MB's Theological Thoughts

9/11 Tenth Anniversary Thoughts

2011-09-11T09:36:00.000-07:00

It's 9/11/11, and I have no idea what to say. I remember when it happened; the day is still vivid in my mind. Everybody was late to school that morning as we watched history happen before us. I support the hunt for bin Laden and the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda and against the Hussein regime and oppressive Wahhabism. But I don't think we should be nation building. Reuters says we need to stay in Afghanistan or risk more attacks, but we can't afford these wars. I'm a patriot, but I'm also a pragmatist.

But I must say that if we are attacked today, it will be like kicking the hornets' nest. You don't mess with the USA. We're going to rebuild the World Trade Center just as tall. We're going to stand strong no matter what happens. And those who would call the rebuilding effort "pompous" or "overbearing", saying that we should just "learn our lesson" and bow to these terrorists--you are America-haters and shouldn't be in this country. You're no better than domestic terrorists.

As this cold civil war draws to an ultimate close, its conclusion being the second advent of Christ, I can only hold faster to what I believe. Things are getting worse, and it's only a matter of time before Christians start blaming all this on somebody. With Katrina, it was the New Orleans debauchery. With the wildfire season several years ago, it was gay marriage. The four angels aren't going to be able to hold back the winds of destruction much longer, and I can see it getting only worse from here.

Stand firm. Follow the Bible. Keep the Sabbath. A strong relationship with the Creator is the only thing that's going to be able to sustain us in the last days.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Still Here....

2011-06-06T15:22:00.000-07:00

Hey all, I just thought I'd say that I'm still here, and I plan on continuing this blog; I wasn't raptured or anything. In fact, nobody was. Why? Because setting dates is a fruitless prospect. Jesus said so himself. Adventists learned not to set dates at the last Great Disappointment in 1844. Instead, I think we should all follow the William Miller philosophy: "Instead of saying that Jesus will return on this day, or on that day, I am going to keep telling myself, 'Today, today, today,' until He actually does." (Paraphrased, of course.)

Nobody knows the day, nor the hour when Jesus will return for us, but we do know what is going to happen. It's going to be sudden, like a thief in the night. And when it happens, every eye shall see Him. It's not going to be a secret at all, or there would be no use, really.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Osama's Dead; What Should We Do?

2011-05-06T11:45:00.000-07:00

I have seen two reactions to the recent death of Osama bin Laden: "This is the greatest day of the last 10 years!" and "You should be ashamed of yourself for rejoicing!" The latter reaction tends to be in the form of a chain letter-style reposting of a quote attributed to MLK, Jr.: "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." (Any quick research will tell you that this quote is falsely attributed in its entirety to MLK, Jr. The original post is here: http://i.imgur.com/cqtjw.jpg, found through http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110502221608AAjCJ3W.)

Here is what I have to say about Osama's death. A dangerous man has been taken out of power. He was an oppressor, a terrorist, and he stood for everything America has fought against since the Revolutionary War. He has been at the top of the FBI's most wanted list since the 90s. He and his organization attacked the USA almost ten years ago, and we vowed as a nation that we would hunt him down and put him to justice, and that we would stop at nothing. Under the Bush and Obama administrations, our nation's military has worked tirelessly to hunt him down. In the process, we have been attacking the ideals that oppress others.

I myself rejoice in Osama's death. Not because of some animal, sinful desire to harm others (which some "enlightened" people would lead others to believe), but for a couple of other reasons. First, this might mean we will finally leave Afghanistan and Iraq, freeing up billions of dollars in the Federal Budget. Being a Tea Partier, the prospect of this money being put back into the pockets of its owners, the American People, is exciting. Secondly, Osama's death symbolizes the defeat of a radical, oppressive political ideology that flew the flag of Islam. True Islam is indeed a religion of peace; the Koran teaches love for God and love for others. It says nothing about 72 virgins, nothing about burqas, nothing about killing Christians. Those are counterfeit ideas, and more Westerners need to see that.

Rolling over and submitting to radical Islam, as suggested for the more desirable course of action in this Spectrum article, would have spelled the death of Americanism. We have to turn the other cheek to show that their insults mean nothing! That is what Jesus preached, and that is what Jesus practiced. You could sit here and argue that war is always the wrong answer, but you would be denying that while there is a time for peace and a time for healing, a time for war and a time for killing also exists (Ecclesiastes 3).

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

On the Scriptural Nature of Our Doctrines

2011-04-18T11:30:00.000-07:00

Al Nonymous, a commenter on this post on reverence, seems to claim that the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist church are based on the writings of Ellen White, much in the same way that many doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are based on the Book of Mormon and other writings of Joseph Smith, Jr. There is a problem with this statement: if you ask any Adventist, he or she will say that our doctrines are based on and supported by Scripture alone. Why would any Adventist say that? Because it's the truth.

THE ROLE OF ELLEN WHITE'S WRITINGS
Ellen White was a modern-day prophet. She didn't have miraculous powers to heal the sick; nor did she claim to be the voice of God. In fact, she didn't call herself a prophet because she didn't want people deifying her. In her own eyes, Ellen was somebody who loved God more than anything else, and wanted others to share that love through the study of Scripture, prayer and simple living.

Her writings are not doctrinal in nature, but are instead advice for living simply, focusing on the Kingdom of God, and some elaborations on Scripture (the Conflict of the Ages series is a good example). There are times where she changed her mind (the Righteousness by Faith controversy of the last quarter of the 19th century), and other times when she gave advice that is no longer applicable (bicycles, for instance - Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, pp. 50-53). Just as God works within the confines of culture rather than counter-culture, Ellen White's messages are contingent on the culture of the time. God revealed specific knowledge to her when the time was right to do so, proving that a quick study of Adventist history takes care of any "discrepancies".

Basing our doctrines on the writings of Ellen White would mean that we shouldn't eat meat, that we shouldn't ride bicycles, that we shouldn't wear dresses that drag the ground, and so on and so forth. But these "doctrines" would be present simply for the fact that they come from Ellen's writings, making them on par with Scripture. She said that she was not to be revered in such a way, and that anything she wrote was meant to draw us to Scripture and to God, for by faith and grace alone we are saved.

PROBLEMS WITH ELLEN WHITE

Nonetheless, people revere her more than they should. Just as the Apostle Paul, Ellen White was a human being. She is fallible because she was born into sin. Yes, she may have been God's messenger to a new denomination, but many people have misconceptions about her.

One misconception deals with church history. I would hazard a guess that many Adventist (and vast numbers of non-Adventists) say she founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That is simply not true. The SDA Church was originally a group of individuals with like-minded beliefs that got together and worshiped together. They emerged from the Millerite Movement, which would insinuate that Miller, not White, was the founder of the Church, or at least the "Adventist" part.

Joseph Bates is probably the name that people should look to for the founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He actually convinced James and Ellen White that the Seventh-day was the true Sabbath. Still, I rarely hear his name dropped as a hero of Adventism. It's always Ellen White--not even her husband James, who wrote plenty as well, is named very often.

There seem to be two extremes when dealing with Ellen White. Her writings are either discounted (especially by so-called "progressive Adventists") or elevated to the level of Scripture. This is why some believe our doctrines are based on her writings. But if one were to examine the Twenty-Eight Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists, one would see that this is not the case. Every one of our doctrines (and no matter what anybody says, these are ALL of our official doctrines) is backed by Scripture, not some passage from Ellen White's writings. This is because Scripture is the source for knowledge of the Divine. Without it, we would not know Jesus.

In conclusion, I do not deny that Ellen White was a prophet. Nor do I deny that her writings are divinely inspired. I will say that unless one reads them, one cannot understand them. There are issues like historical and cultural context that we need to take into consideration, just as we must when trying to understand the Bible. Many people don't read Ellen White's writings because they are downright difficult to understand. She uses 19th century English and always quotes the King James Version of the Bible. On top of that, she tends to write deeper and more meaningful advice than we are accustomed to understanding. We have always been told, "Know this, do that, behave this way," and it's killing our church. The departing youth see that there is no reason behind the traditions of the Church, and they solve the problem by doing one of three things: delving into study like me, throwing out what they don't understand or agree with like the "progressives", or just leaving the Church altogether and creating the age gap that we see.

"Always be joyful and never stop praying. Whatever happens, keep thanking God because of Jesus Christ. This is what God wants you to do.Don't turn away God's Spirit or ignore prophecies. Put everything to the test. Accept what is good and don't have anything to do with evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:16-22, CEV).

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

A word on the Sunday Law

2011-04-01T11:23:00.000-07:00

The National Sunday Law has been a focal point of Adventist theology for decades. Will it happen soon? I can't say for sure. Will there be blood running through the streets? I seriously doubt it. Here are my thoughts.

The Blue Laws were seen as the forerunners of the National Sunday Law, a foreshadowing of the second Advent, as written about by Ellen White. The biggest thing about the blue laws is that they don't outlaw Sabbath worship, and they don't force Sunday worship. They simply regulate commerce on Sundays, mandating a day of rest. In fact, if there were blue laws that regulated homework, I would run out into the streets and shout, "Thank you Jesus!"

In order for a Sunday Law of the caliber that we have predicted with dread to be enacted, serious changes must be made to the Constitution. First, the entire First Amendment must be abolished (as of yet, such a change is far from sight). The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid a theocracy, and so they penned the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Not only can Congress not establish a national Day of Worship as Sunday, but they can not prohibit Sabbath worship. These are two essential tenets of the dreaded Sunday Law.

Also prohibiting the Sunday Law are the other clauses of the Amendment. Establishing a State Religion will surely gather the protests of every atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, and so on within our nation's borders. These make up such a percentage that we wouldn't be able to function unless under martial law. No, the only way to swing something like this would be to abolish free speech and the right to assemble and petition.

Even if the First Amendment, something which defines the USA, could be abolished or altered, we would have to get people to agree to the establishment of a State Religion. Given the attitudes of people toward religion nowadays, I think that the number of people that would go along with it would be very slim. The system of Checks and Balances prohibits one branch of the Government from having the power to hammer the law through, so that system would also have to be abolished. The Legislative and Judicial branches would have to be absorbed by the Executive, creating a monarchy, something the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid like the plague. You know the aphorism: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Let's say that the Sunday Law were to pass somehow. We would need a way to enforce it. That is where martial law would come in. The amount of people protesting the law would fill our prisons to bursting. House arrest would be useless, and we wouldn't have enough law enforcement personnel to make anything work. We would have to give the military the authority to punish those who didn't follow the law. (A text comes to mind. "Unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be spared." Mt. 24:22) This would require enough military personnel that didn't have qualms about killing their own people for religious reasons, and I don't think even the most autonomous of soldiers would do that.

What do I know, though? If you told somebody 50 years ago that we would have computers in our pockets, they would have laughed you out of existence. But no matter what Ellen White says, there are insurmountable obstacles between current law and the Sunday Law. I'm not saying it won't happen. If it does happen, though, it won't be for some time. One theory is that a global catastrophe will force people into this Old Testament-era "we must avoid the wrath of God" mindset--a global catastrophe like an asteroid impact (Rev 8:8). The biggest likelihood of such a strike is the asteroid 99942 Apophis, an 880 foot wide asteroid with an impact likelihood of 1 in 250,000. And that won't even be close until April of 2036.

So is it wrong to prepare for something that won't happen in the foreseeable future? No. But nobody should be paranoid about it. If this oppressive Sunday Law should come about, the Bible lets us know that we will be protected, so long as we love God. Remember, nobody knows anything definitive about this. We have our warnings, and we can heed them without using scare tactics to tell people to run for the hills. Remember Isaiah 41:10; Proverbs 3:5, 6; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17; and Psalm 91:12.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

REVERENCE!

2011-03-29T16:20:00.000-07:00

What is reverence? Is it a set of motions we go through before we can be granted an audience with God? Is it a list of ideals that help us to show greater respect for God? Is it a synonym for manners? Reverence is a term that we are often unacquainted with because its meaning is so nebulous that we just take it in context like a baby learning how to speak. Many in today's society are calling for a revival of sorts. We want to make church services more reverent, and in so doing, bring our focus back to God. It is my experience that there are several ways to do this, some of them right, and some of them wrong.

Before we address what must be done to make church services more reverent, we first must address the definition of reverence, this enigmatic thing with a myriad of nuanced meanings. According to Dictionary.com, reverence is "a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe", with another definition being, "a gesture indicative of deep respect". The latter definition, while appropriate, is not the kind of reverence we need more of. It is the kind of reverence that Ellen White is always advising must be observed, and for good reason. She writes that, as the person giving the sermon is a messenger of God's, we shouldn't be chit-chatting back and forth, being disruptions and distractions for other people that are actually trying to listen to the sermon. She also cautions that if your children are wild and unruly, you would be better off staying home (as a courtesy to others, more than to God, I think) and teaching them yourself. Yes, this reverence is needed, but it is in no way a means to ridding the congregation of lukewarmness and bringing them to a holy boil.

The former definition is probably the most appropriate reverence to practice in the house of God. It is a sense of deep respect, tinged with the awe that Jesus, creator of the universe, died in our place. I think the NIV puts it best: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8, emphasis mine). That is the sense of reverence that we should be feeling every time we step into the Sanctuary. It should not be nothing but a multipurpose room; it should be a special place where we can think about God's only Son, and His sacrifice. I mean, we are Christians, aren't we?

This is one reason that Catholic cathedrals are designed the way they are. As the worshiper enters the cathedral, before them is an image of Jesus, before which is an altar where the bread and wine is blessed (similarly to the blessing on the bread and wine given in Adventist Communion services, but we don't believe in transubstantiation and they do). To one side--I've always seen it on the left, or at "God's right hand"--is the pulpit, where the priest gives his homily. This placement is to draw attention away from the human messenger and toward Jesus, whose image is there to remind parishioners of the Crucifixion. It is not really idolatry, just symbolism (I'm not saying it's right to worship at the image of Jesus, but they aren't worshiping a false God and therefore not breaking the First Commandment). The crucifixes present in any Adventist church I've attended have been empty, pointing to Jesus's victory over death and His coming return. But other than the occasional stained glass window, those empty crucifixes are the only thing that separates our churches from ordinary auditoria.

If imagery is not present to remind us of Jesus's sacrifice, then what is left? The service content. At any part of the service, from prelude to postlude, one of the people who make the service possible can mention something that points to Christ. And if we are observing proper reverence (manners) then we can take that anecdote, song, text, or sermon, and we can use it to have more reverence (awe-inspired respect) for God.

Therein lies the problem; we have always been taught, essentially, that reverence meant manners. As a young Adventist, you probably went through the "prayer checklist", a template given you by your parents as to what you did with your eyes, hands, head, and so on. Why? It was reverent. You never ran in church (you probably did; you just won't admit it). Why? It was reverent. You didn't talk aloud during the service. Why? It was reverent. Reverence was a list of rules, not a sense of respect. It wasn't until I got to college that I really felt that sense of reverence. And still, I have found reverence in a wide spectrum of things, from the Z. Randall Stroope's loud and tumultuous Conversion of Saul to the silence of Heubach chapel when all I needed was a whisper.

Just as it is experiences that count when building any relationship, it is experiences that count when building reverence. As Adventists, we tend to become Vulcans and avoid outward displays of emotion, unless we are showing a placid happiness. I say that if anything, that practice has made us lukewarm. We are so apathetic that we don't feel anything. Throughout the Bible, what were some of the biggest events that converted people or brought them closer to God? One very notable display was the contest on Mt. Carmel. After hearing nothing from Ba'al, I would assume his followers had begun to doubt (Elijah probably didn't help with his taunts). Finally, FIRE shot down from heaven, instilling reverence into the people. This reverence, the kind that God desires, is also translated in some versions as "fear".

No, this is not a fear for one's life. It is not a worry. It is, in fact, the very essence of a relationship with God. This definition relates to a reverential awe for something or Someone. Without this reverential respect, we are lukewarm. We need to understand every time we think of God, that our Creator gave His life so that we could have life to the fullest. That alone demonstrates a selflessness that none of us is capable of. Not Ghandi, not Mother Theresa, not even you. We as humans are inherently imperfect, and a being of such perfection as God demands that respect.

We can sit here and say, "Don't chat back and forth with your friends in church; when you do, you are an instrument of the Devil," or we can tell people to take a seat and greet people instead of standing up. But none of that matters. Isaiah paints the picture of our obeisance plainly: "We are unfit to worship You; each of our good deeds is merely a filthy rag. We dry up like leaves; our sins are as storm winds, sweeping us away" (64:6). No matter how many times you refrain from talking during the sermon, kneel in submission when praying, or even try to be respectful of God, it will never be enough. No one can please God by obeying the Law (Galatians 3:11). So why should we even try?

Let's decide once and for all what it means to make our services more reverent. Instead of focusing on our actions, we should focus on the content. Yes, we should listen to the sermon; in being respectful of the speaker, we are being respectful of God and His message. But we should also realize that without your heart in the right place, you might as well stay home. Open yourself to receive Christ, and He will fill you. That's what being reverent should entail. When we're so focused on what to do and what not do do while in the Sanctuary, we inevitably lose sight of the reason Christianity exists: to praise and thank the One who made it possible for us to live.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Creation vs. Evolution: my thoughts

2011-03-12T14:46:00.000-08:00

This is a touchy subject. A lot of you will be horrified by what I say. But nevertheless, in light of the recent debate with La Sierra University at the core, I decided I would share my thoughts regarding Creation and Evolution.

First, let me state what I believe. Then I will explain.

I believe in six consecutive, twenty-four hour periods of work, followed by one twenty-four hour period of rest in which God shaped the blob of matter He that had just created into the planet that we call Earth.
I believe that these one hundred and sixty-eight consecutive hours occurred approximately six thousand years ago.
I believe that God created all the base forms of life, the unique ancestors of every genus that we see on this Earth today.
I do not believe that certain forms of evolution are impossible, and I do not believe that God created every species that we see on this Earth today.

Yes, I believe in certain kinds of evolution. But before we continue, let me settle this little semantic argument. Evolution is a notable change observed over a period of time. It could be anything ranging from laptop computers to the myriad species of Galapagos Finches (one of the most commonly cited examples of evolution). In organisms, evolution is what we could call in music Variations on a Theme. The original species still survives (unless it has become extinct), but there are numerous variations within it.

Let's take a look at domesticated animals: dogs, cats and horses. Each kind of animal has a common ancestor, and yet there are many different breeds with unique characteristics within each. I have heard that some people who disavow evolution believe God created every sort of animal we see today. While I don't doubt that God designed for things like crossbreeding, God did not create Labrador retrievers as Labrador retrievers. He did not create Tennessee Walkers as Tennessee Walkers. Those are human-supervised variations in species due to selected breeding. This form of evolution has been going on almost as long as history has been recorded. It is documented, proven science.

Another form of evolution that is documented, proven science is something called adaptation. This is variation in species due to environmental factors. The aforementioned Galapagos Finches display numerous variations in beak size based on diet. This is due to inherited changes brought about by environmental factors. Natural selection plays a big role in survivability: if an organism simply cannot adapt enough to survive in an environment, it becomes extinct. However, if an organism can adapt enough to survive, it survives. I do, however, doubt that God makes these natural selections completely random. He designed the food chains and the systems of adaptation to be self-sustaining, much like the systems that make up any living organism.

One prime example of adaptation is people of African ancestry. They are primarily dark skinned (though still humans; I hate to use "race"), and the obvious reason is that the people that migrated to the deserts of Africa needed darker skin to avoid many of the problems associated with overexposure to the sun. This variation was inherited and is still seen today. I don't think it was a random mutation, either. It was God saying, "This is what they need to survive. Make it so, Number One."

Any demonstrable natural evolution is driven by the Divine hand. Similarly, any demonstrable unnatural variation is driven by human hands. It is not random mutation that gets the job done; if left unchecked, nature on this sinful Earth would be devoid of beauty and filled with chaos. The fact that a flower blooms is evidence that somebody has His hand in the harmony of the universe.

AN ARGUMENT OF ORIGIN
Now, shall we discuss the biggest argument between creationists and evolutionists? Yes, let's. The two biggest complaints Creationists have with the Theory of Evolution are abiogenesis and the common-ancestor theory. Abiogenesis is the formation of life in the primordial sludge of the young Earth, and the common-ancestor theory states that every form of life (at least within the animal kingdom) has a common ancestor in that primordial sludge. The most notable series of evolution are that of the horse and that of homo sapiens.

Let's start with abiogenesis. When you mention it to a run-of-the-mill evolutionist, you receive flack; they state that "Evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis! It has to do with how life has changed over the years!" Oops, problem. You see, when a run-of-the-mill creationist thinks of Evolution, they automatically think of the old-style theory that contains abiogenesis, billions of years, asteroid impacts that ended the reign of the dinosaurs, etc., placing a heavy emphasis on the notion that God does not exist and had nothing to do with the origin of life. Current evolutionary theory, according to those I've spoken with, has almost nothing to do with origins and more to do with non-theoretical evolution such as intraspecies variation. Why, then, are people so vehemently opposed to teaching intelligent design in schools? Could it be that they are in the business of teaching things like adaptation, things which are not theories, but science? My biggest guess is that the reason ID is never really even brought up is that people automatically think "YOU'RE PROSELYTIZING OUR KIDS!" That, and they misrepresent ID as an explanation for our current variations rather than an origin theory, which is what it is. They make the same mistake Christians do in thinking that Evolution, which itself has evolved since Darwin's time, is an origin theory and not an explanation for the variety we see in life today.

Now let's talk about the common-ancestor theory. The theory that hominids share a common ancestor with apes is a subject of much debate since the Bible says God created man in His image. The Evolutionary Theory states that apes and humans are two different evolutionary paths of the same organism. This I must disagree with. Humans are the only sapient creature on the planet Earth. There are, I would argue, other sentient creatures, but as intelligent as they are, they still don't have the ability to philosophize. I think apes probably do have a common ancestor, but they do not share it with humans. I've heard people talk about the upright-walking gorilla Ambam as evolving before our eyes. I can't agree with this, though; his standing upright is obviously imitative of the people he sees at the zoo every day.

I could go for pages and pages about the reasons I don't believe in as broad of a common-ancestor approach as the evolutionists, but I think I've covered the topic well enough. I believe that God created life and the base forms of all organisms. I also believe that God set in motion processes which allow organisms to adapt to their environments. All the animals we see today are descended from versions of themselves, be the evolution divinely supervised or the cause of human intervention. Burn me at stake all you want; that's what I believe about the origin of species.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

What About Foul Language?

2011-03-04T08:00:00.000-08:00

I recently read the Sermon on the Mount again. It is one of my favorite passages in the entire Bible. One segment jumps out at me every time, and it's not because it's confusing or especially great, but it was one thing that I always thought was really strange in the way people used it:

³³You know that our ancestors were told, "Don't use the Lord's name to make a promise unless you are going to keep it." ³⁴But I tell you not to swear by anything when you make a promise! Heaven is God's throne, so don't swear by heaven. ³⁵The earth is God's footstool, so don't swear by the earth. Jerusalem is the city of the great king, so don't swear by it. ³⁶Don't swear by your own head. You cannot make one hair white or black. ³⁷When you make a promise, say only "Yes" or "No." Anything else comes from the devil. (Matthew 5:33-7, CEV)

Every time I've heard somebody use this text throughout my years, it's been in reference to foul or vulgar language. But the passage is clearly not talking about the usage of foul language. The verse that always made it sound weird to me was v37: "But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No,' 'No'. For whatsoever is more than these is from the evil one." This verse has nothing to do with "swearing" as we use the term today. Taken out of context, and especially if one omits v37, this passage could be used as a prohibition on such intensifiers as "Oh crap!" But including v37 makes the passage about trustworthiness, which is ever-important in the life of a Christian.

So if this passage doesn't place a ban on vulgarity, what does? I think something that would be more conducive to the ends of the misquoters is Philippians 4:8: "Finally, my friends, keep your minds on whatever is true, pure, right, holy, friendly, and proper. Don't ever stop thinking about what is truly worthwhile and worthy of praise" (CEV).

In order to understand why we should stay away from foul language, we sometimes need to understand its origins. Here are three "bad" words that are in the Bible: hell, ass and damn. Why, then, are they considered to be foul language? Well, let's start with "damn".

To damn is to condemn, or to curse. The Bible says that only God has the power to judge, and therefore we should not condemn people or things. The word's use as an intensifier is probably more common than as a curse today: "Damn, that was close!" is just one example. An acceptable alternative would be, "Wow, that was close!" but it does lose some of the intensity that the less desirable word adds to the sentence. It can also be used as an expression of disdain, which is closer to a curse: "Damn, I was hoping that would have worked out."

The usage in the expression, "Damned if I do, damned if I don't," for expressing an impossible and undesirable situation is perfectly legitimate and is not foul or vulgar in the least. It's another way of saying, "Either way, it will end in ruin for me." The only thing is that since the word "damn" has been added to the list of foul words, all instances of it are barred from modern "polite" conversation.

Many words have come to replace "damn": man (as an intensifier), blast, curse, etc. But are we really avoiding a certain series of muscle movements, or are we avoiding the actual curse itself? We as humans naturally want to curse things undesirable. If not, why would Jesus have warned us to "judge not, lest ye be judged" (Mt 7:1)? Blasting is a form of condemnation; cursing something is a form of condemnation; everything we replace "damn" with means essentially the same thing. We have no reason whatsoever to judge something because we are not perfect, and we will not be until after we ourselves are judged.

Now let's look at "hell". The only reason that word is considered a bad word is that we hate to talk about the ill fate of the wicked. In many Christian circles, Catholic and Protestant alike, Hell is described as a place where the wicked and sinful will feel the wrath of God for all eternity. It is a place of torment and of suffering. Sounds like a nice vacation, doesn't it? Of course not! Nobody wants to think of this as being anybody's fate, and it was (and still is) often used as a scare tactic. "If you don't repent, you're going to hell!" say some ministers. "Gays will burn in hell!" says Fred Phelps and his thralls. Hell this, hell that: everybody that isn't perfect is going to burn in hell. The Bible teaches something else, though: the wicked will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15). With one notable exception in Exodus, in every instance throughout history, fire consumes. It consumes the wicked, for that is the only way they will have peace. Ellen White explains that the destruction of the wicked is an act of mercy, not of anger or hatred. Those who hate God and are beyond his grace (due to a little thing called free will) would find every day in the Kingdom of Heaven to be as torturous as the traditional definition of hellfire. They would want to be destroyed, and so God will give them what they want, that they would suffer no more.

Now let's get into the modern usage of the word "hell" in a more conversational setting. Often, people say, "to hell with it," which is essentially the same thing as saying, "damn it." A more kosher way of putting it is to say, "forget it," though more common is, "screw it." But the usual usage of "hell" is in an exclamation of confusion and surprise: "What the hell?" This is, of course, short for something along the lines of, "What in (the) Hell is that?" Similar utterances include, "What on Earth is that?" and "What in heaven's name is that?" They fulfill the same function while avoiding the usage of the undesirable word. "Hell" is not really a bad word; it's just something we don't like to think about, so we've ousted it from the "proper" speech.

Finally we come to the word "ass". This is an old English name for equus africanus asinus, the common domestic donkey. Never in the King James Bible would an ass be referred to as a donkey because the word simply hadn't been invented. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word "donkey" originated in 1785: "originally slang, perhaps a dim. from dun 'dull grey-brown,' the form perhaps influenced by monkey. Or possibly from a familiar form of Duncan (cf. dobbin)." I myself have used the word in my poetry, referring to myself as stubborn. And that's exactly what calling somebody an ass used to mean: stubborn. And they're not necessarily known for their intelligence, either. Again, this is not a bad word. Likening someone to an ass is no worse than saying they're stubborn, thickheaded, and so on.

There is, however, a text that advises us against doing such a thing, found in Matthew 5:22: "But I promise you that if you are angry with someone, you will have to stand trial. If you call someone a fool, you will be taken to court. And if you say that someone is worthless, you will be in danger of the fires of hell" (CEV) Since asses weren't good for much more than being pack animals, calling somebody an ass is essentially calling them worthless.

I won't get into some of the less desirable language. Some of it was created as profanity, so naturally it doesn't fall into that which is good, pure, praiseworthy, etc. Let's instead have a look at what swearing used to be. Nowadays, it means anything that includes foul language. But in the past, when you swore, you made a promise. It was the equivalent of signing a contract nowadays. You would swear by something you cared about: a parent's grave, the Bible, the rising of the sun, etc. Taking that last example, you could say, "I swear by the rising of the sun that I will repay you," or you could say, "As surely as the sun rises, I will repay you." They meant the same thing. Jesus cautions us against these things, for if we make a promise that is as binding as the rising of the sun, then we are bound to it. Circumstances beyond our control could get in the way and prevent us from fulfilling the contract. It could keep on like that for years, for all we know. Instead, Jesus, in his usual habit of uncomplicating things, said, "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes', and your 'No' be 'No'." If we were trustworthy, which we should be as Christians, then nobody would need proof of our word in the form of an oath. Our word would be enough for people to have the comfort that we would fulfill our end of the bargain.

That is not to say that all oaths are evil. I have sworn two oaths (other than contracts, license agreements, and so on) in my life: one of allegiance to the United States of America and the ideals of her Founding Fathers, and one to God. And my pledge to the USA has never been concrete. It's been contingent on whether or not I agree with her values, which are growing increasingly counter to my own in recent days. My oath to God, however, is simple: I will serve Him no matter what trials and hardships come my way. I didn't have to make any complicated promise held in place by some truth; it was a simple answer to a simple question. "Will you serve Me?" "Yes." My word is bond. And that's how it should be.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

My Thoughts Re: the King James Version

2011-02-04T08:00:00.000-08:00

The King James Version. Many herald it as the only true and Divinely inspired English translation of the Bible, while others see it as antiquated. I myself find it as hard to read and understand as Chaucer, and I much prefer the Clear Word paraphrase, the New International Version, or the Contemporary English version. I still think it is viable, but I also see that changes in meaning and construction, as well as other vernacular idiosyncrasies, have made the KJV into what I believe is not the ideal Bible for today's English-speaking people.

Some Terminology
If I remember my classes correctly, a Version is a translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek by a group. Similarly, a Translation is a translation from the original manuscripts by an individual. Lastly, a Paraphrase is a re-jiggering, for lack of a better term, of an existing English version such as the King James Version.

A lot of times, we ask, "Which version of the Bible do you use?" Sometimes in the response, we don't think of which Bible is which, and we seem to treat them all as equals. While all of them are Scripture, not all of them are directly translated from the original manuscripts. For instance, The Message and The Clear Word are both paraphrases. They are reconstructions of older English versions that feature more modern English. Many take these with a grain or two (or in the case of the Clear Word, several tablespoons) of salt. Many accuse paraphrases of being twisted to fit a particular denomination's doctrines and message. This may appear true in some cases, but it's often baseless conjecture and conspiracy theory. I see paraphrases as no greater or lesser than direct translations, for, as the Scriptures say, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2Tim 3:16-17, KJV, emphasis mine).

Why the KJV is GOOD
The Authorized King James Version is the oldest commonly used English Bible, completed in 1611. Due to the Puritans' despair at a lack of good English translations (most of them had been translated from Jerome's Vulgate), King James commissioned this Bible for the Church of England. Almost fifty scholars took part in translating the Bible from the original languages, and painstaking care was taken that the translations were accurate.

The KJV was further edited in the 18th century, with its final edition being standardized and published in 1769. This is the version that we see today, wholly unchanged.

Why the KJV is BAD
As a publication of the Church of England, the KJV was translated, as ordered by King James, to conform to the ecclesiology of that denomination. The biggest criticism of the Clear Word is that Adventists have changed the wording of some texts to conform to their ecclesiology (despite the fact that the Clear Word is neither produced nor published by the GC, and that the GC does not endorse it specifically). This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. To get the purest words of Scripture, one must go back to the original manuscripts, and not everybody is fluent in classic Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.

Perversion concerns aside, the KJV is just plain hard to understand. Yes, you can take all the "thee"s, "thou"s and "thine"s and interpret them as "you"s and "your"s. But what may have been clear usage in the vernacular of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is confusing and obsolete in the vernacular of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The whole point of translating the Bible into English, German, French, Spanish, Italian (and I can go on for years) was to give the people the Word of God in the vernacular language, not some high and mighty Latin (or Early Modern English) that requires a college degree and a dictionary to understand. For that reason alone, I think the Authorized King James Version, which reigned as the chief English Bible until the 1970s, is outdated and is more useful as a history book than something "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

About Other Versions
While, in my experience, many concerns about versions other than the KJV are unfounded, illogical and alarmist, many of them make me raise an eyebrow to certain versions. For instance, the Revised Standard Version could be used by those who don't believe the literal six-day creation week as outlined in the KJV. In the poem that makes up Genesis 1 and the first few verses of Genesis 2, the RSV refers to "evening and morning, one day" and then to "evening and morning, a second day", and so on and so forth. This seems to have been adjusted to conform to the theory that the days of Creation Week were not necessarily one after another, and could have been millions of years apart. (In my belief, that theory is a major cop-out to seem more conforming to "science" being lorded over us. In reality, we have no hard number for the age of the Earth, but a young Earth makes much more sense. More on this later.)

My favorite versions are the NKJV, which takes the text in the KJV and makes it a little bit more contemporary; the NIV, which is a new translation that is slightly easier to understand than the NKJV at times; and the CEV, which is even easier to understand than the NIV, yet is closer to the KJV than the Clear Word. Not once have I found in any of these translations anything that seems to contradict what is said in the KJV.

About the Clear Word in Particular: answering criticism
http://www.watchman.org/reltop/clearwordbible.htm
This page, an article from the Jehovah's Witnesses' Watchman Expositor, treats the Clear Word like a Bible put out by the GC. It is in reality the contrary: the CW is an interpretive paraphrase, a devotional exercise by Dr. Jack Blanco. It is not endorsed, not produced, and not published by any Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Similar to my embarkation on translating the Bible into Hra'anh, a language that I am in the process of creating for my science fiction stories, this takes an extant version, such as the KJV and records Dr. Blanco's interpretation. This alone answers for me any criticisms of the Clear Word paraphrase.

I love the Clear Word because it is Scripture. But I don't use it for my primary Bible; I much prefer the CEV or NKJV. I use the Clear Word for commentary's sake when I don't want to sift through the walls of information in the SDA Bible Commentaries or my NIV Study Bible, which has commentary in footnotes and countless cross-references in the margins. Yes, the accusation that the commentary is written into the text is true. But honestly, most of the condemnations are nothing but semantic arguments, which are some of the weakest arguments that aren't outright fallacious. And the others are countered by the CW's origins: an interpretive paraphrase by an individual and published through an Adventist publishing house.

In Conclusion
Never have I seen a Bible, KJV or otherwise, that preaches that the wicked will burn forever. Never have I seen a Bible that preaches the deprecation of Saturday Sabbath. All of these concerns about versions other than the KJV are baseless. And when I don't understand a text, I read it over several times, cross-check with multiple versions, and even dissect and diagram the sentences! The Bible is made to be understood by everybody, and English has changed so much in the last 300 years that it can be almost impossible to understand the KJV.

The position that the KJV is the only true English Bible is more a matter of taste than theology, especially since the KJV was translated carefully enough that it conformed to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. In that light, I would almost rather trust the NIV or CEV since both are new translations! Just as I use the Clear Word primarily for commentary purposes or pleasure reading, I use the KJV only when I want to have a look at the older translation. I own three physical Bibles, and none of them are KJV, which shows how often I use it. The bottom line is that I think this generation deserves a much clearer translation than this three hundred year old relic.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Unpacking Galatians 3

2011-01-28T08:00:00.000-08:00

When asked for Biblical evidence of the sacredness of Sunday as opposed to Saturday, many Christians come up dry, and the Catholic Church acknowledges that there is no Scriptural evidence for the change. But the one verse I hear cited most often is Galatians 3:23-25, which states that the Law was as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. In verse 25, it states that since Christ fulfilled the Law, it is unnecessary. This is, however, a passage that is very frequently taken out of context. In order to truly understand it, one must read the entire chapter of Galatians 3.

Paul begins this section of the epistle by admonishing the Galatians' thinking that salvation was by works and not by faith (also one of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses). He asks repeatedly whether they had received the Spirit by "the works of the law" or by "the hearing of the faith". He then goes into a complicated series of explanations about how the Law is impossible to follow, and yet must be followed perfectly in order to receive eternal life:

¹⁰ For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” ¹¹ But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” ¹² Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” (NKJV)

To paraphrase, because the Scriptures say that everyone who does not follow the Law is under a curse, then everyone is under a curse (cf Deut 27:26). But because the just shall live by faith, nobody can please God simply by keeping the Law (cf Hab 2:4). Then, as the CEV states in v12, "The Law isn't based on faith. It promises life only to people who obey its commands" (cf Lev 18:5). This duality between the requirement to fulfill the law and the impossibility to please God by following it can be quite discouraging and frustrating if taken out of context, but v13 brings encouragement:

¹³ Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), ¹⁴ that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Yet another example in the Bible of Christ, perfect and sinless, dying for us and taking our place so that we could be saved. There are those that would argue that Christ came as an example, to show us that we could live sinless lives, but that negates the need for a Savior and highly emphasizes what Paul has said here is patently wrong: that the Law can grant salvation. In fact, because it is impossible for us to keep the Law perfectly, it required the Lamb's sacrifice. In order for us to receive redemptive grace, Perfection had to take our place.

In v15-18, Paul explains even more how the Law does not beget blessings; it is instead our unchangeable covenant with God, the original promise to Abraham.

¹⁵ Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. ¹⁶ Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”who is Christ. ¹⁷ And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. ¹⁸ For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Verses 17 and 18 especially important; they reinforce that Abraham's blessings ("inheritance") came over four hundred years before the Ten Commandments were given at Sinai. And if the blessings come from the Law, then what good is the blessed Promise that God would deliver the land unto Abraham's Seed (cf Gen 12:7; 13:15; 24:7).

So if the Law does not beget salvation, then what, exactly is it? This us brings us back to the passage many misquote, starting in v19:

¹⁹ What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. ²⁰ Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
²¹ Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. ²² But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. ²³ But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. ²⁴ Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵ But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Especially because of the corruption of Egypt, the Israelites needed the Law to teach them what was right and what was wrong. They needed all those little nitpicking guidelines laid out in the Pentateuch so that they could have a structured life. They didn't have committees, juries or judges (at least, not in the modern sense). They had the Word of God and that was it. Since the shedding Christ's innocent, perfect blood eliminated the need for this tutor, this reminder of what was right and what was wrong, the Law was fulfilled. And that means all of it. Oftentimes we Adventists look at two "parts", and see the one fulfilled as being the sacrificial system. But the Ten Commandments are indeed a part of the greater Mosaic Law that was fulfilled. Before you scream, "blasphemy!", I want to point out that the Ten Commandments, the guidelines for right and wrong, have not changed. What is right in the eyes of God will always be right, and what is wrong in the eyes of God will always be wrong.

This brings me all the way back to the issue of the Ten Commandments and their fulfilled nature being cause for justifying Sunday sacredness and non-observance of the Seventh-day Sabbath. The Ten Commandments were a set broad and specific statements from God's own hand of what is right--honoring one's parents and keeping the Sabbath holy--and what is wrong--murder, sexual immorality (under the umbrella word "adultery"), theft, perjury, idolatry, the cursing of God (and I might add falsifying claims in His name, which is also a form using His name in vain), and the wrongful or inordinate desire for another's property (which could fall along the lines of theft as well as coveting). Due to this fact alone, they cannot change.

Finally we come to the end of the chapter. And I think I should let Paul finish out this article.

²⁶ For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. ²⁷ For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

A message to the Antichrist

2011-01-21T08:00:00.000-08:00

It would seem that in today's world, so many are adamant about replacing God with science. They seem to argue that one cannot serve two masters: one cannot serve Science and Religion. But it would seem that these are just lies perpetuated by the Father of Lies himself, Satan the Great Deceiver. I have heard numerous avowed atheists and science worshipers profess that religion is outdated, archaic, defunct. They posit that Christians are lying to themselves and wasting their lives. But ask yourself this question, ideology of the Antichrist: If it's about openness and freedom, why won't you accept Christianity as viable? If it harms neither you nor its followers, then is it bad by your standards? And if we are lying to ourselves and wasting our lives for a false hope, then why should you care? What are we missing? STDs? Cirrhosis? Emphysema or COPD? Diets with too much protein and not enough carbs?

The Bible tells us how to eat: healthfully. The Bible tells us to live pure lives and take care of our bodies. The Bible tells us to love people, so why must you denounce it? Face it, you're never going to kill us. You couldn't do it physically during the Dark Ages. You can't do it mentally in the 21st century. When something has survived for thousands of years like this, there's really no hope in destroying it; it's far too powerful. We know that good will triumph and the world's problems will be solved, but until then we do what we can to make others' lives better. It's rather pathetic of you to try and crush us by calling us Fundies, by calling us closed-minded, by spreading anti-religious Marxist philosophies. Sticks and stones may break our bones. And you may crucify us. But the truth is that we're too strong to fall because all the host of heaven is encamped around us.

Try as you may, this is as wall that you cannot breach. It is a fight you cannot win. We have the victory, and every second we endure puts us one step closer to hearing those words: "Well done, good and faithful one." As it was in the days on Noah, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. And as we trek further into the 21st century, the days of Noah are making a comeback. The knowledge of man is increasing exponentially, and so is man's wickedness. There are wars and rumors of wars. It won't be long at all before the trumpet sounds and the mountains crumble. Until then, the faithful among us are going to hold against your attacks, Antichrist. The harder you try, the stronger we get. You can do nothing to stop us.

A Man Following Christ,
Michael

Audio entry: Depression and Suicide

2011-01-14T08:00:00.000-08:00

Audio entry because it's Thursday and I have nothing written.
http://www.mbrsart.com/audio/Depression_and_Suicide.mp3

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Sunday blurb: Time Taken

2011-01-09T15:18:00.000-08:00

This is an age of noise. From the hustle and bustle of the streets to the constant din of our iPods, TVs, computers and cell phones. In this day and age, it is hard to take time to spend with God every day. It's all we can do to finish our studies, make enough money to squeak by, and get enough rest to fend off illness. Because of all this busyness in our lives, it is crucial to take time every day to spend with God. Look at me, telling you to spend time with God every day when I can't even find five minutes to do so myself. You see, this is why it's so important. Time spent with God is always a good investment and the more time you spend with God the better you will feel. And I know that from experience.

Tonight instead of playing computer games until it's time to go to bed, I'm going to spend half an hour or so reading in Patriarchs and Prophets, and then I'm going to spend a few minutes in prayer. Then tomorrow morning I'm going to start the day with prayer, which I haven't done once in the entire span of my memory. I'm going to do this every day. Let's see where this road takes me, shall we?

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Update/More Like Falling in Love?

2011-01-05T11:00:00.000-08:00

UPDATE
As I was home for two weeks over Christmas Break, I found it hard to get into the swing of things. Having just touched down from a particularly stressful quarter (which explains my lack of regularity in posting entries), I was expecting to relax, to have two weeks to spend with myself and my family. What I got was the most hectic and stressful break of all time. In short, both my parents were gone most of the day attending to essential business and family matters, and I was left without a car or really the time to go and relax.

We did, however, get to spend Christmas Eve together. We opened gifts, as is our tradition, and then went to bed in preparation for the rather unique church service the next day. When all was said and done, at least the Christmas weekend was restful in some respects.

MORE LIKE FALLING IN LOVE?
Speaking of Christmas Day, I got to drive my aunt to the airport on Christmas morning. On the way back to collect my tie, I listened to Air 1, my favorite radio station (and almost the only one I listen to). As per the holiday at hand, the station was playing a marathon of Christmas music. I rejoiced as the obligatory Sarajevo 12/24 by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra was played, and enjoyed hearing arrangements of my favorite carols and songs by my favorite bands, as well as hearing some of the "less favorable" songs. But I listened anyway.

Later the next week, as I was driving back from the grocery store after picking up some cottage cheese for an Adventist staple, Special K Loaf, I heard a song that I've heard on occasion. The chorus philosophizes, "It's gotta be more like falling in love / than something to believe in / more like losing my heart / than giving my allegiance." Of course, it is referring to the nature of the Christian's relationship with Christ. And it is, of course, wrong...or at least, partly wrong.

When I heard this song the most recent time, it gave me a mixed feeling. Part of me was disappointed and part of me was cynical. As somebody who has "fallen in love" before but whose affections haven't really ever been returned more than a little bit, I'm very cautious when people talk or sing about loving Jesus like loving a significant other. Because love is such a complicated thing when it is brought outside the safety and security of something like a familial relationship (and even then it can be complex and nuanced), it feels like sometimes these songs or sermons idealize the relationship with God. Instead of bringing it down to simplest terms--Jesus died for us so that we could go to heaven--they complicate things. In addition, this "falling in love" and the losing of one's heart generally suggests infatuation, which (as I have much experience) is rarely a genuine, enduring love. If it needs to be more like an infatuation with Christ, than an unquestioning obedience, then I want out.

The reason I would want out is a product of my present relationship with God. It was forged in the throes of a deep depression (also the source of my caution against falling in love); all the heat and pressure crystallized it from an amorphous blob of coal to a diamond. No, the stone isn't perfect, but it is harder and stronger than anything the Devil can throw at me. Why should I make capricious something that is founded on bedrock?

The last line of the chorus finishes the contrast: "...than giving my allegiance". All right, let's look at this for a second. To give one's allegiance is to vow loyalty and devotion. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Now there's something you probably haven't said in a long time. I haven't said it in years, not since eighth grade. And yet it is something I mean every time I say. I love my country and would gladly die for its (original) ideals. Likewise, I am a soldier for Christ. I love Him such that I would sooner die than recant my beliefs. And it appalls me that this song seems to suggest that allegiance comes from dogmatism or being proselytized. That's what the anti-Christian world thinks, those militant atheists who openly mock us. But I know better. My allegiance comes from the same place my love does: trial by fire.

This "something to believe in" is my lifeblood. This giving of my allegiance is everything I care about. If the world were to end today, I would be confident that my struggles have brought me closer to God. But if I were to make it more of a turbulent roller coaster of emotions, such as the feeling of falling in love, then I know I wouldn't stand.

The wise man built his house upon the rock (and was as gold refined in the fire)
The wise man built his house upon the rock (sing it with me)
The wise man built his house upon the rock
And the rains came a-tumbling down.

And the rains came down and the floods came up (more trials and tribulations)
And the rains came down and the floods came up
And the rains came down and the floods came up
And the house on the rock stood firm.

The foolish man built his house upon the sand (flighty nature of falling in love, a mere emotion)

The foolish man built his house upon the sand
The foolish man built his house upon the sand
And the rains came a-tumbling down.

And the rains came down and the floods came up
And the rains came down and the floods came up
And the rains came down and the floods came up
And the house on the sand went SMASH!

Yes, we need to love God. But it needs to be strong and rooted. A tree whose roots go deep will fall, but if it is rooted in shallow soil, a strong wind can topple it. It needs to be devotion, not infatuation. It needs to be a diamond, not cubic zirconia.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Modern-day Tropes: dredging up ancient history

2011-01-05T10:02:00.000-08:00

It was the ninth century AD before Gregorian Chant was standardized in the Catholic Church. But the addition of new feast days and other occasions called for the addition of new music to the repertoire. Old texts and melodies were reworked and expanded, forming tropes. New sacred but nonbiblical texts were added to the liturgy, and melodies were written for them, making what are called sequences. Dramatic retellings of stories and allegories used melody to form liturgical dramas. All of these are ways to take the existing liturgical music and make it new and fresh. All of these are things we could use to revitalize music in the Adventist Church.

No, I'm not saying we should rewrite all the hymns in the book or throw some out (though some of them we might as well since nobody ever sings them). I'm saying that if the more traditional half of the Church--and I absolutely hate to think of our denomination as divided--would accept a reboot, if you will, of some of the classic hymns, things won't be so uninteresting (I'm going to address lack of interest and why interest matters in a future article).

A QUESTION OF REPERTOIRE

The "Praise and Worship" repertoire in modern Christian music consists of original songs by artists such as Delirious?, Chris Tomlin, Matt Redman, Hillsong United and many others. Many of the songs are less recent, traveling all the way back to the founding of CCM and before. Still others trace their roots to Christian hymnody, but they all share a characteristic style and instrumental color. Many of them have been simplified to remove pesky things like syncopation, much to the detriment of the song itself. (If there is one thing I hate about amateur and hobbyist praise teams, it's when they take syncopation out of songs that must be syncopated.) It seems, though, that much of the CCM Praise and Worship repertoire is standard, and the number of songs is small compared to something as encompassing as the SDA Hymnal.

This repertoire is so small, in fact, that many of our younger churchgoers have hardly ever used a hymnal. I grew up singing out of the hymnal. It taught me an invaluable skill, sight-singing. And it taught me songs that I remember to this day, songs that are well written and have fantastic lyrical content. Without singing from the hymnal, or at least singing hymns, the old ones will die, replaced my the simpler, more--dare I say it--trite hymns of modern Christian hymnody. Just a little housekeeping: I call contemporary songs hymns because they are used as hymns; many Adventists distinguish hymns in our hymnal from more contemporary music and I feel it improper to do so. All of them praise God, so why not call them what they are? (Hymn, being defined by the Greek hymnos, and by Thomas Aquinas as a song of praise to God.)

So this brings us to a the ultimate question regarding repertoire: should we abandon traditional hymns for modern style and compositional methods, or should we abandon modern music to save the only divinely ordained manner of singing? An affirmative answer to either option is, in my personal yet educated opinion, completely and utterly wrong. Not only is calling traditional hymnody the only divinely ordained form of song, as the Catholic Church did in their following of Greek music theory, but modern compositions deserve as much status as hymns as the older compositions do. On top of this, calling the older hymns hackneyed and stale is using the same prejudice that is used to justify alienating and condemning newer compositions.

The answer to the question is simple to say the least: instead of alienating one genre of hymn in favor of the other, we should take both and use both. We should teach the older hymns to those who don't know them, and teach the new ones likewise. They are all viable songs. They are all songs to God. The only difference is in the style of composition and performance. To merge the styles, we have to rely on something that sounds easy but is far from: arranging.

THE TROUBLE WITH ARRANGING

Arrangement is an art. It's not something you can sit down and do. In order to do so, you have to have enough command of your internal ear that you can hear in your head what you put down on paper. On top of that, you have to have a broad enough knowledge of music theory and arranging techniques that you can know what chord progressions to stay away from, what functions the original chords have, what implied harmony may be present in a monophonic, unaccompanied piece, and so on and so forth. Only after you are competent in these things can you use more unorthodox methods; only an extremely gifted composer can throw notes at a page and create gold.

Fortunately for the average musician, arranging isn't quite rocket science. All it takes is a basic knowledge of music theory and a good ear to take a song and spice it up. For instance, if your ear tells you to put in a few color chords or a different progression, as long as you can communicate that on paper, you're good. But it usually boils down to a glorified transcription that oftentimes doesn't quite match the original song. Sometimes the "avant-garde" arrangement is stylistically opposite of the original song and does more harm than good. Other times still, it's just a bland take on an otherwise great song.

Successful arrangements are impossible without practice and patience. Nobody is going to arrange something overnight (unless it's Gioachino Rossini; he wrote the entire opera The Barber of Seville in only 12 days, or so he claimed). And the lack of talented arrangers in today's age (and throughout history) has led us back to our traditional roots of singing and playing verbatim from the hymnal. While many of the arrangements in there are great, the Lutheran style just lacks some of the modern colors we're used to. Rarely do hymns in our hymnal use anything but the standard major, minor, dominant and leading-tone chords. Great is Thy Faithfulness is an excellent example of "non-standard" arranging: it uses numerous predominants, a IV/ii, and even an emb: a #ii°⁷/I. They add a certain amount of intrigue, making the song not just another well-worn melody; they instead make it an unforgettable gem of Christian hymnody. These techniques and others are as important of tools in the arsenal of the arranger as an armada of brushes and paints in the hands of a painter. And without the skills to use them properly, all the color chords in the universe aren't going to do a lick of good.

IN CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, a perfect arrangement is an idealistic fantasy that is far from possible, except in the Divine courts. But we can get something that sounds good enough to be interesting, yet isn't so dolled up that it's unlistenable. Again we come to a balance between the old and the new, a synergy of artistry and liturgy. That, my friends, is how it should be done. Instead of our traditional hymnody being a bitter pill for some and a sweet elixir for others, or the same with more contemporary hymns, we should be using the entire repertoire. It's saddened me that in my experience, it's been one extreme or the other. Either a congregation refuses the contemporary style in favor of the Church Hymnal, or the old one is thrown out for a new set of hymns that have themselves become trite. This ecumenical division will kill our Church if we let it. And that is something that we simply cannot do.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

*This is the fifth and final of a series of articles about music in the SDA Church and other denominations.*

All Scripture references, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the New King James Version, © Thomas Nelson, Inc.

The Ins and Outs of Music.

2010-11-17T11:56:00.000-08:00

I'm not going to give you a college-level music theory course in this article, but I'm rather going to note some major disagreements with regards to music theory, and then explain how they have changed. Then I'm going to note some current disagreements in the Adventist church and state my opinions. Bear in mind that I am studying music and therefore know more than those who just repeat things they've heard. But neither am I as much of an expert as somebody who has written their dissertation on the subject. Nonetheless, this will be a long article.

From the beginning, music theory has been more of a set of rules and guidelines for the creation of music or a set of explanations for how and why certain musical idioms work. Music theory has always had a philosophical branch. But that philosophy changes with the times. In the early Church, music was unaccompanied, borrowing largely from Platonic thought. It was created a certain way, and any change was considered a corruption of the sacred melody. This was what brought about the rise of notation: the need for uniformity. But this has changed drastically: arrangement is increasingly popular and original composition seems to be falling out of style due to a certain stigma I've noticed among many amateur musicians that classical music is boring, for the rich, stuck up, et cetera. The vast majority of composition seems to be focused on popular music, the modern-day troubadour song, if you will.

Another thing that has changed drastically is the use of the Devil's Interval, the tritone. Even until the Baroque period, the tritone was considered evil. 1200 years ago, if a tritone was sounded, not just during the worship service, but any time in song, everything was stopped. Exorcisms were performed. Prayers were recited for the blessing of God. But the tritone is a crucial part of a crucial chord, the Dominant 7th. This chord is found everywhere, even in church. It has been used since baroque times as a color and has become accepted without a second thought.

It seems that every new addition to music theory has met with some resistance. When Mozart wrote his Musical Joke, a four-movement work that predated the work of Peter Schickele by nearly two hundred years, people didn't know what to think of it. When Beethoven emphasized harmonic and rhythmic content rather than a melody, people were outraged and called it noise, of all things! Imagine Beethoven being called unmusical! The same is true today. Contemporary Christian music traces its roots all the way back to the beginnings of rock music in the early twentieth century. As popular music evolved, so did Christian music. The song Turn! Turn! Turn! by The Byrds is straight out of Scripture. After that, people like Keith Green and Amy Grant were forerunners in shaping the way Christian music is today. Amy Grant especially fell under critics' fire when she did some music for the mainstream market. I personally believe that is the reason she is such a well rounded musician: she wasn't afraid of writing songs about life.

This criticism of new addition leads into some modern versions of the theoretical disagreements in the early Church. The current disagreements in SDA church music are focused primarily around two things: 1) instrumentation and style; and 2) lyrical content. Let's hear some from the con-argument regarding instrumentation.

I don't think getting up front and strumming the guitar is actual music. If you're going to learn an instrument, you need to do it properly. - Opinionated Organist

The reason we shouldn't allow drums up front is that they come out of the Jazz and Rock and Roll traditions, which use them to evoke the power of Satan. - Consummate Conservative

Lyrics are never the focus of rock music. The beat is always the focus, and in rock, unlike *classical* music, it places the emphasis on 2 and 4. This changes brain wave patterns to produce the same waves that happen during SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. - Mr. Know-It-All

Electric guitars distort and pollute the sound, so we should never use them. God likes only pure and soft sound and calm music. - Never Nothin' but Nylon

These arguments are all fallacious in some way. Some of them, such as the one presented by Mr. Know-It-All, reflect a total lack of theoretical knowledge and a proclivity misinterpreting or spouting quotations from biased studies. Never Nothin' but Nylon (hereafter known as Brother N) discounts the electric guitar as an separate entity and compares it with his own instrument. Consummate Conservative (Brother C hereafter) cites history, yet discounts culture, while ordaining one style of music and condemning another like Brother N. And finally, Opinionated Organist (Brother O hereafter) argues that only one technique is viable even when it may not be appropriate.

Let's start with the first argument. Brother O insists that the strumming of a guitar with a plectrum (pick) is lazy, improper technique. This can be refuted with a simple glance at the piano's function in hymnody: to perform harmonic and rhythmic accompaniment. The guitar in many worship bands has fulfilled this purpose while the piano has become a device for ornamentation and color. Regarding strumming and pick usage, music history has our answer. The guitar is descended probably from the lute, descended from the Arabic oud. Historically as well as today, the primary means of sounding the strings on a lute-like instrument has been...what's this? A plectrum! Along the same lines, strumming is nothing more than a rhythmic arpeggiation of chords. Where do we see that? The harp, violin family, piano, organ, harpsichord and many others. It's a technique that is as old as the Early Baroque at least. But it seems our stigma centered around rhythm, liveliness and syncopation has given us blinders, endorsing the traditional SDA musical tradition and throwing everything else away.

Second, Brother C states in a roundabout way that the usage of drums is the invocation of the Devil. This is born of a logical fallacy mixed in with a disregard for cultural difference in music. Bother C notes that the usage of drums in modern Christian music traces its roots to the Jazz and Rock and Roll traditions, which in turn trace their roots back to a blending of African music with European music. While it is true that in some traditions, such as Santería, the usage of rhythm can be used to invoke "evil spirits". But that does not mean that drums are intrinsically evil. Why do the rhythms of witch doctors and Santería practitioners call upon the spirits and idols? It's because that is their intent. Percussion instruments aren't evil, of course; they've been in widespread use in symphony orchestras for centuries. Psalm 150 call us to praise God with crashing cymbals (check, check and check), tambourines, trumpets: all of them loud instruments!

Think back to the contest on Mt. Carmel. Elijah and the prophets of Ba'al squared off in a dead heat to prove whose god was true: Jehovah or Ba'al. Each side used prayer to try and invoke their deity. When the prayers of supplication to Ba'al didn't work, his priests and prophets began to get louder. They shouted in frustration, still trying to invoke their god. They cut themselves and danced around the altar, desperate to get his attention. One could argue that this indicates shouting to God and dancing before him are evil, but again, they are not intrinsically evil when we use basic exegesis. The target of invocation was not Jehovah, but Ba'al. Elijah's target of invocation was Jehovah, the one true God, and he had found favor with God as evidenced by the fireball that burned up the altar to the Lord as well as all the water in the trenches around it.

We use drums for a different purpose than what many Adventists claim is intrinsic within them. In classical music, they are used as a musical color and an instrument to provide rhythm, as they were used to provide a solid beat for a troupe of laborers in ancient times. In modern music, they fulfill a similar purpose: to serve as a rhythmic device and a musical color. The purpose for which contemporary Christian musicians use drums is clearly a repudiation of Brother C's argument.

Mr. Know-it-all presents what seems to some like a valid argument, one used quite often to demonize rock music as being disorderly and harmful to the body. But it suffers from two fallacies: first, that the argument is formed by citing studies based around "soft" scientific evidence such as observation that has no concrete explanation. Secondly, the brain-wave pattern studies are largely correlative, not necessarily showing a causal relationship. The questionability of these studies also stems from the fact that they seem to me to be biased in their hypotheses and result sets. Never have I seen a music EEG study cited that does anything but demonize rock and glorify Mozart and Bach. What about other genres? We have Chant, Renaissance motets and chansons, the Romantic Era of classical music, 12-tone music, neo-classical, and so on and so forth. Yes, the genres are diverse enough that we can't study all of them, but it doesn't seem fair that the only two ever used are Rock and the Baroque and Classical periods in classical music. While I can neither prove nor refute the argument with my knowledge alone, it holds little water until more extensive research is found. Citing somebody who says rock music congeals raw eggs like hard-boiling based on something he heard is hardly my idea of empirical, scholarly research.

My second point of contention with Mr. Know-it-all's argument is that he says syncopation is intrinsically evil. He says that rock music takes the accent of the beat and places it on beats two and four, rather than on beats one and three. But what he fails to see is the theory behind the rock beat. I have studied this rhythm for years on top of all my formal theory instruction and will say here and now that he is wrong in this. In shortest terms, the rock beat is the same in accent as a classical 4/4. The emphasis lies with the kick drum, and the release with the snare. Look at it as a rubber band: the strong beat imparts tension, stretching the band. The weak beat releases it with the snap of the snare drum. The beater is buried in the kick drum, whereas the stick bounces off the snare. Mr. Know-it-all is overanalyzing things, making them means to an end, when the answer is that nothing has changed rhythmically.

Finally we have Brother N's argument. He doesn't believe that the electric guitar is a legitimate instrument because its sound is distorted electronically and is therefore impure. While the initial distortion of the guitar may or may not have been accidental, it has nonetheless become desirable. The beauty of the electric guitar is that it is amplified and can be heard much easier by many more people, and that it has its unique tone palette. Its signal can be unaltered, distorted, overdriven, modulated with several kinds of effects, made to sound akin to almost any instrument through MIDI and sythesizers...the possibilities are endless. Each instrument has its own unique sound, and trying to replace an electric guitar with an acoustic guitar (and vice versa) while retaining the same role is ludicrous. It's like trying to replace a trumpet with a flugelhorn or a cornet and getting the exact same sound. It's not possible due to timbre differences between the instruments, just like the timbre differences between acoustic and electric instruments. It's still sound production; it's just achieved through a different means.

Brother N uses his own personal taste to condemn what he doesn't like. When this principle is applied toward religion, it's called intolerance. When it's applied toward skin color, it's called racism. I don't like the tone quality of the Serpent, a Baroque predecessor of the tuba, but I don't condemn it as evil! The Bible instructs us not to place curses on things, for only God has the power of judgment (Proverbs 10:31, Matthew 7:1, Romans 12:14, 1 Peter 1:15, to name a few); yet, it seems that prominent figures in the Seventh-day Adventist Church have placed curses (imposed sanctions, if you will) on trivial matters such as diet, the wearing of jewelry, music, tattoos, the observance of Sabbath.... When personal taste becomes tradition becomes dogma, we start to see a legalism reminiscent of the Pharisees.

All these cases identify the weaknesses in arguments against certain types of music, while pointing out that the "holy genres of music" are not divinely appointed by Scripture, but in fact come from tradition and taste. It's like the "liturgy" of Seventh-day Adventism, the program order, meeting time, and offering calendar: none of those are divinely appointed in the pages of Scripture. They are created as organizational structures by human beings. If anything, Scripture encourages jubilant praise (Psalm 150)! What it condemns is empty, worthless prayers that place focus on self (Matthew 7). It condemns the worship of idols (yes, I'm saying it) such as hymns. We should be lamenting the apathetic nature of our modern hymnal performance, not condemning jubilant praise as chaotic and not solemn! Solemn in this context is a synonym of contrite, not somber, yet we insist on mumbling through "Redeemed, How I Love to Proclaim It!" like it's a dirge. God wants us to be happy. He wants us to rejoice. When did music change from honey on the rim of a medicine cup to the bitter herbs of a Passover Seder? We'll go into it next week, and then I'll discuss doing the same thing that tropes did in the Middle Ages: augmenting the music and making it better.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

*This is the fourth of a series of articles about music in the SDA Church and other denominations. Next Friday: Modern-day Tropes, dredging up ancient history*

All Scripture references, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the New King James Version, © Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Late again

2010-11-04T20:03:00.001-07:00

Good cow! I have been so blasted busy that my blog has once again fallen by the wayside. Expect my next entry Friday the 12th.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.4

Christian Music Elsewhere: My observations

2010-10-29T08:00:00.000-07:00

The function of music in denominations other than Seventh-day Adventism varies greatly depending on the denomination. I have made observations in non-denominational churches, one Mass, and one Episcopalian Morning Song, and I have seen video footage of some of the music in the Pentecostal Hillsong megachurch in Australia. This article will go into a bit of detail about my observations on how music functions in those denominations.

Starting with the two denominations that predate Seventh-day Adventism by centuries, I will say that music functions both very similarly and very differently in liturgical churches. The role of music is much the same in the Catholic and Anglican (Episcopal) denominations; it is "one of the most effective ways of impressing the heart with spiritual truth" (White, Education, pp. 167, 168). St. Basil is recorded as saying the following:

When the Holy Spirit saw that mankind was ill-inclined toward virtue and that we were heedless of the righteous life because of our inclination to pleasure, what did he do? He blended the delight of melody with doctrine in order that through the pleasantness and softness of the sound we might unawares receive what was useful in the words, according to the practice of wise physicians, who, when they give the more bitter draughts to the sick, often smear the rim of the cup with honey. -St. Basil, Homily on the first Psalm

The Mass Ordinary is one of the staples of classical literature; hundreds of composers from the pre-Renaissance Guillaume de Machaut (ca. 1300-1377) to Franz Schubert have set the text that makes up the Mass Ordinary to music. And even still, modern songs make use of the text of such elements as the Credo (cf. Creed by Rich Mullins and, later, Third Day). The use of music in the liturgical churches is, however, varied from the Seventh-day Adventist church in that it follows a liturgical calendar. The Adventists have no set "liturgy" except for the order of the program and the regularity of Communion Sabbath's occurrence. The songs for the Mass Proper change at every service, but the Mass Ordinary--Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Ite missa est--remains the same. The Adventist service changes content weekly, from music to sermon.

In non-denominational churches, the function of music tends to be a little bit different. I have attended services at Bayside Church in Granite Bay, CA as well as The Ridge Church in Rocklin, CA, both of which are non-denominational. Bayside is much better known between the two of them; it has a much larger membership and a worship leader that has gained somewhat of a following. Perhaps you've heard of Lincoln Brewster? None other.

Now, given the nature of the worship service in non-denominational churches, it's safe to say that music functions slightly differently. While in Adventism and the older liturgical denominations, music's role is to impress spiritual wisdom and guidance upon the heart, these non-denominational churches tend to focus on the worship itself rather than the ins and outs, the philosophy, if you will. Music is there to unite the congregation in raising their hands to the Lord. That's it. In some ways, it's an outlet for the congregation to participate in the service other than listening to the message.

This unity is usually a lot more fueled by emotion than congregational unity in the Adventist church. In fact, why should we be emotional in our praises when Ellen White specifically guards against it in her admonishment of the Holy Flesh Movement at the Indiana camp meeting? (Sarcasm obvious, no?) For centuries, music philosophers have warned against the stirring of emotions when it comes to music, for music has been since the days of Greek philosophy a tribute to the gods, or in our case Jehovah. Yet countless times in Scripture, we see jubilant praising of the Lord. We see celebrations of victory in both the Old and New Testaments. David danced before the Lord--in his UNDERWEAR--with all his might. And when Jesus rode into the city on a donkey, the people cried, "Hosanna!" and waved palm fronds. It was a celebration for the King had come.

It is often such in non-denominational churches. Unfettered by the conventions of a strict, conservative structure, they release their praises to God. After all, they are following the instructions given in Psalm 150. We are to praise the Lord in His sanctuary, not mumble words to convoluted hymns we don't know! As a result of this modern "Ars nova", however, many precious praise songs have become tropes. I've sung How Great is Our God hundreds of times since the first time I heard it. And frankly, it's gotten old. I long for songs like Near the Cross again.

As I conclude this article, I will say one thing: music always has and always will evoke emotion. It is a method for conveying thoughts and feelings that language cannot express. It adds to a simple text such as, "Gloria Patri et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper et in saecula saeculorum," a meaning that cannot be conveyed by simply reading. It unifies people in their praises of the Lord, and it is promised that when we are unified in the Lord, He will be right there in our midst.

In the next three or so weeks I'm going to conclude this series by explaining more about music and the little cogs, springs and doodads that make it work; I'm going to present many problems in regards to music in the Seventh-day Adventist church, and I'm going to present a solution so that we may once again unify under one banner, the irrefutable truths that Jesus loves you, He died for you, and He's coming to take you home.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

*This is the third of a series of articles about music in the SDA Church and other denominations. Next Friday: The Ins and Outs of Music*

All Scripture references, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the New King James Version, © Thomas Nelson, Inc.

WoW, what a week!

2010-10-08T19:03:00.000-07:00

Those of you who attend Walla Walla University know that this week was Week of Worship with pastor Murray Hunter all the way from Down Undah. And naturally, the fact that it is Week of Worship means the schedule was thrown into a Blendtec blender and totally screwed up. (What's red and green and goes 120 mph? MY SCHEDULE!) Because of this totally foreseen setback, I haven't had any time to work on this week's entry. So expect my observations on music in the "mainstream" Christian world next Friday.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Music in the SDA Church: My observations

2010-10-01T08:00:00.000-07:00

This article is going to be a bit different than my articles have been in the past. I will simply discuss my personal observations about music in the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination, correlating them with advice from Ellen White and the Scriptures, and presenting my own philosophy related to the two.

I have been to my share of SDA churches. And in attending these churches, be they for a choral performance or by membership, I have noticed that, while the music culture is gradually aligning with contemporary Christian music, traditional sacred music is still king. This comes to light in discussions on music in which I have participated on the internet, including arguments that contemporary Christian Music, even that which takes its lyrics directly from the Bible, is of the Devil. They cite inconclusive studies, misquote Ellen White, and formulate their own dogmas based on their personal taste.

One of the biggest arguments I have ever had was on the Real Time Faith forum, which shut down in 2007. This discussion, however, spilled over into Real Time Faith's privately run successor, Real Time Believers. The now dead discussion has a total of 163 posts, spanning almost two years. Many users argued for the integrity of CCM, mostly the percussion element, while others demonized it as a feeble attempt to corrupt Godly music with demonic influences. A second topic links to an article which decries the frequently used fallacies such as the basic rock beat pattern throwing off brain wave patterns or imitating sexual intercourse.

This debate laid bare the opinions of several young people (the average age of the participants was somewhere around 15), but most of it was based on opinion in addressing the debate's sole question: "Which is more important: the music or the lyrics." I will go more into the ins and outs of music in #4 two weeks from now, but I will say that if a hymn had objectionable lyrics it would be shot down just as modern hymns with "disagreeable" music.

The Role of Music
The role of music in the SDA church is similar to other Protestant churches in that its primary purpose is the worship of God in song. This can come about through either vocal or instrumental songs, often using instruments of the classical music world. Ellen White clarifies the role of music in worship as "one of the most effective ways of impressing the heart with spiritual truth" (Education, pp. 167, 168). It is a weapon against discouragement, a way to ward off the advances of the Enemy.

It does seem, however that we, as this advice seems to, place so much stress on praising God that songs of uncertainty and turmoil get completely thrown out. Many of the Psalms, such as Psalm 42 are prayers for help in times of peril. Psalm 59 is a call for God to "Awake to punish all the nations; [to] not be merciful to any wicked transgressors" (v. 5).

Ecclesiastes 3:1 states plainly that "to everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven." Yes, there is a time for praising in God, but there is also a time to be angry because of sin. There is a time to cry out to God to lift us out of this pit of despair. Many of the Psalms do this. And many of the heavier CCM songs do this as well; one of my favorite songs, Disciple's Scars Remain is like this. It would be banned from many Protestant congregations because of its musical idiom. But when you feel the emotions conveyed in the song's lyrics and music, you realize it is a song about being discouraged and then seeing that Jesus shares our suffering (cf. Gal 6:2).

The Usage of Music
This is where things become a little less of a grey area, and more black-and-white in the SDA Church. I grew up in a fairly conservative church, hearing hymns I didn't know. I always thought that choir was part of church, and I had no idea what it takes to make one sound good. In my eight year old mind, the organ was a massively complex instrument that only old people played. Guitars were never on stage, and drama of any kind was only permitted on Youth Sabbath. I just thought it was the way Christian music was until I listened to K-LOVE for the first time. But even then, I'd never imagine that kind of music in church.

But I know of one fairly small church whose musical tastes are evolving quickly. Not ten years ago they had a resident organist who played every Sabbath. Piano was the primary means of accompanying the small choir they call the Praise Team. One Sabbath, they added a bass guitar. Then, after a while, a friend of mine started playing bass on the Praise Team. One morning, while he was tuning up his bass, the organist got up, walked all the way across the stage, and accosted him. To this organist, the prelude and postlude were performances, special musics of sorts!

This young man was being as unobtrusive as he could. It was before the start of the service, and if he'd been a member of the sound crew adjusting a microphone while everybody was talking and listening to the background music, I'd bet this organist would have accosted him as well. It seemed to my friend like a set of priorities in the wrong place.

Music should be entered into with humility when praising the Lord, be it in a choir, in prayer, on a penny whistle, or singing in the shower. Ellen White says that we should conduct our services "with solemnity {not somberness} and awe, as if in the visible presence of the Master of assemblies." If this organist's heart had been on God and not on the performance as if it was a concert, he wouldn't have cared that I crept up on stage to do something that he, as a cellist in addition to an organist, should know is paramount. Wait, did I just reveal my friend's identity? Oh well.

My point is that music in the SDA denomination, in my observations, has been fairly controlled. Dissent has been quashed, be it from youth (usually youth) or other sources. The organist that yelled at me transferred to a different church, but that still doesn't change the fact that something happened that probably shouldn't have. The fact of the matter is that that while the musical attitude of the SDA denomination is evolving, there are still some issues that boil down to one thing: human nature. It is our natural inclination to want something to be orderly, and since our musical traditions are one of the only things we still seem to have from the "olden days", it is probably the hardest thing of all for us to give up.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

*This is the second of a series of articles about music in the SDA Church and other denominations. Next Friday: Music in other Protestant denominations*
Ellen White references taken from a compilation page on music: http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/music.html
All Scripture references, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the New King James Version, © Thomas Nelson, Inc.

The Difference Between CCM and CCM

2010-09-24T08:00:00.000-07:00

Sunday I was thinking of the lyrics of Audio Adrenaline's Hands and Feet, a song about being God's hands and feet, going where He sends us and doing His bidding. It fits the "narrative" of Contemporary Christian Music very nicely: going and helping the poor, the needy, and whomever God wants us to. But there's something different about it. Not only are the guys of Audio Adrenaline master songwriters, but the message is not one of "I will because You want me to," but one of "I will because I want to share You." It's not preachy at all, unlike some of the stuff I now hear on the radio. This kind of thing has created a division in my mind about two varieties of CCM: Contemporary Christian Music and Cliché Christian Music. Let's discuss.

First, let me define the two terms. Contemporary Christian Music is an ever-evolving term referring to the various Christian music of the day. Back in the 80s it was Amy Grant, Kieth Green and Petra. Now, it's Chris Tomlin, Matthew West and Newsboys. I'll refer to this as CCM₁ for the rest of the article. Cliché Christian Music (CCM₂)is a broad subcategory of CCM₁ that includes songs full of musical and theological clichés and tautological themes. For the sake of argument, even though CCM2 is technically a part of CCM1, I will separate them completely as if they were two separate categories.

Let's compare and contrast the musical styles of the two CCMs. CCM1 tends to feature innovation in musicality: timeless melodies and chord progressions that you can immediately recognize. A uniqueness between bands and from song to song also embodies CCM1. For instance, when you hear a Newsboys song, you can usually tell before Peter starts singing that it's a Newsboys song. Even people like Amy Grant have a uniqueness that characterizes their music.

Musical styles that fall within CCM2 tend to run together. Chord progressions tend to be a boilerplate standard: nothing unique, innovative or complex. The instrumentation tends to be another boilerplate standard: an acoustic guitar played by the lead singer and an electric guitar playing a melodic part; bass player in the background or not at all; drums playing simple rhythms and fills; the ensemble often accompanied by a string quartet, trio or just a violin or cello.

Another thing that characterizes CCM2 in my mind is what I call "poor instrumental writing". Two classic examples of this are Tenth Avenue North's songs Love is Here and By Your Side. The songs open with a moving guitar part that doesn't really fit the theme of the song. This out of place instrumentation is a sign of poor consideration when songwriting. Granted, almost every other song an the album is very well written, especially its most recent single, Hold My Heart, but these two will forever immortalize in my mind that Tenth Avenue North is new at this and sometimes takes their influence from CCM2, especially lyrically.

This brings me to another distinction, one which is much more noticeable to the listener. CCM1 has rhymes and messages that are unique, not the blindly obvious like "fun" and "sun" or "cool" and "pool". Relient K's Matt Thiessen is my songwriting idol; his melodies, instrumentation and lyrics are always fresh and usually deal with not just one issue, but all issues. His tongue-in-cheek writing style flows effortlessly, showcasing his God-given gift.

One song that lyrically encompasses CCM2 is The Wrecking's You Remain. The rhythms and melody are simple, the lyrics are obvious, and the instrumentation is plain and uninteresting. It may be true, but it seems very poorly written or written in a rush. Yes, the message is true, but it is full of Christian clichés. The same can be said for a lot of the songs praise teams play in church nowadays: How Great is Our God is full of a Christian boilerplate message. Yes, it's a good song, but it's still uninteresting musically and lyrically.

This brings me to another issue: some of these songs have come to belong to CCM2 solely because they are part of a standard set of songs that are easy to learn and easy to do wrong. How Great is Our God was a great song when my band first started covering it. But now that everybody and their dog plays this song for almost every P&W set, it's become an empty mass of words and notes. The meaning is gone. For a song to be a part of CCM1, it must retain its meaning even after hearing it a literal thousand times.

Preachiness is another huge factor that makes even the innovative Casting Crowns migrate toward CCM2. I'm always hearing "I owe this," and "I owe that;" and "I have to do this," and "I need to do that." Herein lies the theological separation between songs like Hands and Feet by Audio Adrenaline and Follow You by Leeland with Brandon Heath. The former song emphasizes "[touching] the world like You've touched my life," whereas the second paints serving the needy as the noblest calling, a sort of "Look at me, I'm following Christ. This is how we follow Christ." It seems preachy, like a calling. The truth of the matter is that every calling is different. Here at Walla Walla University, the Student Missions department is always trying to send people out as missionaries, painting it like it's a call for everybody. True, the Great Commission (which Follow Up strives to follow) tells us to go to all the world, but "all the world" is different for me than for, say, my friend Katelyn. She's heading to the Philippines, but I'm staying right here. Why? I have been called to be an at-home missionary. We're each following our callings.

The final distinguishing factors between CCM1 and CCM2 lie solely on the performers: arrangement and performance. You can take a dead song and breathe new life into it with a good arrangement. You can take a stupendous song and kill it with a bad arrangement. Performance goes hand in hand: preparation and practice are key; the audience can tell when you've not rehearsed. (More advice on this to come in later articles.) A good arrangement avoids musical clichés and chord progressions. And usually, the artist who most often performs the song has the best arrangement. It's a rule of thumb that is good to follow.

The differences between Contemporary Christian Music and Cliché Christian Music may be small, but they create a gap between the two almost as wide as the Grand Canyon. The vast majority of new CCM that I hear falls under CCM2, with the best artists relatively unknown in the "mainstream" CCM world. Why am I writing this? I don't really know. But I want to distinguish between what I want to hear and don't want to hear, and I don't want to hear the same old, tired songs that have lost meaning. I don't want to hear dumbed down arrangements. And sure as the rising sun, I don't want to be preached at. Songwriters, keep this in mind.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

*This article is the first in a series about music and its effects in the Seventh-day Adventist Church and other denominations. Next Friday: *

A Message on Race and Daniel

2010-09-17T08:00:00.001-07:00

Imagine attending the Iowa State Fair on August 20th, 2010. Just as advertised, you had "Non-stop Fun"--until you left. Before your eyes, a group of thirty or so individuals with dark skin gather around a terrified man with lighter skin...and beat him senseless. This is not fiction. This actually happened. The thirty or forty individuals roamed around the Iowa State Fair and openly called it "Beat Whitey Night". If it had been a group of whites calling it "Beat Blackie Night", it would have been a national story, the offenders would have been hung in effigy by the ACLU and NAACP. But instead, we've heard almost nothing about it. And here's why.

It seems in today's world, only white people can be racist, only Christians can be bigoted against a particular religion, and only men can be sexist. Hate crimes, heinous as they are, are always committed by "majority" offenders. But the opposite is true: anybody can be racist, sexist, or bigoted against religion.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is heralded as a god of the Civil Rights movement. He was martyred for the cause, immortalizing him. And he's spinning in his grave so fast he's halfway to China. He envisioned a totally colorblind society, where race wouldn't matter. Organizations like the NAACP, by very nature, shred his dream. Affirmative Action struck it down by trying to elevate "minorities" to higher levels. I use quotes because calling whites the "majority" and everyone else "minorities" undercuts the Dr. King's life's work! Why is this? It's because we're still noticing race. We are not colorblind yet, and we as a society are perpetuating racism.

We call for diversity. We call for people to recognize our differences. What does that do? It separates people. Like iron and clay, our society is more separate now than it ever has been. The prophecy of Daniel is being fulfilled faster than we can see, in more ways than we can possibly know. Let me paint you a picture of the feet of iron and clay.

There exist no world empires. Yes, there are superpowers, but there is no world-spanning empire. The head of gold was Babylon, an empire which controlled just about the entire known world. The chest and arms of silver were Medo-Persia, who controlled the known world. The belly of bronze was Greece, who controlled the known world. The legs of iron was Rome, who controlled the known world. But today? Every nation has its ruler. Every country has its border. We as a race are not under one Earthly crown, but under many.

Now let's look at our own little "empire", the United States of America. Each State is like a nation, under the "emperor", the President. But each State is relatively independent, making their own laws, with their own court systems, and their own governments. We used to be completely united, but slowly we are separating; the States are red and blue now, iron and clay. No longer are they just States.

Within this nation exists yet another form of separation along the same lines: right now we are in the midst of a "cold civil war" between the political right and political left. Neither side wants the other side to succeed in any way, shape or form. Bipartisan anything is out the window because of inter-party tensions. Obama's blaming the Republicans for the economy, blaming Bush's tax rates. The GOP is blaming Obama for the crisis, citing the bloated spending bill he pushed through early on. Fingers are pointing at the other side, no matter what side you're on.

Still another separation exists: this thing called "race". I use quotes because I hate the term. We are all a race of beings. We bleed red, think freely, and are usually born with two arms and legs, ten fingers and toes, and a head. Why should skin color make somebody a different race, a different species? Why should we be separated? But we are. That's the clincher. We're separated like iron and clay; like black and white.

Religion is yet another way we find to distance ourselves from those different from us. Atheists shun all religions, though it seems like they attack only Christianity. Christians tend to shun Muslims, and Muslims tend to shun Christians. It's a vicious cycle of "My god is better than yours" that has been repeating itself since the beginning of sin, and will keep repeating itself until its end at the Trumpet's sounding.

We are living in the tips of the toes of the feet of iron and clay.We are a divided people, be it by race, creed or color. We are judged by the content of our character and the color of our skin. And we still have not been able to sing the words of that great American Negro-spiritual, "Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" And we won't until Jesus comes and ends all this.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Depression in Retrospect

2010-09-03T08:00:00.000-07:00

Depression is not cool. But neither is it the absence of God as so many try to tell me nowadays. You don't need meds to get through it, and you don't need a twelve-step program, but in hindsight, I probably should have acknowledged my problem and tried to get over it faster. This is my story and how I got through it.

It all started several years ago, in July of 2006. My family moved out to a twenty-acre piece of property, leaving behind a home we'd shared for the better part of twelve years. The day we finally moved out of that house was supposed to be a day when I had a bass lesson, but due to the fact that I was feeling sick, I cancelled. It would have been the last time I saw my teacher alive. Sunday morning, my parents broke the news to me that he had been killed in a head-on car accident. I started feeling guilt, feeling like I shouldn't have cancelled my lesson that week. But I wound up getting over it and moving on.

Later on, I wound up falling in love with a friend's sister. After a game of cat-and-mouse that I cleverly orchestrated, I revealed myself as her secret admirer. I asked her to ice cream and she said yes, but then after some thinking, decided that she wasn't ready for a relationship, and that it would be too awkward between us. I took it way too hard, throwing myself into a depressive identity crisis that lasted, for the most part, until March of 2010, totaling almost three years. During that entire time I didn't acknowledge that I had a problem because I didn't want to seem weak, I didn't want to go through treatment or see a shrink, and I didn't want to be preached at.

People would always ask me whether I was okay. I'd say yes, knowing full well that I was lying, both to my friends and myself. But I pretty much turned emo. No, I didn't do my hair backward (short in the front and long in the back) or wear skinny jeans. But I wrote poetry and lots of it. Most of it was very depressive, mourning about how I was wronged and had nowhere to go. I was able to write sonnets on a whim, something I wish I could do now. And my music tastes took a turn for the screamo. I never did listen to Underoath or stuff like that--more like Skillet, Red, Disciple...you know, hard rock and metal.

I finally managed to do some introspection and realized that my problem was that I had no sense of purpose, no sense of direction. I didn't know who I was. I was suffering through the fifth stage of Erikson's stages of psychosocial development. The fifth stage is titled, "Identity vs. Role Confusion". I was thoroughly confused. And it didn't help that I was mature for my age and was also suffering through (and continue to suffer through) the sixth stage, "Intimacy vs. Isolation". My depression was rooted in the latter extremes of these two stages.

So let's talk symptoms really quickly. I was sleeping a lot. I was feeling down in the dumps constantly. And as a part of my identity crisis I kept finding myself wishing I could have a "George Bailey experience", to see how I had influenced people's lives. To see what it would be like if I'd never been born. This is a dangerous line of thinking, borderline suicidal, and I didn't even realize it! By the time I did, I told myself that I definitely should have gotten help. Even though I didn't think I was clinically depressed, I probably was.

I beat depression with a process that lasted from March of 2010 until probably mid-August. It started by facing my fears of inferiority and role confusion, deciding to switch my musical area of study from string bass to voice. I chose string bass because I thought that was what I wanted. But I was no good at it. I knew I was a better singer than I was a string bassist (though I'm probably a better bass guitarist than I am a vocalist). Then I decided to face my other fear, fear of isolation, by asking somebody out. I'd been through almost three years of seeing somebody I liked and saying, "I'd never have a chance with her." With an 0 for 2 record, I expected rejection and felt helpless to avoid it (a phenomenon I later discovered to be called "learned helplessness"). I decided to swallow the frog in my throat and ask somebody. Rejection or no, I was going to do it. I hesitated for a couple of days, and finally asked her to vespers after class. It was such a freeing feeling when she said yes, and that Friday night was the best Friday night I'd ever had. And even though it didn't work out, it was the kick in the butt that I needed to realize that what I was dealing with was beatable without meds, shrinks, or being beaten over the head with a Bible.

That brings me to something that I'm sick and tired of. The entire three years, I heard the same message: "If you're depressed, you need Jesus." Maybe at first I was searching for God, but once I found Him, my depression went away. It was still feeling that isolation, that confusion. And the same message also told me that if you don't feel love, all you need is Jesus, and you'll feel loved like never before. But the thing is that I already had Jesus. I knew He loved me, and I was reminded of that every time I thought of the miracles worked to get me up to Walla Walla, to get my family to the Ranch, and so on. There were songs and skits that painted such a stark picture of the love of Jesus that my emotions got the better of me every time I saw them, causing me to cry openly. No, it wasn't Jesus that I was missing. In fact, God was all I had, all I was hanging onto. I remember praying dozens of times that He'd come and take us all away from this world full of crap. I remember sitting silently in Heubach Chapel, to me the "Holy of Holies" at WWU, and feeling the Holy Spirit touch me, feeling an angel sitting next to me. That was the day that I'd walked out of church because I was hearing the same empty message and the same empty songs. It was like calling tech support and them telling me to do something that I knew wouldn't work.

The theological issues here lies with the fundamental inaccuracy in mainstream Chrisitanity that a relationship with God solves all your problems. The truth is that a relationship with God gives you something to hope for, gives you an attitude of compassion. It's not a quick-fix for your problems. And that's why when some Christians don't get an prayer answered in the way they want, they lose hope. They think God has wronged them in some way. I thought that often enough until I realized that when you don't get what you want, it means only one thing: God has something better planned for you than what you thought you wanted. Something that is beyond your wildest dreams. The road is narrow, not easy. And if you fall, it's like Peter walking on the water. Jesus will be right there to pick us up if we want Him to. And feeling down is not the absence of God, but merely a part of life. Remember that: depression doesn't necessarily mean you need Jesus. You just need to keep hanging on until He makes a way out. Or until you decide to pick yourself up and get over it like I did.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Hiatus is over

2010-09-02T20:57:00.001-07:00

Well, it's over. Camp is, not this blog. And that's why I'm going to start posting again. But remember, if I run out of thoughts, I'll run out of entries. So ask me a question if you have one! Are you wondering about something having to do with Christianity? Do you want to play Devil's Advocate? Go ahead! I'm wanting your questions!

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Out there.....

2010-06-04T10:42:00.000-07:00

A week and a half ago as I was waiting for my overpriced and undersized pizza at the Student Association Center, I watched a History Channel special on alien abduction, covering most notably the Betty and Barney Hill case. Two people also came forward about foreign objects in their bodies, one of whom still had the object inside him. The episode chronicled a series of tests researchers conducted on the tiny, metallic object, revealing that it was magnetic, gave off several milligauss of electromagnetic radiation, and gave off two different radio frequencies. The EM and RF stopped when they surgically removed the "implant".

This got me to thinking. As a science fiction lover and writer, I can't even begin to discount the theory that aliens may live on other planets. I believe in UFOs. I believe that the evidence for alien abduction, particularly in the Hill Abduction, is definitely legitimate. But I also believe that not all aliens are bad.

Let's theorize for a moment that there are other worlds out there. If God is as loving and compassionate as we believe Him to be, with that same affinity for free choice, would He not have offered the same choice to them that He did us? And given that choice, let's say that the caretakers of any given planet chose to obey God. That would make them sinless and perfect, Edenic, as I label them in my science fiction stories. But let's say that the caretakers went the opposite way and, like humankind, chose to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This would put them under sin like us, and they, like us, would need a Messiah.

If this is the case and we are not the only sinful world, the scope of things is much bigger, much broader. When Jesus died, He would have borne the sins of not just humanity, but every other sinful race. An entire universe of sins would have been such a weight that not even the Son of God could keep from saying, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?"

This does create a small problem: if Jesus died with the sins of the universe on His shoulders--of the fallen angels, of mankind, and of any other sinful race--why did He choose our particular little, blue speck for His ministry. Either we are the only world that sinned, making us a pathetic failure of a species and Satan's only target, or Jesus transcended, as He usually does, our entire understanding. In my science fiction stories, every sinful planet had a Messiah, all of them appearing at the same time and dying at the same moment. This satisfies the need for Jesus as a teacher across the universe. It also serves to give those races the same hope that Christianity now has.

Now, I'm not saying that this is exactly what happened. It's just a theory, but it opens up a whole new can of worms. The thought that Jesus died not only for us, but for the fallen angels and Satan himself...it's almost too much for the human mind to fathom. I think we like to get locked into the feeling that we're special, that we're the ones Jesus gave His life to save. But that gets us locked into a selfish mindset that we're the only ones that need saving.

In conclusion, as a Christian, I can't possibly deny the existence of intelligent life on other planets. I also can't deny, based on so much evidence of UFO sightings and alien abductions, that all alien races are benevolent. But one thing is for sure: if any should choose to sin and fall under its poisonous fog, we have a Savior, no matter whether we are human, angel or hra'vakh, that loves us enough to without hesitation step in and give His life, to die as one who shouldn't have, so that the price for our missteps could be paid and so that we could one day spend eternity with our Creator.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Late entry

2010-05-28T09:30:00.000-07:00

I'm really busy, so expect an entry tomorrow morning.

Your Brother in Christ,

Michael

Adamant Abstention from Adornment

2010-05-21T08:00:00.000-07:00

I read an article which mentioned a pastor's wife who would wear her wedding ring at work but take it off when in a primarily Adventist setting. Somebody saw her at work and stared at her for a few seconds. Then that person had the gall to say, "Oh, I didn't recognize you with your ring on." The moment I read this, I about blew my top. Granted, it was in the 1980s when wedding rings were finally considered customary and then permitted. But the amount of condescension in that one sentence I highly doubt even Lady Catherine de Bourgh could have equalled.

In June of 2007, amidst what I now see was a very deep depression, I wrote a short story which became a novel about a girl whose life hit rock bottom. She attempted suicide, but through a Deus ex machina in the form of a kind upperclassman, she survived and became a Seventh-day Adventist. The pastor of the church in Lamond, California, a fictional town 20 minutes from Redding, was Noah Murphy. He felt using his given name was too sacrilegious and went by Murphy. He was married, but refused to wear a wedding band. When Clarissa, the protagonist, came to church the first day, the youth Sabbath School class welcomed her, but the pastor did not. The long, pink scars on her wrists, combined with the necklace she wore caused Murphy to shun her--and to shun her new boyfriend, the man who had saved her life. Later on in the story, he saves the two of them from a potentially disastrous encounter caused by heavily spiked punch, and later still he officiates their wedding. But even though I made him a good guy in the end, I still stereotyped him for a reason.

In the Adventist church, plainness is heavily encouraged. In the 1866 standards for dress, we were to be "scrupulously plain". Adornment of any kind, including but not limited to makeup, jewelry, elegant dresses, pearls, and so on and so forth, was outlawed not only by the Church, but by Scripture, citing a particular passage in Isaiah that was taken somewhat out of context. In my own family, the condescension produced by the Adventist church in the last quarter of the twentieth century has driven people away for forbidding things that were culturally appropriate, that were customary.

It seems that a lot of people view plain dress, and abstention from wearing jewelry and other adornment as requirements for membership, even as requirements for salvation. They are in reality teachings, not requirements. And I question these teachings. Why? They are so rooted in the keeping of standards as divinely ordained that we lose sight of the reason they are there in the first place. The reason for discouraging the wearing of jewelry, makeup, fancy clothes, etc. is so that we focus not on ourselves, but on Jesus. By judging people (Matthew 7:1) for wearing jewelry, how are we promoting the love of Jesus? By making sure that others follow our now irrelevant standards, who are we like? Read the Gospels and you will see that the same kind of enforcement was the pet control scheme of the Pharisees. If we weren't as flexible as we are, we'd have thrown out anybody who suggested that wearing a wedding ring was all right!

Another thing that makes the teaching of abstention from adornment seem almost Pharisaical is church attire. If we are to dress plainly, simply, without adornment, why do we almost require that people wear formal or semi-formal clothing to church? What struck me as the most hypocritical was when I saw in church a woman wearing a flaming magenta dress, sporting a sterling brooch the size of a golf ball, and wearing a hat which matched the dress. I was confused because I'd always been told wearing hats was irreverent. And aren't brooches jewelry? And what about that magenta? It attracts attention! Could it be a cultural difference? I still don't really know.

My sister has a pair of magnetic stud earrings that she could wear without getting her ears pierced. She got them for a fairly low price, maybe twenty dollars. They look great on her, and if somebody told her to take them off because they're jewelry I'd step in and defend her. Why? Because those earrings aren't to show status. They aren't to draw attention. They aren't gaudy, aren't kitsch. If you make my sister take off her twenty dollar earrings, then you should take off your five hundred dollar suit coat, sixty dollar tie and eighty dollar shoes because you, my friend, are no better than a Pharisee.

So again I ask, if we condemn (Mt. 7:1!) our fellows for wearing jewelry or makeup, what are we doing to further God's kingdom? Are we spreading the love of Christ or are we being legalistic, expecting perfection from our followers? Is it really a theological issue, or is it one of the last ways the Church controls their members? Wedding rings are fine in a lot of circles, but there are people, the fictional Noah Murphy for instance, that refuse because wedding rings are jewelry.

I myself plan on wearing two wedding rings: one that the Church will approve of and one that it won't. One will be a band of gold, and another will be a tattoo, a symbol of permanence. And will I want to hide the fact that I have my wife's name tattooed on my finger? No way! I would wear it with pride, reaffirming my love for her every day regardless of whether or not I'm wearing that band of gold. The letter of the law says no jewelry, no tattoos, no adornment. But the spirit of the law is much different: instead of focusing on looking good, we should focus on Jesus Christ. It's what He would have preached.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Is Adventist Education Really Worth the Cost?

2010-05-14T08:00:00.001-07:00

I would love to do a case study on this topic. But sadly, a weekly blog entry doesn't hazard months' or even years' worth of research. Instead, I'm just going to state my opinion on the matter and show you the reasons why we have Adventist schools and why in the long run you will be better off either attending or sending your children to an Adventist school.

Adventists have always been about excellence: excellence in character, excellence in life, excellence in health, excellence in spirituality, and the list goes on to no end. But one of the things that we as a Church have striven to provide since the very beginning was excellence in education. Our matriarch, our prophet Ellen White vehemently opposed public schooling. Conditions were horrible, classrooms were cramped, and children were being taught the ways of the worldly wise men. She decried public education for cultural as well as theological reasons, and said that children were better off waiting until age eight or nine to attend public school so that the families could set their children on the right path before they went to school. Then as a response to public education, we came up with Adventist schools.

These schools strove to promote Adventist ideals, teach children about God, and prepare them for life. That is what Adventist schools strive to do today, and I believe that in modern day society we need a good quality Adventist education more than ever before. Modern day society teaches us that we will never be good enough to do anything. We idolize models and movie stars, swooning, "I could never be as good an actor as [for instance] Ben Affleck," and "I could never be as pretty as [for instance] Kate Beckinsale." But God teaches the contrary, that everybody is unique, has unique gifts and talents, and that everybody is equally capable. I admit myself to fawning over Thomas Tallis and Sir John Tavener, two composers with amazing, God-given abilities that have immortalized them (Tavener is still alive, too!). God, though, has given me a love for composition, and these great composers are merely sources of inspiration and enjoyment. Why is this? I believe it's due to the fact that I have gone through Adventist schooling almost my entire life.

Adventist schools, when they do their job properly, encourage the downtrodden, empower the powerless, and educate the uneducated. They are, or should be, warm and friendly atmospheres that make learning into something more than just memorizing facts. Adventist schools teach ethics, life lessons, and use care in teaching children what they need to learn. This environment is like the womb, a place for children to develop in safety.

Many parents choose not to send their children to Adventist schools because they can't justify the cost. All Adventist schools are private institutions because they are parochial schools. By definition, the Government cannot teach one particular religion in any given school (nor can they prohibit the exploration or exercise of Christianity, but that's a different issue for another time). The fact that they are private schools makes them run on tuition instead of being funded by tax dollars. In order to keep the budget in line with operating costs, tuition is quite high, with some schools running hundreds of dollars per month per student. In this economy it makes perfect sense to pull the children out of private school and send them to public school to save money, while giving them the spiritual education at home. This will easily satisfy any theological qualms that prevent us from sending our children to public school. But what about the other side of the coin? White's reasons for disapproving of public schooling were twofold, as I mentioned earlier: theological and cultural.

Public schools are far from a wholesome environment. Harsh language is rampant, sexual promiscuity is shrugged off, and God is notably absent from the culture. Children are taught not by their teachers, but by their peers to conform to society. Musical choices, acceptable body shapes and weights, lifestyle decisions: peers affect all of these. We've always been told that we should choose carefully the people we make our friends. In public schools, Adventists' conservative values could be seen as weakness or weirdness, making students unpopular. The quest for popularity may lead the students to make choices that go against their beliefs. Peer pressure is a powerful force that Satan uses to snare today's youth.

So what do we do to keep our kids on the straight and narrow? Even in Adventist schools we see teen pregnancy and sexual promiscuity, language, underage drinking, disbelief in God and a plethora of other stains. But attending an Adventist school gives students the opportunity to make the right decisions, with encouragement from teachers and peers. They are more likely to take the right path if they are in an environment that is conducive to it. Ellen White was absolutely right: it's better for children to stay home and be grounded in their faith and lifestyle before going to public school. But Adventist schools strive to eliminate the qualms we have about public schooling. The immense cost of educating a child in Adventist schools from elementary to post-secondary is a pittance compared to the potential for making the right choices versus making the wrong choices. Parents, think about it: if you're so worried about money that you're willing to rob your children of the wholesome environment of an Adventist school, are you really trusting God? He wants the best for us, and Adventist education is the closest I have come to finding the ideal. I am here at Walla Walla University because God moved mountains for me to be here. Why? He wants me to have this wholesome Adventist education. And if He moves mountains for me, then why not for your kids? It just makes sense: an Adventist education will be better, bottom line. You want the best for your kids, and so does God. If you can afford Adventist schooling, I highly suggest you take advantage. Even if you have to tighten your belts and count every penny, it will be worth it. Remember, this world is not our home. And when we prepare our children for the bigger picture, God will smile and He will take care of it.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Wednesday Bonus: The Second Adam

2010-05-12T13:47:00.000-07:00

This is going to be a short one, but I came upon an epiphany in class today. Jesus's nature was that of Adam before sin. This is why He is referred to as the Second Adam. Just as Adam, He had the ability to sin, but did not have a sinful nature. When He did not sin and yet gave His life, it was like a matter-antimatter annihilation, like dividing by zero! It totally obliterated the eternal death penalty for those who accepted His death. That's they beauty of it all: Somebody took our place, an innocent Lamb. And He did it without hesitation. As Jonathan Henderson says, the very moment of the first sin, the plan was set in motion. Jesus knew that somebody had to die to save everybody. Without another thought, without any consideration, He threw up His hand and said, "I'll do it." Acting out of a love we can never truly understand, He gave everything for His children. And if even one of them accepted Him, He still would have done it.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Sanctified, Justified, or...Both?

2010-05-07T08:00:00.000-07:00

When I mention 1888, Jones, and Waggoner, what comes to mind? For some of you, nothing comes to mind. For others, it means debate. The debate was whether or not we are to keep the Law for salvation, or whether it is the Blood of Christ that gives us salvation. Most of us today would agree that the Blood is what sets us free, but also that the Law is important. Some would say that it is just the Blood, and that nothing else matters. Others will go the other extreme and say that if you don't keep the Law--all 10 Commandments--perfectly, you will be damned. So which is it: Sanctification, Justification, or both? Before we find a definitive answer to the question, we have to note that no definitive answer can really be found in this situation. It's a matter of interpretation, exegetical or otherwise, mixed with cultural, political, and other biases. That is one thing that compels me to believe that the correct answer is both to trust that you have salvation by faith, but also that it is important to keep laws such as the Sabbath. The origin of this conflict had its roots in the young SDA Church.

The passage so many Protestant denominations used to denounce the Sabbath as dated and no longer applicable was Galatians 3:23-25. As it reads in the King James Version, "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." They cited this "schoolmaster" to mean the Mosaic Law in its entirety, including the Ten Commandments. Early Seventh-day Adventists pushed a different interpretation, that the "schoolmaster" was actually the sacrificial system. Their emphasis was in keeping the Sabbath, which was what separated them from the "animals"--the liturgical and other organized churches, or as they called organized religion, Babylon. Allow me to explain the likening of organized, Sunday-keeping denominations to Babylon. In the time of the Millerite movement, the Roman Catholic Church was seen as the Beast in Revelation; it was the only entity of power to fulfill the 1260-day prophecy. This was preached across the entire movement, and those that followed the message of the Millerite Movement, most notably the Seventh-day Adventists, followed this belief. This was one of the reasons that the SDA Church was not an organized denomination until they started giving out credentials in 1853: they didn't want this hierarchical structure that got in the way of the individual's relationship with God. Similarly, Babylon, the Roman Catholic Church and other organized churches, kept Sunday as Sabbath instead of the Seventh Day, Saturday. The emphasis on Sunday-worship as the Mark of the Beast caused the more legalistic interpretation of the controversial passage in Galatians. Then, around 1888, the fledgling Church received a hand with two wild cards: E. G. Waggoner and A. J. Jones. They began to preach a different interpretation of the Galatians passage, that it did in fact mean what it said. The Law was no longer something necessary to point us to Christ because Christ already came and died. He Himself said that he "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17-18, NKJV). This means that we are still under that which is not fulfilled, which means essentially the set-in-stone Commandments, at least in my interpretation. But the early Adventists didn't see it that way. They saw this interpretation of the Galatians passage as a threat to the Sabbath. The Church leaders tried to silence the message because of it, but Ellen White spoke out in favor of letting them preach.

Today, though, I often see the message Waggoner and Jones preached taken to the extreme. The "Justification Party" is the road to the Once Saved, Always Saved doctrine. This doctrine, one that Adventists reject, essentially states that works are worth nothing and that through faith and grace alone are we saved. The doctrine is wholly unbiblical, for James clearly states in his epistle, "What good is it to say that you have faith, when you don't really do anything to show that you really do have faith? Can that kind of faith save you?" (Contemporary English Version). It is true that we should show that we have faith in God. We should follow Christ's example, and doesn't that include following the Law, particularly the Ten Commandments? Many people use Galatians 3:24, 25 to throw out the Fourth Commandment, but I think that it just reinforces our need to keep the Law. Jesus kept it, so why shouldn't we? I don't believe we're sealed forever once we accept God. It's something that the Once Saved, Always Saved doctrine hasn't ever explained: what if you decide that you don't want to be a part of God's kingdom after all? And also, if Salvation is by grace alone, why are some saved and others lost? It gets very dicey, and blooms into skunk cabbage like Predestination, which undermines the very nature of God.

Wrapping everything up, I can see that it's plain that salvation is primarily by faith and grace, stemming from Christ's sacrifice on the cross. But along with that, we need to keep the Law. The analogy I've used for years is that salvation is a gift. Jesus, in His death, gave it to everybody. Some of us choose to accept it, but some of us toss it on a dresser and forget about it. There is always an opportunity to open it, but for one to really want to open it, one must first know the Man who gave it to them. In order to do that, one has to align oneself with His teachings, ideals, and Law. For us to understand Him, and understand His gift, we have to understand His position. It's as simple as that. The Law is there for our benefit, not our detriment. And while we cannot as humans keep it perfectly, we do know that the love and blood of Christ blots out "a multitude of sins" (1 Peter 4:8). And that, my friends, is the reason we can rejoice.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Personal, not Passive

2010-04-16T08:00:00.000-07:00

Who is God? That is the question that was on my mind as I staggered my way through life. I grew up in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I kept Sabbath but hated it. I read my Bible, and yet nothing I learned gave me the sense of power that people said it did. I drifted alone in the sea of life, always knowing that the Lighthouse was there, but never seeing it through the fog. I was content where I was for a while, but then things started to happen. And when the sea got rough, I began to cry out to the lighthouse keeper, begging Him to light the lamp. What I got was more amazing than I could ever imagine.

I grew up in the SDA Church. I was taught that God was somebody who sat back and watched me, coming down only in church, prayer, and when we called upon Him (Psalm 50:15). He was distant and enigmatic. This perception stayed with me for years and years. I thanked God for everything good, and anything bad I just pushed off on the Devil. But then we decided to move and my life's seas got rough.

Like Abraham, we up and left the place we'd been living for 11 years and moved to the 20 acres that would become the Lazy Oak Ranch. My last day in the old house, I got sick and cancelled what would have been my last bass lesson, for that Saturday, my bass teacher died in a head-on collision. I loved him as a mentor, and it tore me apart. But he would have wanted me to soldier on, so I did. I got over it very quickly, and decided to carry on his legacy in some way. It kept me going. But still, God was distant.

The second rock my life-ship hit was love. I'd gone almost 17 years saying, "I don't need to date anybody. I'll just concentrate on living my life, and when it happens, it happens." But it happened. It was a field trip to the pumpkin farm a couple weeks before I turned 17, and I suddenly realized an infatuation with my best friend's sister. That Valentine's Day, I became her secret admirer, and after a couple months, I revealed my identity. A week later, I asked her out. Her initial yes was music to my ears, but she wasn't ready. Again, I was devastated. I took it way too personally, and slipped into an almost three year long depression.

This depression was perpetuated in one romantic failure after another (most of which were me not getting off my butt). College was stressful until I changed from Computer Science to Music Education. But my life was still a total pain. I blamed everything on my status as a bachelor, myself being a very romantic person and needing some outlet for that pent-up quixotic inclination. It finally took the engagement of the one person I couldn't get over to snap me back into alignment.

By this time, I'd resorted to living day-to-day, not setting any goals except declaring my major as music, and leaning heavily on God. It didn't help that we were smack dab in the middle of the largest financial hardship my family had ever seen, brought on in the largest economic recession since the Great Depression. Miracle after miracle happened, never at any time but the most desperate. It was just like the Widow of Zarephath, when God provided for her son and her. There was no way I could let that go past, and everything that happened brought me closer to God.

It wasn't until this February that I really contemplated my relationship with God. At The Awakening, a student-led worship service here at Walla Walla University, I came one Sabbath because I didn't have to sing in choir, which usually precluded me. I stayed for almost all of it, but the message was the same one I'd heard for years: if you just let God handle your life, you'll always be happy. This was the tail-end of my depression, so I'd shut off by the end of the message. When the second set of songs began, I had gotten no blessing and I didn't see the empty words of the songs I sang giving me anything either. So I walked out. I deposited the contents of my wallet, $2, into the offering basket and went back to my room. But God didn't stop tugging at my heart. The Spirit kept tugging on my heart, saying, "Hey, Michael, I want to spend time with you. So you didn't find me in The Awakening. Big, fat, hairy deal. You know where I'll be." I grabbed my notebook and my Bible, and headed for Heubach chapel. It's my favorite place to spend time with God because it's usually deserted and silent. Just like Elijah, that day I couldn't find God in the wind. I couldn't find Him in the earthquake. I couldn't find Him in the fire. And I know that if I couldn't find him in the Awakening, I most certainly wouldn't find Him in the massive Black History Month church service that was happening next door to the chapel. I spent some time thinking about God, talking aloud to Him, and actually feeling the Spirit next to me.

This led me to correlate God to a Big Brother figure. He's somebody I look up to, ask for advice, and He stands up for me. He knows what's best for me, even though I might want something completely different. It's this personal relationship with God that I enjoy, that I love. And when I don't have this relationship, I really miss it. It's not about rules or regulations. It's about having what Enoch had. He was so close to God that he disappeared one day. God took him to heaven, not because he was a perfect follower of the Law, but because he was so very close, spending every moment with God. This leads me to believe that a relationship with God is not this lukewarm, passive acquaintance, but a deep, personal relationship. God is a friend that sticks closer than a brother. And if you stick as close to Him, I think your salvation is guaranteed.

Next week, I'll talk about Sanctification vs. Justification.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

The Sabbath Was Made for Man

2010-04-09T08:00:00.000-07:00

As an Adventist, the Sabbath is a crucial part of my life. It is a respite from the stresses of the week, an excuse to spend time with God instead of doing work. But that's only now that I'm an old and grey 20-year-old. When I was a kid, it came with a long list of don'ts and meant soup, Church, and boredom. At the Post-Vespers small group meeting on Good Friday, we discussed the motives involved, and tried to come to some kind of understanding as to what keeping the Sabbath actually means.

Let's start with the core Adventist doctrine of the Sabbath, Fundamental Belief #20. God rested on the 7th day and made it holy (or set aside). It was a memorial of Creation, a time for Him to spend special time with His children Adam and Eve. Jesus kept the Sabbath, even in death. Yes, He healed on the Sabbath, and yes, He picked grain on the Sabbath. But when criticized, he responded, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. I'd always heard that text, but not really known what it meant until I did some thinking. I'll get more into that in a moment, but first, allow me to rag on the Pharisaical (yes, I said it) Sabbath-keeping of many Adventists.

The biggest argument I have here is with the usage (not interpretation) of Isaiah 58:13-14, the famous "Turn away your foot from the Sabbath" text. I've heard many an Adventist use this text to bar people from doing certain acts on the Sabbath: everything from swimming to sports to playing Fallout 3. Talking about don'ts makes the Sabbath very limiting and tends to repel younger Adventists. The particularly repelling don'ts in my mind:

Don't go swimming
Don't watch secular movies, play secular board or video games
Don't play sports
Don't go out to eat
Don't cook
Don't read anything secular
Don't play card games (except for Trees and Flowers, Birds and Animals, etc.)

When we are told what we can't do, but not what we can, it tends to make the Sabbath less favorable. When we are kids, we can't quite understand the kind of personal relationship with God that I now take so much delight in. Yes, it's good to teach kids not to break the Sabbath, but many times parents nap while the kids die of boredom. They don't provide any alternatives. And when that happens, when nobody tells us what we can do, it becomes an even bigger day of don'ts.

So let's go over what should be done on the Sabbath. In my experience, there is no definitive answer. We go to Sabbath School and Church every week, and we eat lunch, be it at potluck or at home, either early- or mid-afternoon. But the sanctioned Sabbath activities aren't really clearly defined. The only blatantly encouraged things that come to mind:

Nature hikes
Bible reading
Devotional book reading
Sit around or sleep

What's going on here? Why are there so few dos and so many don'ts? Are we so concerned with breaking the Sabbath that we care only about what not to do? That's why I compare us to the Pharisees. They yelled at Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, and for picking grain on the Sabbath. Then Jesus tore them a new one. He said, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. What does this mean? Well, it seems to me like Jesus is saying that the rules for Sabbath keeping are more lax than the Pharisees made them out to be.

Let's not say that we can take this to mean that we can do whatever we want on the Sabbath. It's not that at all. Instead He was making a statement, which I shall paraphrase, "Hey! I was hungry, so I decided to eat something. Where's the problem with that? The Sabbath is not about what you shouldn't do, but rather what you should." The original purpose of the Sabbath, as stated earlier, was for God to spend time with Adam and Eve. Nowadays, I think a lot of people view it as a time to contemplate God, Jesus, and the Cross. But I don't think it's really even about that. It's about taking five and spending time with God, not because he wants us to do something with Him, but rather that He wants to do something with us. Remember the wonderful thought in 1 John 3:1 - "Behold what manner of love the Father has given unto us, that we are called children of God!" It makes me come to tears thinkin about it, that the most powerful Being in existence calls us His children! And he's proud to do it, too! Just think of the parable of the prodigal son. When he came back, his father threw a party and killed the fattened calf, something he was saving for a special occasion feast. God is like that with us - every time we turn away and do our own thing, and then see that the world has nothing for us, He will always take us back. Sabbath is a time to return to God, the One that loves us more than life itself, so that He can see us again, and so that we can visit with Him. I'll talk more about this personal God next time.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Culture Shock: A Point of Contention

2010-04-02T08:00:00.000-07:00

Many people ask the question: Why are our young people leaving the church? Many answers percolate through the minds of our church members. But none of them are definitive, and all of them are abstract. "It's the music," some say. The reasoning is that either the youth won't accept the divinely appointed music or that the elders are too traditionalistic and won't accept the music of today. Another rationale is that the church services are too boring for the youth, who are kept coming by flashy and complex performances, dramatic portrayals of Biblical events or abstract concepts, things the Church has long frowned upon. Another explanation is that the youth are simply troubled, seeking solace and acceptance in the arms of the whore of Babylon. But the reality is simple: The decline in youth attendance and activity corresponds to all of those reasons. The cause is even simpler: A subtle yet deadly form of culture shock.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church arose in rural, 19th century Michigan from the Millerite Movement. The Church's values largely corresponded to the values at the time. Simplicity was king, frugality was the norm; it was the common sense values of the American Frontier that drove the core values of early Adventism. Therein lies the problem: we as a Church allowed the core values of the 19th century American Frontier become the core values of the Adventist church, labeled them as divinely ordained, and thus they cannot change. It is true that some things have indeed changed: Wedding bands, for instance, are now considered a cultural symbol and are permitted when previously they were considered jewelry and disallowed. But we still have a long way to go in reforming the Adventist church, taking cultural values and breaking their dogmatic statuses away.

Exegesis and hermeneutics are two terms referring to the study and interpretation of a piece of written information such as the Bible. Biblical exegesis in a Protestant denomination such as Adventism relies heavily on the rejection of the Roman Catholic Church's allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. Such was done by Protestants from Martin Luther to William Miller. But Protestants' literal interpretive methods pose several conundrums. The parables of Jesus, particularly the Rich Man and Lazarus, are clearly full of figurative language (Luther's philosophy was to interpret literally except in cases such as this). But then what about the Old Testament God, a God of vengeance, of war, and of death?

The thing exegetes have to take into account when studying the Scriptures is cultural context. In the Old Testament, the culture was very collectivist. It was about the group and not the individual. That is why Achan, his entire family, and all of his animals were killed after the spoils of war were found in his tent. If the head of the family broke the law, everybody was held responsible. In the American individualist culture, this seems to be an unfair punishment. But in the days of the Israelites, it was perfectly acceptable. Similarly, in the culture of the Old Testament, war was between gods. The reason for the Israelites' many conquests was to prove to the Lord's enemies that He was indeed the One true God. While in today's age it seems barbaric, it was culturally necessary for the wiping out of nations like Canaan and cities like Jericho. Let's not forget that Rahab helped the Israelites and was therefore saved from the destruction of Jericho.

My point in this is not to give you a Bible class or a history lesson, but to point out that God works across cultural boundaries. When we try and say that the 19th century values of Adventism are divinely ordained, or that the Old Testament is clearly fallacious because it paints a different portrait of the Lord, we ourselves are trying to be God. We are trying to put God in a box, and anybody who knows anything about Him knows that no box can contain Him. What the elders in the Church need to realize is that cultures change. And with the changing cultures, so changes the way we should look at our values and doctrines. As long as we keep the same fundamental truths the same, the little things can change. But the younger members of the church also have to realize that with the advent of things like computers, cell phones, and contemporary music, we have an entirely different culture than those who might be older. Things we may find perfectly acceptable may be culturally inappropriate in their eyes. We need to respect the culture of those who came before us while finding ways to change the status quo without being blatantly offensive.

Remember, we may be the future of the church, but the current culture is vastly different. We're not trying to knock down the Berlin Wall here. What we as young people need to do is realize that so that we can coexist peacefully with our fellow Adventists. One of Satan's favorite games is destroying our relationships with God. So stand up to him and stay with the Church.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael