Details

Hits: 3595

“All God’s children- all the sons of Wisdom have always exhibited in some degree this moral feature- they have justified God.

Let the reader consider this. It may be he finds it hard to understand what is meant by justifying God; but a passage or two of holy Scripture will, we trust, make it quite plain. We read in Luke 7 that ‘all the people that heard Jesus, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him’ (ver. 29-30). Here we have the two generations brought, as it were, face to face. The publicans justified God and condemned themselves: the Pharisees justified themselves and judged God. The former submitted to the baptism of John-the baptism of repentance: the latter refused that baptism-refused to repent-refused to humble and to judge themselves.

Here we have the two great classes into which the whole human family has been divided, from the days of Abel and Cain down to the present day; and here, too, we have the simplest possible test by which to try our ‘pedigree.’ Have we taken the place of self- condemnation? Have we bowed in true repentance before God? This is to justify God. The two things go together-yea, they are one and the same. The man who condemns himself justifies God; and the man who justifies God condemns himself. On the other hand, the man who justifies himself judges God; and the man who judges God justifies himself.” (C.H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch, 1882, p.425)

Details

Hits: 3582

America’s civil religion “is the notion that God's primary concern is our nation and our national interests. It is the temptation to see what God is doing in the world and what America is doing in the world has the same thing.

In America this view gained particular importance during the Cold War and the fight against Communist expansion. Communism was an atheistic world system and thus was rightly perceived to be a threat to Christianity. After all, it was Karl Marx, one of Communism’s most prominent thinkers, who offered the following thoughts: ‘Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world, just as it is the spirit of an unspiritual situation. It is the opium of the people…’

The Second World War brought about a massive shift in American understanding of the world and our place in it. After the decades of expansion driven by the narrative of evolutionary human progress, American soldiers in Hitler's Europe had witnessed firsthand the atrocity and wholesale slaughter of an ethnic group made possible by technological advances. As one writer who died in the gas chambers put it, many dreams died in the fires of Auschwitz.

The Cold War further necessitated shifts in our view of the world. While there had certainly been times during world history when two major superpowers fought for the dominance of the known world, the stakes had never been so high. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki forever transformed each possible skirmish, each air- raid drill, each move of Communist expansion into a possible precursor for a war that could not only end all wars, but could potentially end all civilization.

We, the American church, also held an understanding that America as a Christian nation was deeply threatened. What would become of what one preacher recently called ‘the greatest Christian nation in the history of this planet.’ if it was no longer a nation?

Thus. it was during these Cold War years we also came to believe many things about Christianity that may need to be rethought as we consider the question of what is enough. During that time, in 1954, the words ‘under God’ were added to the Pledge of Allegiance. This was added to cement a notion of America as a Christian or at the least a theistic, nation that stood in contrast to the godless Communists. This may have been a needed corrective at the time-… but I wonder if in the intervening years as we repeat the Pledge over and over again, and teach it to our children, we have come to believe that the actions we as a nation take, or for that matter that anything we as a nation, are how God would have us act; that ‘under God’ is some kind of implicit statement of blessing, especially when compared with those who are under Allah, or some other understanding than the dominant American conception of God.” (Will Samson, Enough, 2009, p. 44-46)

Details

Hits: 3709

The search for biblical truth and theological understanding as part of our Christian lives has vanished. Where are the young and old gathering together to study the Bible because they want to know the truth, even advance in the discovery of new truth? There are some but they are the exception, not the norm. There are more praise services and concerts than serious personal and congregational Bible study.

The church created universities which in turn generated Adventist intellectuals. These come into the church and the world with new questions for which our pastors have no biblical answers. We train our young in the intellectual rigor of many disciplines-except the study of Scripture, the science of salvation. When they come back home with many unanswered questions they find little help even from their pastors. Where do they go then to find answers? They go to the Internet and our bookstores. What books do we sell them? Mostly, we sell books written by Evangelical authors. In this way, their thinking slowly but surely becomes Evangelical rather than Adventist. In this process, our pastors and members neglect, to their own peril, the wisdom of Ellen White. In practice, Adventists have replaced her with many prophets. Do you know who they are? I am only half joking here because the truth is that in many places I hear Adventist believers (in sermons, articles, and church bulletins) quoting more often from C.S. Lewis than from Ellen G. White or the Bible.” (Fernando Canale, Secular Adventism? 2013, p.31)

Details

Hits: 3621

“Some of the struggles we now face in the American church we created on our own by ignoring the power of predictability and expectation. Take Community Bible Church as an example. Pastor Myles Garrett caught the vision for reaching out to the youth culture in the late 1950s and created one of the first church youth programs in his state. As youth leaders sought to reach the young adults, they began to modify the standard church curriculum to reach the students in high school. In the 1970s they began to discover Christian rock and some of the early praise music. Students visiting Community Bible [Church] connected on a deep level with the music, the passionate teaching, and the relationships they developed.

But a new trend began to surface. Many of the students Community Bible [Church] reached with the gospel did not continue at the church once they arrived at adult age. Most of the former youth checked out of the church, citing boring music and preaching along with a lack of connectivity. Those who stayed in the community tried to bring the forms of music and teaching they experienced in youth group to the congregation as a whole, only to find severe reaction against it. The church leaders were fine with that ‘wild worship’ so long as it stayed in the youth area and did not change the way the church as a whole worshipped.” (Thomas White & John Yates, Franchising McChurch, 2009, p.48)

Details

Hits: 3538

“Why are the big colleges and universities turning out so many unbelievers?

Of course I know that there have been times when more unbelievers came out of our big educational institutions than are coming out today. A little more than 100 years ago when French atheism and deism were sweeping over the land hardly one American college student in fifty was willing to be known as a Christian. But that was only an epidemic. The students caught it from current literature and the colleges were no more responsible for it than they were for the measles and smallpox of the period…

So the fact that there is ten times as much organized Christian activity in the colleges today as there was a generation ago does not prove that there is ten times as much Christianity in the colleges as there was then, but only that Christianity in the colleges is expressing itself in organized activity ten times more than it did then. Reason about it as we may, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that of the vast army of young men who go off to our big colleges and universities carrying in their hearts the simple faith of their fathers, only a small number comes back with a faith that is sufficiently substantial to be of any practical value in life. And the same is true, though in a less degree, of our young women. This fact does not rest upon statistics or mere opinion; it is a matter of common knowledge among all who are interesting themselves in the spiritual problems of our educated young men and women.” (Edward Pell, Out Troublesome Religious Questions, 1916, p.77-78)

Details

Hits: 3453

“Among the major issues that most people would agree we need to address as a society is the decline of the American family. However, there is a startling bit of information with which Americans need to become familiar regarding a further threat to the basic family unit. Influential groups from outside our nation's borders are vigorously and openly at work, making plans to exercise control over our children.

Intellectual global elites want to shape the worldview of the future to correspond with their own perspective; the traditional family is, by necessity, viewed as an obstacle. Activities such as home schooling and parental discretion over instilling values endanger the desired authority of educational programmers. This was reflected in the thoughts of one- world advocate John Goodlad of the University of Washington and Head of the Institute for Educational Renewal. According to Goodlad, ‘parents and the general public must be reached… Otherwise children and youth enrolled in globally- oriented programs may find themselves in conflict with values assumed in the home.” [Ron Sunseri, Outcome Based Education, 1994] (James Hirsen, The Coming Collision, 1999, p.10)

Details

Hits: 3430

“The various acts of toleration enacted in Europe differ greatly from the principles of religious liberty: ‘the one is a concession, the other a right; the one is a matter of expediency, the other of principle; the one is a gift of man, the other a gift of God.’ [Phillip Schaff].

Religious persecution usually arose from some form of union between church and state. A relaxation of the relationship between church and state results in toleration, but only when there is absolute separation between church and state can there be religious liberty. This became the case in the founding of the United States of America, where the ideal of a free church in a free state was first realized; likewise the principle, that self-support and self-government are inseparable. In the American constitution-a Magna Charta of religious liberty-a New Testament principle and a sixteenth century ideal became a reality. Summarizing the progress of religious liberty Philip Schaff makes the following up evaluation:

‘The history of religious liberty teaches important lessons. Intolerance and persecution have wrought incalculable misery in the past, and are contrary to the spirit of Christianity, justice, and mercy, and incompatible with modern civilization; while liberty has proved to be the best friend of religion, and receives from it its strongest moral support. Spiritual offences should be spiritually judged and punished according to the gospel; temporal offences should be temporally judged and punished according to the law. The best legal guarantee of religious liberty is a peaceful separation of the spiritual and temporal power; the best moral guarantee of liberty is human culture and Christian charity.

The church needs and should ask nothing from the state but the protection of law. She commends herself best to the world by attending to her proper spiritual duties and keeping aloof from political and secular complications. She can only lose by force and violence; she can only gain and succeed by the spiritual weapons of truth and love.’” (V. Norskov Olsen, Papal Supremacy and American Democracy, 1987, p.150-151)

Details

Hits: 3550

“Unfortunately, the courts in this nation have only needed a nudge in the wrong direction to reconstruct the law of the land. Isn't it true that in many landmark cases brought before the U. S. Supreme Court, perhaps just one individual or maybe as few as two, are responsible for introducing new laws into our land that can change the course of history?

It is reported that the Roe v Wade decision (1973) by the highest court in the United States relates back to challenges made by just two women. These two women fought for their right to freedoms not granted prior to that time-the right to request an abortion and the legal right to pursue that freedom indiscriminately. We cringe today realizing that a tiny majority can often start this social avalanche, and in many cases even just one solitary individual.

But do you know what the saddest part of the whole matter is? Both of these women who once took their cases to the highest court in the land, have now defected to the pro-life side of the debate. They regret the choices they made nearly three decades ago- choices that led to the aftermath of that decision, and since that time, 40 million helpless babies have paid with their lives.” [Focus on the Family, Jan, 2001] (Bradley Booth, Truth or Consequences, 2003, 48)

Details

Hits: 3418

“As a rule, most people seem to think that there is nothing morally wrong in spreading negative information about others as long as the information is true. Jewish law takes a very different view. Perhaps that is why the Hebrew term lashon ha-ra has no precise equivalent in English. For unlike slander, which is universally condemned as immoral because it is false, lashon ha-ra is by definition true. It is the dissemination of accurate information that will lower the status of the person to whom it refers: I translate it as ‘negative truths.’ Jewish law forbids spreading negative truths about anyone unless the person to whom you are speaking needs the information… It is a very serious offense, one that has been addressed by many non- Jewish ethicists as well. Two centuries ago Jonathan K Lavater, a Swiss theologian and poet, offered a still apt guideline concerning the spreading of such news: ‘Never tell evil of a man if you do not know it for certainty, and if you know it for a certainty, then ask yourself, ‘ why should I tell it?'” (Joseph Telushkin, Words that Hurt, 1996. P. 21-22)