to live up to expectations to succeed academically, personally and professionally can be a source of severe stress and lead to feelings of inadequacy.

The Model Minority Myth

Many of us are taught not to judge a book by its cover or to stereotype anyone, with the logic that stereotypes usually have negative connotations. While this is often true, it’s also true that there are positive stereotypes that can have a negative impact. Already held to high expectations by their families to achieve, Asian Americans who live with “the model minority myth” are unfairly held to higher standards by society, and suffer more as a result.

The narrative set forth by the model minority myth is that Asian American children are geniuses in math, science and music — and that their parents force them to excel to surpass everyone else. The stereotype unfairly characterizes Asian Americans as “polite,” law-abiding,” “successful,” and immigrants who live the American dream.

Like all stereotypes, this type of thinking stops people from being seen as individuals with differences and preferences. Those who are stereotyped are left with more anxiety to uphold what they think is expected of them from all ends.

Generation Gap

No matter what our ethnic or racial background, it can be difficult to start a conversation about race with family members, especially if the age gap is very different. Adult children talking to their parents, and grandchildren talking to their grandparents, about such a complex and important topic can be unnerving. Getting the conversation started is the first step, and it can lead to good outcomes where each participant can end up learning not only more about other perspectives, but more about themselves and their own biases in the process.

In Asian American families, “respect your elders” and “don’t make waves” often impact how family members relate to one another and what is expected of each person. Having a conversation where you will make waves and challenge your elders is a risk of being seen as disrespectful. Here’s how you can do it as sensitively and effectively as possible:

Be Humble and Educate Yourself First

Read, research and come into the conversations armed with knowledge of what you’re going to talk about. Consider that your older family members simply might not know as much about American history and the centuries-long history of racism if they didn’t go to school here or experience it first-hand. Honor their lived experiences, too.

Put Your Emotions Aside

If a family member says something that sounds racist as you’re trying to open the discussion to help change their worldview, it’s normal to feel angry, sad and offended. It’s how you respond to those comments that can make all the difference. If they feel judged for their beliefs, they’ll shut down and get defensive. Putting your emotions aside while you try to educate them can be the most effective approach in that you are perceived as being in control.

Ask about Their Lived Experiences

For many Asian American parents and grandparents, views on racism were shaped by their experiences in their home countries. Try to understand the situation they grew up in and how they still carry that with them.

Speak Personally and Empathetically

Your family members care about you, so tell them why supporting diversity, learning about racism and talking about it with them to bridge the generational gap is so important to you.

Care You Can Trust Across Cultures

At AdventHealth, we provide world-class care to everyone and treat every patient with dignity. We honor all cultures, respect all wishes and strive to meet all needs. We build trusting relationships between patients and providers and Extend the Healing Ministry of Christ to them and their families.

If you’re struggling, visit here and reach out for care from the heart that you can trust. You deserve to feel whole in body, mind and spirit.

–AdventHealth; photo supplied

This article was originally published on the AdventHealth website

 

23 Mar

COMMENTARY: STABILITY

In

By Doug Inglish … For some of you, this might be new, but I’ve seen this before.

When I was a young driver, not really needing my own car, yet but finding it necessary to borrow one of the family cars from time to time, I had enough sense of responsibility to put some gas in the tank now and then. No big deal. So, by the time I did buy my first car, the habit of paying for my own fuel was well established.

Then everything changed. Or, I should say everything began changing on a daily basis, sometimes multiple times in a day. Every time I passed a gas station, a new and higher price was posted. One evening, I came in from the construction job I had that summer and told my dad, “I don’t know how I can afford to drive to work if gas hits fifty cents a gallon.”

Always a man of calm perspective, he replied, “There will come a day, and soon when you will wish it would hit fifty cents a gallon again.”

As usual, he was right. That day was very soon after, and every day since then for that matter.

Things eventually settled down, and for several decades inflation was at a more reasonable, manageable pace. In fact, a lot of items actually went down in price while going up in quality, such as electronics. Gas itself has been a more volatile ride, with the global market being affected by wars, labor issues, technological advances, and political disputes. When it went past a dollar, I never thought it would go back under, but it did for a time. Same thing at two dollars.

But now everything seems to be going up, and fast. You can read about it in the news or go see for yourself at any store. Inflation is soaring again like it was around the time I was filling the tank on my battered Chevy Impala. Not only at the gas pump. We are all paying more for food, energy, insurance, clothing, tires, and household goods. Inflation is even affecting me at work, where my ability to invite a gifted pastor to fill a position in one of our churches is frequently stymied by the cost of housing.

With this kind of instability, it’s hard to plan. Can the water heater last another couple of years, or should I get one before the price jumps? Can we afford a vacation? Is the price of used cars going to come back to earth before this one falls apart? Will a college degree be out of reach?

I am not an economist, and happily so, because I consider the field to be one of the black arts, like voodoo, witchcraft, and automatic transmission repair. But as I said in the beginning of this article, I have seen this before, and watching our country (and indeed, the world) go through it again, I think I can safely declare a very real economic principle: Stability is an illusion. It seems to be around for a while, but then everything goes haywire, and you get left wishing gas would hit fifty cents again. Or two dollars, or whatever. Soon enough, we may find ourselves longing for the good old days of five-dollar-a-gallon gas prices.

But we long for stability in life. We like to know where our next meal is coming from, for everyone to stop at red lights, and to not get hit with a pop quiz in our 7:30 class. The stress of watching prices rocket toward the stratosphere is just one more reminder that stability is not just an economic illusion; it’s a fleeting vapor that we chase in our jobs, our relationships, our health, and our golf game, if that’s your thing.

But God is stable. He’s the Rock upon which the church is built (Matthew 16:18), our shelter (Psalm 61:3), our fortress (Psalm 91:2), and the One Who hears when we cry out to Him (Psalm 55:17). When things go bad, God is good. He is dependable. Unchanging. Stable.

One bit of evidence of His stability is found, oddly enough, in economics. Inflation has had a profound effect over the last 4000 years, but I am returning the same tithe that Abraham did that long ago.

If you don’t think that’s a remarkable fact, consider sales tax rates. When I was a boy growing up in Indiana, the state sales tax was 2%. Today, it is 7%–more than a threefold increase. If God were only as stable as the legislature of that rather conservative state, our tithe rates would now be 35%, and yes, that’s before offerings. But the One Who is from everlasting to everlasting remains steady, never adjusting His rates because circumstances change.

I know that is a function of the fact that it’s not about revenue for Him (Micah 6:6-8), or about His needs (Psalm 50:12); it’s about recognizing His sovereignty (Psalm 24:1). Nevertheless, the fact that tithe has remained at a steady rate throughout its history is an indication, from the dark field of economics, that our God is stable. The kind of stable that lets me know, even when inflation is eating away at our security and foiling our attempts to plan ahead, that I can count on Him to keep me afloat.

I’ve seen this before. Tithe is my anchor in this storm because it is the assurance of God’s stability.

–Doug Inglish is RMC vice president for administration and stewardship director; photo by Rajmund Dabrowski

1 … 93 94 95 96 97 … 237