An Adventist Church leader "gets" the young adults

I generally do not like to discuss a specific church or denomination in my blog, because I am not one to endorse any institutionalized way for practicing Christianity. However, I was impressed by a recent editorial and article by the Canadian Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Editor, Halsey Peat in the newsletter Ontario Highlights. In the Autumn/Winter 2014 edition of the Ontario Highlights, Peat pens two articles, which I will briefly summarize in this post and give a few comments on.

In the first article, entitled "Multi-Generational Churches or Seniors' Centres?" Peat expresses concern about the departure of the youth and the young adults from the church. In part of his editorial, Peat also points out what he feels is the problem with the church that is contributing to this:

We [SDAs] have sought to remain unchanged in a world that is constantly changing. We look to the past as if they were the glorious days, failing to recognise the struggles that our pioneers and those after them had to go through...we have stubbornly, and maybe even arrogantly, considered that our pioneers resolved every issue and question, so we default to regurgitating their answers. There seems to be a reticence to examine our beliefs and practices in light of twenty-first century North America. Meanwhile, our youths and young adults are scrutinizing what they see and hear in the church. Some will pick and choose what makes sense to them, ignoring what does not, but remain in the church. Others, what seems to be the majority, simply leave, discarding everything. (p. 2)

I believe Peat has hit the nail on the head. As a young adult myself, I have chosen to remain in the church community despite objecting to the way church is done. I see them putting out evangelistic meetings that have no relevance to my peers and the questions that my peers ask. Time and time in this blog, I have had to highlight some of these problems which are not just specific to the SDA church, but to Christian denominations that I am aware of. I feel that most Christian churches today are out of touch with the young adults and the youth and the spiritual challenges to faith in a secular world and a world increasingly hostile to Christian culture.

Peat goes on in another brilliant article to address young adults like me about why stay in the SDA church and how to go about reforming it. In his article, "For Young Adults Only", Peat begins with a lengthy introduction that indicates that he is in touch with the young adults in the church:

I f you are a young adult reading this, you’re doing so because you are still attending the church in which you were most probably raised. I’m glad that you are still there because you know of friends who no longer attend. For one reason or another, they ceased attending church, but you remained. 

I’m glad you remained, but will you stay? I sincerely hope so. I hope that you have recognised the truth that even though your church is imperfect, God still works through it for the good of His people. Yes, on occasion, it is even frustrating in how it addresses your concerns, and how it relates to contemporary society, but it is still a place where there is potential for you to grow, flourish and be happy to call home. 

Part of the frustration, I know, is with the word potential. Everything always seem to be in the future. Meanwhile, you feel side-lined, unimportant, unappreciated, and undervalued. Like your teen brothers and sisters, it can sometimes seem as if you are only appreciated when you fit the cultural stereotype of an Adventist in appearance, accepted behaviour pattern, and you use the clichés and jargon of Adventism. 

Over the years, while conversing with young adults, I arrived at a conclusion, shared by many of my generation, that you love the Lord. I learned that you are in this church because you believe, and you want to participate in its mission. You seek spirituality, but you do not necessarily believe that spirituality is determined by traditional views and practices. You want your church to be relevant to your community. You want it to be such a welcoming and relevant place that you will gladly invite your friends to attend with you. However, you’re often reluctant to invite them because of how embarrassed you’d feel by what sometimes happens on a Sabbath morning. So, you wait for change. 

Waiting for change is never easy. It can be very frustrating because just when it looks like it’s about to happen, something seems to derail it. Some of your former friends gave up waiting and left, but you do not want to leave truth for error. You’re very aware that when people separate themselves from fellowship, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain spiritual disciplines and practice. Over time, there is a distancing, not only from the practices of a Christian but from its principles, and ultimately from God. Yet, you wait for the church to change. (p.10-11)

 Once again, Peat is on target. No need for me to add to his words, as he said exactly how I feel about church and Christianity on a whole. Yet, make no mistake. I do appreciate my seniors and the work they have done even teach me the elementary stuff and preserve faith so that I could learn about it today. And I am happy that they have kept track of the history and preserved it for me so that I can know the evolution of faith and where we are coming from.

In fact, for as much as I have protested and critiqued Roman (if not Western) Christianity, I still respect it. In fact, I greatly appreciate that Roman Christianity took on Paul's revolutionary theology of becoming relevant to the culture in order to conquer the culture. According to the letter to Corinth, the multi-cultural Paul argues his theological method:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New International Version [NIV])

I feel that Roman Christianity, by adopting this theological position made Christianity malleable, and therefore appropriated whatever it could from national or popular cultures in order to evangelize and win converts to the religion. And so far, this approach to spreading Christianity has been the most successful to date.Whereas Judeo-Christianity (or Jewish Christianity) failed to convert Jewish rabbinic schools and perished for a while after the destruction of Jerusalem, Roman Christianity converted the entire Roman empire, from Britain to Northern Africa.

Today, I recognize the same Roman Christianity principles in the present day Pope. Assimilate some of what the modern day culture and secular world see as good or reasonable in order to win them. While I may disagree on some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church accepts as not contradicting with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, I do realize that the church is merely pursuing a theology of adapting to its world in order to remain relevant.

So I welcome Peat's message and will try to be optimistic that at least a few adults in the church do understand the young adults and will listen to them. Nonetheless, I feel pessimistic that SDA church traditions will change anytime soon. Especially when I think of my experiences in rural Jamaican Adventism, where laymen cling to reading only the King James Version of the Bible and indoctrinate the youth into conspiracy theories about how Jesuits are trying to infiltrate the Adventist church and seminaries.

References:

Peat, H. (2014). Multi-generational churches or seniors' centres?  Ontario Highlights Autumn/Winter 2014, 2.

Peat, H. (2014). For young adults only. Ontario Highlights Autumn/Winter 2014, 10-11.

The difference between following Jesus and practicing Churchianity

During the last week of January, my experience in representative student politics caused me to reflect more on Jesus and his mission and platform while on earth. I will not go into details about my student political experiences, but will indeed go into details about my thoughts on Jesus, who I hold as my chief role model.

I have already distinguished that there is following Jesus or Christ and following Churchianity (see previous blog post on this). The two should not be confused. There is a difference between following Jesus and professing to do so, yet practicing Churchianity. To follow Jesus means to follow the life example and teachings of Jesus (as best as one can seeing that the setting and cultural differences today make it impossible to follow Jesus literally or completely). Then there is following Churchianity, which means to accept and follow the teachings of a particular church organization or denomination. The two sometimes are at great odds and one has to have good judgment to discern this.

Back in his day, Jesus was a devout and deeply spiritual individual interested in the social and political reform of the Jewish religion. His mission was to make the religious institution more just, inclusive and responsive to the human heart and condition. In the account of Luke, on his return to his hometown synagogue, Jesus claimed a portion of prophecy as outlining his mission statement. According to the passage in Luke 4:18 in the New International Version (NIV), Jesus declared:

18 

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,

Hence, his actions of ministering to adulterers, the sick, the prostitutes, tax collectors and those who were either excommunicated or outcasts from the religious and political society. Jesus wanted to bring back all these persons back into the community of God's people and back into a relationship with God.

Secondly, Jesus also wanted to increase faith in God, at the same time while lifting up mercy and justice. He not only wanted people to treat others better, but also wanted people to believe in, love and trust God more. This meant that sometimes Jesus had to side with the right-wing conservative Pharisees in rebuking the left-wing Sadducees for attempting to decrease people's faith in an after-life. this is recorded in the account of Matthew 22:23-46, where Jesus had to point out that the Sadducees had errors in their interpretation of the Scripture as well as a lack of understanding about God.

Considering these things, if you are a professed follower of Jesus, you must ask yourself the questions:

• Am I concerned about injustice and the treatment of people in society?
• Do I want society to be more just?
• Do I want people to love God more and have a better understanding of God and his nature and love?

These questions distinguish someone who is a follower of Jesus and believes in his mission from those who are just adherents to a church culture misnamed "Christianity".

The Adventist Christmas and New Year conundrum

If there is one (of many) thing[s] that irks me about the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church today is the inconsistency of its theology. On one hand, they hand out religious liberty tracks that paint Roman Catholicism as the whore of Babylon that has lead the world away from true worship. Then in December, the church begins to observe two of Rome's holy or special days: Christmas and New Year. And in North America, the idolatry is heightened when the SDA church decorates it halls and interior with 3-dimensional representations of angels and other creatures or objects of heaven or earth (including the snowman image/sculpture) (Jeremiah 10:3-9). Further, the Christmas tree is decked with these objects and jewels. Then the church calls on the writings of Adventist pope, Ellen G. White, to justify these practices (The Adventist Home Chapter 77, p. 477-483). This is done, despite Pope White not stating that she got a direct revelation from God that Christmas and New Years must be observed.

While I have no problem with my brethren, the Roman Catholics observing these days, and even my fellow Sunday Protestants doing the same, it strikes me that for Adventists, the practices are oddly inconsistent with their theology and teachings, especially their narrow interpretation of their mission of the three angels message in Revelations 14:6-9. From what they taught me, if Rome's worship involves changing God's calendar and deciding when to observe what, then if you are calling people to the true worship, why not point them back to God's original calendar that he first gave to his people the Jews. If you point fingers on Rome, then why do you do some of what they do, but not everything? If you go part way with Rome, why not all the way?

In the Bible, God only has one new year, the Passover (the 14th of Nissan) (Exodus 12:2). However, today Jews celebrate Rosh Hashanah as a second "new year", especially when it announces a year of jubilee (Gordon, 2014). However, scholars dispute this second "new year" (Gordon, 2014; Rood, 2004), with Rood (2004) indicating that the real Biblical new year is the month of Aviv or Passover.

As for Christmas, if the Adventist church developed in protest against Roman Christianity, why has it not opted to adopt the Eastern Christianity's Christmas date in January?

Nonetheless, I want to wish a Merry Christmas to all you who celebrate it without theological inconsistency! Whether on December 25th or in January.


References:

Gordon, N. (2014, Sep. 26). Nehemia's wall: Uncovering ancient Hebrew sources of faith. [Blog post] Retrieved from
http://www.nehemiaswall.com/yom-teruah-day-shouting-became-rosh-hashanah

Rood, M. (2004). The Pagan-Christian connection exposed: A Rood awakening. Alachua, FL: Bridge-Logos

White, E. G. (2001). Christmas. The Adventist home: Counsels to Seventh-day Adventist families as set forth in the writings of Ellen G. White. Maryland: Trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate.

A call for a Post-Protestant and Post-Evangelical Christian community

Before making my point, let me begin with the dream I had on Wednesday, November 12, 2014.

The dream

1. A PhD colleague and I were in what appeared to be St. Catherine, Jamaica (one of my home parishes), driving to Western Jamaica.
2. It was late evening, and we encountered traffic.  My friend decided to pull over into a church yard, to wait for the traffic diminish.
3. We happened to pull over into a Baptist church yard (could have been any church denomination however) and it was having a late evening service.
4. I pointed out to my colleague that this church was the denomination of my wife as a child, though not in this parish (she's from Western Jamaica).
5. I suggested that we could go inside and sit and take in some of the service.
6. So we went inside and sat in the pews at the back.
7. The people were in worship with a lead singer and a live band leading them in song.
8. After listening to the praise song for a few minutes, my colleague got up, and to my surprise (and everybody else to that matter), grabbed the cordless microphone from the female lead singer and said "Thank you, sister". (My colleague was not a Christian based on my knowledge).
9. He then brought and handed the microphone to me.
10. So I began to speak "Bless the Lord..."
11. Before I could finish my sentence, the lead, grabbed the microphone back and said "you have no right to speak!"
12. My colleague departed and I followed him.
13. For the rest of our journey in the car, I embarrassingly sought to explain to him the actions of the lead and about how different denominations regulate who can speak during worship services. 

End of dream.

I will not render an analysis of the dream, but on the other hand, I find it useful to  make a point. The point that I think it can make is that we need a new Christian community and way of being to meet the needs of a new generation of skeptics and Bible doubters.

The Christianity that I was raised in has served its time. While Christianity rightly assumes that God exists and that the Bible is his revelation to humanity, the way that we go about our worship services and our mission needs to be more oriented around the teaching aspect of the great commission, and less around music and songs. Our church experience can not just be oriented around sermonizing and acknowledging God through music and liturgical ceremony. The needs of my generation no longer fit with the model in which we conduct our services or ministry. No longer are people certain that God exists and that God is good. Further, they are not so sure about the Bible.

My generation wants a community that provides answers and respond to concerns that they have about the goodness of God and the difficult passages in the Bible. My generation wants to believe in a benevolent God and want to believe in the Bible, but there is no guide or shepherd to help them process doubts and questions. Our church services do not help. Structuring it around music and praise do not meet the needs of this new generation, who need teaching and a forum for questions and answers. We need more church services structured around teaching with live Q & A.


This model is not alien to Christianity. Jesus, our chief example, did "sermons" where unbelievers could ask questions and where he gave candid answers, questions or parables in response. The church in Acts, also provide evidence that the apostles spent more time teaching and expounding upon Scriptures and the life events of Jesus than in any scripted music, song and liturgical ceremony. The early dynamic community of Christians had lots of teaching and doctrine, and seemingly had less good singing and music.

Further, if we are going to speak to each other in song, as Apostle Paul admonishes us, shouldn't we sing songs that speak to the needs and themes that we have to deal with today? The hymns of yesteryear cannot be sufficient. And contemporary songs must address the skepticism and the spirit of the age.

This is why I argue that the Billy Graham generation is over. "Crusade" style worship and evangelism will not win the souls of my generation. Today we need new anointed teachers and singers that do things differently. Teachers and singers that shake up our deeply held traditions and formats for Christian service or ministry. Teachers and singers that will centre our services, ministry and worship around Bible reading, teaching and questioning. To centre our worship around discussing the Bible and God's goodness in a world where many have questions and doubt.

"Jewish" prophecies and the Middle East in the Christian's Gospel?

One of the key concepts that Jesus preached about during his time was the kingdom of God. Several theologians and scholars have discussed this idea (Aslan, 2013; Chilton, 2000). Yet, this concept has been missing in today's version of most of Christianity's gospel (see previous related blog post discussing a bible study on the concept). Interestingly, I discovered this recent reading that summarizes this:

Within a very short period after the Church was founded on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 31, a violent controversy arose concerning whether the gospel to be proclaimed was the gospel of Christ—Jesus’ own gospel that he proclaimed and taught, or a gospel about Christ. Jesus had come as a messenger bearing a message from God about the kingdom of God. That message was his gospel. But soon many were ignoring Jesus’ gospel—the kingdom of God—and preaching merely that Jesus was the Christ, preaching about the messenger, ignoring his message or gospel. That is still continuing today. (Pack, 2012, p. 10)

Jesus's teachings about the kingdom of God was informed by the Jewish prophets. According to Chilton (2000), Jesus based his identity and mission on the prophets. In his biography of Jesus, where Chilton tries to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus, Chilton (2000) suggests that Jesus applied prophetic visions from Daniel to understanding self.

In the wilderness he began to use a vision from the book of Daniel, an angel beside the Throne of God called in Aramaic "one like a person", who brought him close to his Abba in the divine court of heaven. This "one like a person" was shortly to emerge as the anchor of Jesus' visions and of the visionary discipline he taught his followers. (p.132)

As such, Chilton's words seem to be supported by Pack (2012) who states that the "New Testament Church" or the movement that Jesus founded is built directly upon the Jewish prophets and prophecies. According to Pack:

Did you realize that the New Testament Church is built directly on top of the prophets? I never heard this in Sunday school or in the church of my youth. Ephesians 2:19-20 says, “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.” There it is—the Church stands directly on a foundation that includes the prophets! What is written in the
prophets is instruction to God’s New Testament Church! (p. 23)

Considering these things, it is very essential that Bible believing Christians not just focus on New Testament scriptures. For frankly, in the time of Jesus, the New Testament wasn't even written. The foundation of the teachings of Jesus and his disciples were the Jewish prophets. But not to take my word for it, check out the following testimonies from New Testament passages:

Luke 24:27 (New International Version)And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Or 2 Peter 1: 19-21 (New Living Translation)

19Because of that experience, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. You must pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place—until the Day dawns, and Christ the Morning Star shines in your hearts. 20Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, 21or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.

And the majority of these "Jewish" prophets made forecasts of the future of no other region than the region of the Middle East (not America or anywhere else in the West). As such, as Pack (2012) mentions, the "[e]vents in the Middle East carry far greater significance than most even begin to understand" (p. 24). Yes, the Middle East is the centre of many Jewish prophecies, including the ones about the kingdom of God that Jesus preached.

This said, Western Bible believing Christians and Jews (who believe in the same prophetic sources), should be intently watching what's happening in Egypt, Libya, Syria and all the places of the so-called Arab spring. For one thing is certain is that all these places are mentioned in the prophecies of the so-called "Old Testament". The very gospel of the kingdom that Jesus told his disciples to teach is based on Middle-East events and territories.


References:

Aslan, R. (2013). Zealot: The life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Random House.

Chilton, B. (2000). Rabbi Jesus: An intimate biography. New York: Doubleday.

Pack, D. C. (2012). Bible authority: Can it be proven. The Restored Church of God: St. Catharines, ON. Retrieved from http://rcg.org/books/bacibp.html

The case for child-centred church services

Being a father of young children causes me to look at "church" differently. Before my marriage, as a single man I was able to serve in offices and participate in pretty much any of the church's ministries. This changed even more so when I became a father. Just imagine getting ready for church and having to be late because you have to wait on the baby to awake on time. Then having to get up during the "service" to take your child outside, because the child cannot sit still and keep quiet during the sermon. Not to mention the mommies who have to breast feed or even bottle feed the child (which is informally and unofficially forbidden in the "sanctuary"). As such, being a parent, for the first time forces you to contend with how unfriendly "church" is to young parents and their children. [ Disclaimer: this does not apply to the home church where I raised in with my mother and father. Home churches always treat their grandchildren who they've not seen for a while with a grand homecoming welcome and spoil them of course.]

But that's not all. Your eyes begin to open up to the fact that the church in the 21st century is quintessentially structured for adult believers as the major constituency. [Maybe it is because this group is the major contributors of voluntary services (free labour) and tithes and offerings]. However, even with a church offering children services and programmes, you realise that these are the non-essential or fringe services of the church. Children services and programmes are merely outreach, and not the core of what the church is about. [Perhaps a way of reaching out to parents more than the children].

But when I look at the scriptures, I get a different image. Several verses and memory texts tell me of the importance of raising children in the faith from the womb or birth, teaching them while in their youth or infancy. Psalm 22:9-10 for example says:

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast on you; from my mother's womb you have been my God. (NKJV)

From the child is sucking teats, the child is to be learning about God.

Another verse, 2 Timothy 3:15 says [breaking into the thought]:

from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Hence, children should be learning God's ways from infancy, not as teens or young adults.

A final example of scripture that tells me that the emphasis of teaching children about God is Psalm 71:17, which says:

Since my youth, God, you have taught me, and to this day I declare your marvelous deeds.

This is in addition to that proverb that says "train up a child in the way that they should go and when they are old, they will not depart from it".

But my point is that churches cannot be teaching children doctrines when they are teens or young adults. Doctrines must be taught when they are children. Further, church services cannot afford to cater to adult members and be centred around adult member programming. On the contrary, church has got to be vested in teaching, equipping and educating children for the work of Christian ministry. By this, I don't mean just investing in church schools, Sunday/Sabbath schools and one-off children programmes like Vacation Bible Schools. These are important, but even "traditional" worship services should be ceremonies for initiating children into the faith.

I personally find that church traditions like "communion service" in Protestant, Pentecostal and Evangelical churches fail to incorporate children unless they are baptized. Further, these churches generally baptize a child only when they are confident that the child has reached the age of "understanding" or consent. While church "worship services' are supposedly design to get me focused on God, there is no way that I can focus on God if my children are not engaged in what's going on. The structure of "church" has to be such that children can either participate or observe what is going on so that they can grow in either their understanding of the faith. This means providing opportunities for answer their questions about what is taking place as opposed to shushing them.

For me, an advanced believer with over 20 years of indoctrination (from both school and church), I don't really need the "worship services" as much. My spiritual needs lie in the discussion fora and the Bible studies. Those spaces and opportunities where I get to ask questions and share information. No need to be preached at (though I appreciate the storytelling, interpretations and retelling of familiar Bible stories). However, my concerns are now how to live out my faith in contemporary times. How to answer the questions of contemporary skeptics? Have we misunderstood anything that we now believe? Is there any more truth out of the scriptures that I need to comprehend? Did church founders miss knowledge that we now have access to?

Mark you, I am not saying that we need to do away with regular church worship service structure. Far from it, as this regular structure is still good for the newbies to the faith. It is new believers and children who need to hear sermons and instructions on morality and the purpose or meaning of life. The same group needs to be familiar with Bible stories and the themes of the Christian faith. The regular worship services should tell the grand narratives of Christianity's theme of salvation and redemption. However, we must ensure that children can meaningfully participate in such collective storytelling. (Didn't apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 admonish that we must make our services such that unbelievers can understand it and provide interpreters for those who have difficulties?) Hence regular church services should facilitate children participate in the telling and in meeting the introductory/orientation needs of newbies, while Bible classes/studies serve as the "extra-lessons" for the advanced believers.

After all, there is nowhere in Matthew's commission (Matthew 28:19) where I see a prescription for our current order of services. There is no prescription that we must collect offerings and listen to a sermon from one speaker. Jesus did not command those things and even in his sermons, there was space for interaction and the asking of questions. Rather, Matthew's great commission is for us to baptize, teach and make disciples. Hence, believers should be in the business of converting others to their viewpoint and worldview, instructing these new converts and mentoring them to take over the conversion business. And what better way to convert people to a particular worldview than when they are children with minds open for teaching and learning.

'Pentecostal' experiences in Seventh-day Adventism?

While I generally embrace a largely Christian identity, I label myself as Judeo-Christian, in recognition that the roots of Christianity is Jewish. Further, as a Protestant, I find that if I am to be consistent with an identity that challenges the worldwide influence and domination of Roman Christianity, then I must start to uncover what the Christian faith looked like before the domination of Roman Christians.

This journey has lead me to become more tolerant of Christian diversity as I realise that all of us have got it wrong, and no one group has the full 'truth' or authentic 'Christian' traditions. I appreciate from my reading of Jenkins (2010) that Roman and Western Christians' violent domination and subjugation of Eastern Christians also contributed to the rise of Islam. In this regard, I recognise that Islam's rise was partially a reaction against Western Christians violently imposing their own theology on Eastern Christians with different theologies and practices.


In the task of trying to understand more about my spiritual roots I have been reading a number of books, especially those about groups that I am personally acquainted with. I am currently reading a book written about Seventh-day Adventists by some sociologists, which to me is an objective look at the denomination's development. For me, this reading is important because of my path and spiritual journey with God, which found me becoming a member of the church back in my early university days. I feel obligated as a result to thoroughly understand objectively how Seventh-day Adventism developed separate and apart from what the denomination's gate keepers wants the congregants to know. I also want to get the information from a source that is not biased like the ex-Seventh-day Adventists that spew venom in their analysis and research or even other denominational researchers with an agenda.

That said, I find Bull and Lockhart's (2007) an excellent scholarly resource from which to view the Seventh-Day Adventist (SDA) denomination objectively, without the indoctrination. Bull and Lockhart's (2007) book is indeed a good read objectively covering how outsiders viewed the church (including the popular media) as well examine the insiders' experiences, literature and views.

In this post in particular, I want to highlight in particular the 'Pentecostal' experiences in the SDA denomination as presented by Bull and Lockhart's (2007) research.



Those today who visit a Seventh-day Adventist Church will know it as a quiet church. There is no shouting, people falling on the floor or expressing themselves emotionally in worship. Well, I have news for you. In Adventist early history, the church people were more noisy than they are today. In Chapter four in particular of Bull and Lockhart, it is mentioned that the Adventists were once confused with the Shakers and spiritualists. In addition, both Ellen and James White report experiences of praying and falling to the floor or feeling the Holy Spirit come over them. Adventist believers engaged in house prayer sometimes found themselves 'slain in the spirit' according to several accounts documented by Bull and Lockhart (2007). According to Bull and Lockhart (2007), James White in a letter to his wife relates

how, when visiting some believers, "I fell upon my face, and cried and groaned under the power of God. Brethren Sanborn and Ingraham felt about the same. We all lay on the floor under the power of God." (p.77)

 This was not just a one off situation either. Bull and Lockhart (2007) also reports Ellen White describing another situation:

While the larger family of Brother P. were engaged in prayer at their own house, the Spirit of God swept through the room and prostrated the kneeling suppliants. My father came in soon after and found them all both parents and children, helpless under the power of the Lord

I also find a similar typical occurrence in White's (2000) documentation of her experience in Early Writings (p. 12):

That said, it is interesting given this history that in my experience, Jamaican Adventism draws almost hostile lines of distinctions and demarcations from Pentecostals and that Jamaican Pentecostals do the same with Adventists. For me, the evidence points out that we are all coming from the same tree. In fact, Adventism is likely to have 'quenched' the spirit, which is why Pentecostals seem more advanced in the manifestations of Bible miracles and signs.


References:

Bull, M., & Lockhart, K. (2007). Seeking a sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American dream. 2nd ed. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Jenkins, P. (2010). Jesus wars: How four patriarchs, three queens, and two emperors decided what Christians would believe for the next 1,500 years. NY: HarperCollins.

White, E. G. H. (2000). Early writings. Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Pub Assoc.

Bible study on the Feasts of the LORD in the New Testament

God recently gave me the opportunity to lead a Bible study at church on the Feasts of the LORD in the New Testament. As I prepared for the Bible study, I approached it with an open mind, seeking just to find the facts and draw conclusions only based on facts. As such, I present in this post what I found and my conclusions on what I found.

First, let me begin by indicate the scope and limitations of this post and Bible study. It is meant to be a mere overview of the feast days in the Bible, particularly as they are mentioned in the New Testament Scriptures. My study does not cover all possible mentions of the feats. Further I present the feasts in the order that they appear in the Jewish calendar.

1. Passover/Pesach and Unleavened Bread
From my study, Passover and Unleavened Bread observance are the only feasts commanded in the New Testament for Christians. Jesus first commanded it, that the Passover feast should commemorate his sacrifice (Luke 22:19). Then Paul, speaking to Gentiles in Corinth, declare that they must keep the feast, not in the old Jewish way, but with the new meaning infused into the feast by Jesus (1 Cor. 5:6-8).

Finally it is clear that what apostle Paul refers to as the Lord's Supper is different from what we call communion and celebrate today. The Lord supper according to Paul was an activity that involved more eating than just bread and more drinking than just a small cup or sip of wine (or grape juice). So abundant was the feasting at the Lord's supper that some people were drunk, while others came expecting to have food and were hungry (1 Cor. 11:17-34).

Finally in Acts 20:6, we see that Luke (a Gentile) also use

2. Pentecost/Shavout
Unlike Passover, there is no explicit command for the keeping of Pentecost. Despite that, the apostles were obviously together on that day (Acts 2:1). Paul made special arrangements to keep this feast in Jerusalem, despite other Gentile Christians wanting him to minister to them (Acts 18:18-21;20:16).

However, I would be hard pressed to state that Christians are commanded to observe the festival.


3. Feast of Trumpets/Rosh Hashanah
Unlike the previous festivals, Feast of Trumpets is not explicitly mentioned. In fact, the feast is only referred to in the New Testament implicitly through symbolism. Perhaps the best way to identify symbolic references to this feast is to browse the New Testament scriptures for allusions or references to the blowing of a trumpet or trumpets (See Matthew 24:31; Revelations 11:15-19; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; 1 Cor. 15:51-52).


4. The day of Atonement/Yom Kippur
This feast is the only one that I consider not a "feast" as it is actually a fast. In Acts 27:9, the feast may be alluded to as "the Fast". The symbolism of this feast is mentioned through Hebrews Chapters 9 and 10 (Hebrews 9:6-14,24-28; Hebrews 10:1-3,11-13).

5. Feast of Tabernacles/Booths/Sukkot
Like the fellow fall festivals, Feast of Tabernacles is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, except for the references to the observance of these Festivals and events in the life of Jesus. Jesus goes up to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast, even though he was risking his life in doing so (John 7:1-14). On the Last Great Day of the feast, Jesus announces the promise for living water for those who are thirsty (John 7:37-39). The symbolism of this feast is also alluded to in Revelations 21:1-6, where God comes from heaven to dwell with human beings and establishes a living stream that quenches the thirst of all the inhabitants living in God's earthly residence.

Concluding points
From these findings, I conclude that

1. The festivals/feast days were as much a part of the Jewish calendar as they were of the Gentile Christian calendar. Gentiles like Luke use the calendar to mark times and significant events in his account and retelling of the history of the early church and the biography of church leaders and apostles such as Paul.
2. One feast observance is explicitly commanded, both by Jesus and apparently even by Paul. This one feast explicitly commanded for Christian observance is not tied to the ceremonial laws nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14). Passover and Unleavened (Exodus 12) comes before the Sabbath in Exodus 16 and the giving of the 10 commandments in Exodus 20. The very first Passover was kept before a tabernacle or temple was instituted. 
3. There is no evidence that Jesus commanded the discontinuation of the observance of these festivals or feasts. Rather, the feasts continue to be alluded to throughout the New Testament Scriptures.

I will hopefully in my next blog post thoroughly analyse why Christians should keep the feast of Passover and Unleavened bread.

How I view Christian life?

I have learned so much from being Christian. However, I must admit that not every Christian that I have met has learned the same lessons that I have.

First of all, I have learned that Christianity is very diverse (theologically, doctrinally and even culturally). Being Christian is belonging to a globally diverse group of people who trace their traditions, practices and beliefs to the same source, but yet practice and implement their faith differently. In some instances, we believe different things and come to different conclusions about the same historical text, our same common heritage, history and traditions.

Seeing that we come from such diversity, as a Christian I have been forced to learn to cope with uncertainty and such diversity. This includes learning that it is wrong to force your convictions on others within the faith. You cannot believe that everyone must believe as you do and that everyone ought to see and know what you see and know. Even within the same denominations, I have observed and learned that there are differences of opinions on even the same denominational heritage. As such, in order to maintain unity, a Christian must operate within this diversity and learn to respect the convictions of others, even if one personally disagrees.

In essence, I have learned that I can't force anyone to believe what I do. I can only present my personal convictions to others and let the Holy Spirit do the rest of the work of either reproving me for error or correcting my brethren (or sistren).

Hence much of the work of evangelism is personal. We need to study, pray and meditate upon the scriptures, events and even nature to arrive at convictions about what is right and wrong. Then we need to share our convictions, revelations and justifications (or proofs) with others and let them personally decide for themselves whether or not they are also convicted and persuaded as we are.

Hence, I believe Christians must have the freedom to arrive at our own conclusions and share those conclusions with others. However, we must also give others the freedom to disagree without judging dissenters as being hell-bound.

Today, I find myself at the crossroad of being skeptic of dogma, traditions and doctrines, especially if I perceive these as being modern inventions with little historical roots in 1st century Christianity. I am further suspicious of denominational leaders as I know that many have received their theology degrees under the study and supervision of unbelieving Bible scholars. [This is one of the reasons why I do not want to be a pastor, though I feel the calling.]

I consider myself as an explorer within the Christian ideological landscape. I have a map, (a centuries old text written about historical events, peoples and lands). I also have tour guides (translators, pastors and spiritual leaders), who provide annotation and commentary to guide my understanding of the map (unto salvation). However, even with the map and the guides, one still has to uncover for oneself the meaning and understanding of the Christian frontier and find the way that leads to eternal life.

Today, more than ever, I find that Christianity is more about dialogue and conversation than it is about sermons (at least the non-interactive ones). I must have my own personal convictions about Bible "truths", but must also be willing to listen to others and understand how they may see those "truths" differently from me. I must have my own spiritual priorities, but still be willing to accept that other Christians order their spiritual priorities differently. At the end, it about our own convictions and on how God sees our work and faith that matters. Did he give you a particular light that you have refused or rejected? Did he give you a personal instruction or calling that you have not obeyed?

This reminds me of a sermon I once heard from a Seventh-day Adventist evangelist, Pastor Glen Samuels. According to Samuels, Terah, Abraham's father, got God's call to leave Ur for Canaan. On the way, Terah settled in Haran and apparently no longer obeyed the call of God. Eventually, Terah died in the land of Haran and never made it into Canaan. After his death, God then passed on the calling to his son, Abram (Abraham) (See the story in Genesis 11:31-2)

The big questions to ask are:

• Is there a call on your life that you are rejecting?
• Are you going to be like Terah and die before you fulfill what God has called you to do?

How my theology is being challenged in Canada

The Lord is surely dealing with my worldview here in Canada, exposing me to radical rebuke and corrections through my circumstances, experiences and readings. More than any sermon, my lived experiences are pointing out flaws in my understanding of Scripture and the applications to real life. In this post, I just want to share how some of my theology and theological views are undergoing "reformation".

For the Sabbath of May 25, 2013, I listened keenly to a discussion on the practice of Adventism by Africans and Caribbean folk/nationals. It was noted that while both groups shunned jewellery and make-up wearing (to a greater extent than North American Adventists), both Caribbean and Africans emphasize fancy dress, attire, hats, accessories and even cars. One of the persons speaking made mention that where she comes from, "Adventists are known by how they dress".

Yet, in my own experience, the ideas apply not only to Adventists, but to most Christian denominations that I am acquainted with. Most Christian denominations that I have fellowshipped with put some amount of pride in the material things and/or outward appearance. Make-up, jewellery, accessories, fancy dress/attire, and fancy hairstyles are more or less a feature of every institutionalised Christian denomination that I have visited. These are in contrast to the Biblical admonition given by Apostle Peter to women:

3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, (1 Peter 3:3-5; New International Version)

Here is my simple rule for modest dress: if you do not need it, do not wear it! You only need clothing that is functional, that covers your body parts and do not reveal too much to others.

Yet, most of the assault on my theology comes from this book by Bruno Dyck entitled Management and the gospel: Luke's radical message for the first and twenty-first centuries:

Dyck does a critical inquiry into management and the dominant viewpoints on the teachings of Jesus in Luke. His radical interpretations have revealed to me how Christians today have not rightly interpreted the practice of Christianity as taught by Jesus. My take home points from the book so far are:

1. Christians must not practice acquisitive economics (seeking to increase our money and wealth), but rather, we should practice redistributive economics (sharing wealth with others). For example, a Christian must not have money put down in the bank to earn interest. Instead, we must redistribute the money that we do not have immediate need for to help those who have immediate needs to be addressed.
2. We must challenge the social economic order of the day that allows individuals to heap riches upon riches, through making debtors of others. We must also challenge income inequality and the situation where there are those that have more than they need and still hoard resources, while ignoring to help others who have dire immediate needs.

If there is one thing that I most value about Canadian culture is this tendency to live by those two principles, whereas my own Jamaican culture tend to justify inequality and not sharing wealth. Yet, I find that Christianity as practiced today by multitudes, tend to do the same: buy and wear things that they do not need, adorn their facilities and institutions with things that are unnecessary, and ignore the needs of members within who really need help. May God make these lessons stick with me and you for the future and make us like his son Jesus, to challenge the establishment and also to make the personal adjustment in our thoughts and attitudes.



Reference:

Dyck, B. (2013). Management and the gospel: Luke's radical message for the first and twenty-first centuries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

A look at women ordination and roles in the church: Part II

Before I begin, I must apologize for the lack of citations to support the points in this post. This is one of those posts that I just want to get the opinion out first, and perhaps come back to later with supporting references.  That said, most of my view point for this post comes from my interpretation of the Genesis story (Chapters 1 to 3). That also said, please forgive me and endure my opinionated response (which is still emerging as I encounter many life experiences and mature spiritually in my walk with the LORD).

In part I of my post on this subject, I laid out my views about how I as a father of daughters welcome some of the gains of feminism in Christianity, but disagree with the challenge to overthrow the patriarchal hierarchy totally. I however, welcome the role of feminist thought in the church to re-emphasize what men's Biblical obligations for the proper treatment of females, especially the transformation of our thinking towards women. However, in this post, I want to discuss the dangers of extreme feminism in Christianity, especially in leading us into apostasy.

If one wants to know the role that women play in church history, one only has to look at the Catholic's elevation of Mary as the mother of God. This was done, in my understanding of church history, as a way of marketing Christianity to pagans, through use of symbols and stories that pagans were familiar with. Pagans at that time in history, possessed views about a god-family (father, mother and son), and so early Roman-dominated Christianity adapted these ideas in order to market the religion to the new market of pagan adherents.

Today, however, we as Christians do not need to emphasize the merits of our faith through incorporating pagan ideas. In addition, we do not need to appoint women as priestesses, which follows a spiritually dangerous tradition of pagan religious systems. God has ordained a hierarchy since the fall of humanity, that in time he will redeem all those who oppressed or under authority, giving them the true status they deserve. (This does not mean a justification for slavery, a subject that I am prepared to write in a future time). Yet, God has established an order and hierarchy that is contrary to pagan practices for purposes that only he knows best, that at the end of time, he will reverse, and men and women will be elevated to their rightful status, after Satan, sin, death and evil is finally dealt with.

Let us look at the hierarchy before the fall of humanity in Eden

Man and Woman - Earth

We must note that the Genesis story mentions that both man and woman were equally responsible for tending the garden of God and the earth. Dually, their roles were to name and understand objects and things in nature, and through nature and their work, come to an understanding of who God is as well as to love and appreciate the Creator more. They were to equally share the roles and responsibilities for the earth and all the animals. In this state, there was no hierarchy.


Let us now look at this post-sin hierarchy established from Eden.

Earth - man - woman - child  -Serpent and serpent's child

Instead of man having power over the earth as God intended, man is now subject to nature and need to exert effort in order to produce for human needs and wants. Man also goes back to the earth in death. In addition, woman, who was made an equal partner with man becomes, becomes subjected to him and now becomes the one that has the full responsibility to bear the child needed to overcome the serpent. The serpent, who apparently had some other means of travel, is now demoted to only being able to travel by land on his belly, with the added burden that there would be war between his descendants and that of humans, with humans becoming victorious.

The hierarchy established after sin, also reverses the order in which sin was introduced into the world.

Serpent - woman - man - Earth

So while the feminist movement has brought along some advancement in women rights, the true women's liberation is yet to come through God's timing and intervention. In fact, in God's timing and intervention, there will be total liberation of man and woman from their subjugation to nature and natural laws, as well as liberation of the Earth from death and decay. Hence, there will be an overthrow of hierarchy, but I have no confidence that we as human beings with our errors and faults can justly correct the situation.

However, until then, we must make the necessary incremental improvements to provide justice for women and care for our environment. Justice for women however, does not necessarily mean equity or even equal treatment. Justice means fairness, a fairness that respects and affirm differences. Also, differences do not imply a hierarchy, as objects can nominally differ. Differences mean that there is separation and demarcation, especially due to different characteristics. Justice means that people get what they deserve: where people get what is fairly, reasonably and rightly due to them based on their needs and situation.

There are some within the [radical] feminist movement that implies that there are no scientific differences between male and female. But women and men are biologically different also, which should also affect how we allocate what is due to women. Biological differences between make and female include:

• different sexual organs (and the fact that we are sexually stimulated differently)
• women experience menstrual cycle; men don't
• women possess natural wombs and can naturally give birth to children; men can do so only artificially

Hence, such differences need to be taken into consideration in seeking justice for the genders.

Questioning 'Christian' rites & ceremonies

As I reflect on what I consider imminent marginalisation of those with conservative Christian worldviews, I stumbled across this article reporting on how atheists and secularists are establishing or institutionalizing "church" (Hallowell, 2012). The title of the article is very catching: "A godless congregation’: British comedians launch atheist church to provide secular weddings, funerals & ‘worship’ services". Comedian Sanderson Jones in commenting about the rationale behind this initiative states:

"We thought it would be a shame not to enjoy the good stuff about religion, like the sense of community, just because of a theological disagreement"  (Hallowell, 2012).

This article lead me back to consider what are the things that Christians do, believe and practice today that are really Biblical. In fact the same rites of weddings, funerals and community gathering services are not exclusively Christian. In reality, the world turning against Evangelical Christianity is pushing Christianity back to its pure roots and foundation. What business does Christianity have in conducting marriage ceremonies or even funeral rites? Aren't such rites actually state or secular functions? Where in the Bible has Jesus ever married any couple? While he was present at a wedding in Cana and blessed the union with a miracle, he never officiated the function (see the whole story in John 2). Neither did Jesus perform any funeral rite. He was absent from funerals, markedly his friend Lazarus' (see the whole story in John 11), and even cancelled his own funeral rites by dying close to a Sabbath and rising before his followers could embalm him (See the story of the resurrection as well as the Wikipedia entry summarizing the four gospel accounts).

When we look at the early apostles and the early church, there is also no evidence that 1st century Christianity officiated weddings or funeral rites. All these came much later, when the persecuted Church became the state endorsed church of Constantine. As such, I am contemplating that the only authentic Christian rites are baptism and communion (Lord Supper). Hence, when the state decides who must marry who, is it really the business of Christians to oppose legally? Even if we do oppose on moral grounds, are we to legally fight against the passage of state laws about how marriage institutions should operate? Are pastors to even conduct marriage ceremonies or aren't these to actually be done by the state? To me certain questions have arisen about how much the church has taken on state functions and rites, which is why the faith is in so much trouble today. As the post-modern state returns to its pre-Christian state, church as we know it today will indeed need to be purified and drop all the trappings that have been added by Constantine. Only then can we go on and be the church and do what Christ really wants us to do.

References:


Hallowell, Billy. (2012, December 21). A godless congregation’: British comedians launch atheist church to provide secular weddings, funerals & ‘worship’ services. The Blaze.com. Retrieved from

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-godless-congregation-british-comedians-launch-atheist-church-to-provide-secular-weddings-funerals-worship-services/

Rethinking Christianity's support for Capitalism

It is good to have a blog, because one's views are always and constantly evolving. After some interaction with friends and introspection based on some thoughts expressed in my previous blog post on the American 2012 election, I have given some thought to my current ideology, paradigm and worldview. In my previous blog, I espoused views that endorse preference for a capitalist economy over a socialist one. After interaction, conversation and introspection, I reflected on views on socialism and asking the question are my views on socialism really Christian or are they inspired by the traditions of men?

So much of the New Testament is written about money and personal money management. Just take for example the book of Luke. Luke records many stories about money. Luke 18 - parable of tax collector and the story about the rich ruler, Luke 19 - parable of 10 pounds + Jesus cleansing the temple of the money changers; Luke 20, paying taxes and wicked tenants; Luke 21 - widow's offering. Consequently, in the scriptures one can find so many references, stories and parables about money. Yet does the scriptures either sanction socialism or capitalism? That is not as obvious.

I know that most of my views though on the relationship between capitalism and Protestant Christianity are inspired not by the Scriptures, but by the work of the German sociologist Max Weber. Weber (1930) wrote on The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (for more about this see this entry in Wikipedia), pointing out how much the Protestant ethic was compatible with and also aided the initiation of capitalism.

Weber's work is not the only one to point to the compatibility of capitalism. I have also read the biography of  John D. Rockerfeller and have seen in this evidence of such compatibility in action. Collier and Horowitz (1976) tells us how John D. Rockerfeller's worldview was influenced by his mother's Protestant teaching. Rockfeller learned how to relate to money and personal money management and accounting from his Christian Protestant Baptist beginning (Collier & Horowitz, 1976)

As such, I now question if capitalism is really compatible with true Christianity or is it only compatible with fallen or apostate Christianity? These are the questions that I now pose for others and myself, at the eve of a possibly new America, as the conservatives and the harbingers of the old American Protestant story of democracy have suffered defeat to the new America of minorities and youth.

In one regard the old story of American Protestant is not very applicable today. Protestant story works when there are stable families that care for each other. However, with America's new demographics of unstable (if it is not politically correct to say 'broken') families, poverty concerns are inevitable. There are no guarantees that families will take care of each other in the present or future. People "fall in and out" of love, and no longer decide to commit to and persevere in keeping the family together and caring for each other until death.


Within this context, the issue then is, should not the Christian support widows and orphans, with widows in this case being single parents? Our New Testament theology answers with a resounding yes (See for example, James 1:27). Hereby, it is Christian to support and help single parents and those in unstable family conditions or situations of distress. The question however arises: should that duty be done through compulsory tax deduction via the state or through philanthropy, charity and good works?


References:


Collier, Peter and David Horowitz. The Rockerfellers: An American Dynasty. New York: Holt, Rhineart and Winston, 1976.

Weber, Max. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Roxbury Publishing Company http://www.brynmawr.edu/socialwork/GSSW/schram/Weber1.pdf

Why am I a Protestant Christian?

In this blog entry, I want to share on why I have consciously positioned my stance as a Protestant Christian. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, Protestants in my understanding are Christians that protest submitting to a pope or papal authority as the final authority in matters pertaining to the Christian faith. Protestants generally hold the view that the final authority to which they must submit is God's written word which in this case is the Christian Bible. (I however always like to point out that early Christians only had the Jewish canon of scriptures for their guidance in determining doctrines and matters of the faith, and that the entire Christian canon of Scriptures came up later due to papal authority. This makes it paradoxical to be a Protestant Christian).

I am more sympathetic to the Roman Catholic Christianity and their challenges than in my early twenties. No other Christian denomination is known to carry out so much poor relief globally. At the same time, the same denomination is often haunted with a history of intolerance, violence and inquisitions. Add to that, the denomination also suffers from more modern stories of sexual scandals and pedophile leaders. While I have not always been sympathetic based on the historical works I have read, more modern news have satisfied me to conclude that the Roman Catholic church in particular no longer fits Protestant Christianity's traditional ideas of the beast. In fact, radical Islam seems a more likely candidate, which is something that is hinted in one of my previous blog entries.

Protestant Christianity has its own history of intolerance, sanctioning slavery and committing genocide of indigenous people, killing pagan practitioners of witchcraft etc. Hence Protestant Christianity like Roman Catholicism also has its sins. Despite the past, I still find that even though the messengers did evil, the message is still appealing. It appeals to my fears and to my hopes for utopia. The truth is, after evaluating other religions, only Christianity (and possibly Islam) paints the most awful picture of what might happen to you if you do not believe their message. I like to take calculated risk, but the uncertainty that death presents is not something that I think I want to gamble with.

However, having been raised as a child in a Christian environment and milieu, while experiencing God for myself within those boundaries, I have consciously decided on the path of Protestant Christianity. Apart from the obvious reason being that I was born into a Protestant family, as an adult now, I find myself with good reasons to be a Protestant Christian as opposed to a Christian submitting to some papal authority. One notes that there are other papal Christian groups apart from Roman Catholicism such as the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Ethiopian Orthodox (also Russian and Greek and perhaps other regional variations). If I were to choose among papal Christianity, I would definitely go for Ethiopian Orthodox as a Jamaican influenced by Rastafarian ideas and racial consciousness. After all, I can find more spiritual connection to Ethiopia, which is mentioned so many times in the Bible, from Genesis down to the book of Acts.

However, I find good theological grounds to adopt a Protestant stance to Christianity, rather than submit to papal authority. In my view, no one person should be given the authority or control over the interpretation of the Bible or how Christianity must be practiced. I know that this poses a problem, as it permits the possibilities of multiple interpretations, traditions and practices. However, this very problem is necessary in order to permit the growth and spread of Christianity. Let me explain.

There is in the book of Acts and Galatians  the mention of the story of how the Jerusalem church had conflict with the Gentile churches established by Apostle Paul (See Acts 15). Apostle Paul, following revelation, made a trip to Jerusalem to hold a meeting with the credentialed apostles (the inner-circle trio that got special attention from Jesus), that is Peter, James and John (Galatians 2:9).  From that meeting, the 3 apostles (not one) made decisions that they would assume control over the Christian outreach to the Jews, while Apostle Paul and Barnabas were to be given equal authority to assume control over the Christian outreach to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9). As such, Apostle Paul and Barnabas were given similar authority and worked in a similar capacity as Peter, James and Peter. Hence, there was no one person that was apparently elevated to be head over the church.

Hence this to me, raises the issue that earthly church government is a democratic affair, and not a monarchy. Decisions about the direction of the church must be made by at least three persons, and not one. After all, most of Christianity believes in the tri-unity concept of God, three governing as one (). It therefore makes sense to me that if there is to be a papacy at all, there should be 3 or at least 2 persons who comprise that Papacy.  Three or two witness are required to enforce a decision to be made as evident in Paul's writings (see 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19), Jesus teachings (Matthew 18:16)  as well as the Jewish Scriptures (See Deuteronomy 17:6; and even John 8:17). 

From the same story, I also perceive that if the Galilean Jewish apostles had not compromised with apostle Paul and Barnabas, then entire growth and spread of Christianity beyond Jerusalem could have been compromised. Hence, there is wisdom in not having one man vested with all the decision-making authority and the power to interpret the mind or heart of God. Doesn't even the Bible tell us that a cord or strand of three is not easily broken? Further, doesn't even the same wise book tell us that the multitude of counsel is valuable to establishing a thing?

Even the canon of Christian scriptures, which is another story altogether, is incomplete. It does not seem to me that God would have only given us 66 books. That very number is too co-incidentally close to the infamous 666 of the Anti-Christ. In addition, there are numerous books mentioned or quoted in the Bible that were not included in the canon, including the book of Enoch, which is cited at least twice by Jude and Peter (see this blog entry on that topic). Yet, Protestant Christianity, while believing in principle that they must not be limited in their interpretation of the mind and heart of God by  a pope, are yet still limiting their own reformation by sticking to the orthodox practices, traditions and even actions established by popes - including the definition of the Bible as being the 66 books canonized by papal authority, as well as celebrating festivals, occasions and times sanctified by papal authority. Hopefully, I will not be persecuted for posting this. After all, even the Roman Catholic's papal see could benefit from this insight in reforming the political or papal structure of the Roman Catholic church in keeping with the Biblical traditions that they have seemingly drifted away from.

Satan's deception of Evangelical Christianity

This weekend, I have been educated about the great deception and deceptive tactics that Satan is using on Christians in the 21st century. In fact, I see where the Devil is about to use mysticism in all religions (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity) to form the global religion of the last days. Watch these two documentaries to understand what is taking place today as Evangelical Christianity is now encountering Satan's deception from within. New Age and pagan philosophies of spirituality are rapidly spreading into Christianity and over throwing the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ, while undoing the Protestant Reformation and return to Biblical truth.

Cracked Cisterns

After a long spell of not writing down my reflections, partially because I had little time to reflect and have been swept into a life of bustle and activity, I now pause to write and tackle some issues that I am thinking about as it relates to the state of Christianity today.

I begin by recalling my early experience when I was persuaded about the 'Sabbath truth' and sharing with friends who were otherwise minded. At that time I was on job at a public library, and pulled for encyclopedias to convince my audience that what I was telling them was not being made up by me or even the denomination that I was apart of at that time. I was delighted at that time that the encyclopedia did not disappoint and was able to show them 'who changed the Sabbath'. One of my friends begged me to stop, and so I did.

Years later, the landscape of my entire worldview of Christianity has shifted. It is not just the Sabbath that has been changed, but a whole lot of 'traditions of men' have been inserted and a whole lot of  the practices of the early apostles have been abandoned. I have even recognised that seventh-day Sabbath-keeping churches have also been guilty of the same issues as Sunday Christians.

Think for a moment with me. If the logic for observing the seventh-day Sabbath is because it was a custom of Jesus, then why just observe one such custom and ignore the others? Why do we attend 'church services' instead of 'synagogue services'? Why not keep Sabbath services on the mountain, by the beach, by a lake or by a river, in people's homes or school? Why create a specific building to formally minister to the needs of people?

On the matter of the feasts of the LORD beside the Seventh-day the Sabbath, there are also problems. Most denominations I know observe Communion and justify the practice by arguing that Jesus commanded its observance. Unfortunately, as practiced by denominations, it reflects nothing like what Jesus actually practiced and instituted to the early church or Christians. First, most denominations celebrate the custom as often as seeming suitable to them. In addition, the communion no longer becomes a supper, as it is usually celebrated in the day. Further, it is celebrated without a meal, so that Christians only eat the bread and wine. No bitter herbs, no dip. Further, some Christians celebrate the supper with leavened bread, biscuits or cakes. Jesus and his disciples ate unleavened bread (bread without yeast). So whether or not Christians say they are following Jesus command to celebrate the Lord's supper, it is yet to be established that they are in fact doing so, as the time has been changed both in terms of time of day and even the season. Also the emblems have been changed. These have been done without biblical authority, but man's theological extraction and development. It is therefore correct when they do not use the term - the LORD's supper, but instead use the term communion. For it is indeed a communion meal in honour of the LORD, but not the LORD's. As Jesus says ""Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46 NIV).

Were Christians today doing what the LORD command, the operation of the church today would be different. However the corruption or influence of the world has creeped in, and traditions of men have usurped the commandments of God. I don't have all the answers and have just raised the questions. My intention is not though to raise doubt about the Church or Christianity, but more so to cause reflection about the state of Christianity today. We celebrate pagan festivals while claiming that the festivals of the Bible have been nailed to the cross. Even those festivals of the Bible that we celebrate, we choose how we feel that they should be celebrated and command others to do the same. Without authority we have established broken cisterns.

"For my people have done two evil things: They have abandoned me--the fountain of living water. And they have dug for themselves cracked cisterns that can hold no water at all! (Jeremiah 2:13, New Living Translation, 2007)

So cracked we are, that the Holy Spirit (the living water) which should be poured in us, is flowing through our cracked vessels and cannot be fully entertained in our formal church services. He flows through our cracks and we end up with little power and little results in our ministries (that is if he flows or is poured in any at all). In fact, Jesus tells us that cracked vessels cannot be used, as they would be ruined (See the parable in Matthew 9:17). We cannot receive the outpouring of the Spirit, if our vessels are cracked, because we are unable to keep him in us. So that's why we feel alive at some times, and dead at other times. That's also why we can do God's work this minute, and the Devil's work the next. Cause we ain't full. Vessels that are cracked are never full.

I therefore sit on the fence, for after 2 decades of church involvement, I find that the work that I do is not all about serving the LORD, but carrying out denominational duties and the traditions of men. But the one who I really want to serve is the LORD. May we all have that wish and desire, and examine ourselves to see if we are indeed in the faith (2 Corinthians 13: 5).

God bless you.

My views on Churchianity

Over the past month I have listened to some discussion as well as contributed my own views to the discussion. I have heard a discussion where believers were opposed to the idea of a small group ministry substituting 'traditional church'. I have also heard persons talking about traditional church services and attending these services as being very important as if these were the highest pinnacles of God's command. Participating and listening to these discussions grieve my spirit, as I know that what Christianity in the West is today, is inherited man-made traditions from which we need to break away and experience reformation.

I believe that the Christians in the West in general, and Jamaican Christians in particular, have a view of church that is different from that in the Bible. Our focus is so much on the building and programs (the so-called ministries), that we lose sight of the fact that the church is really the community of believers and that the early believers did not have a building for themselves from which they attended and conducted services.

Believers in the early church age went to the synagogues (clearly evident in the Acts of the Apostles) and gathered outside of the synagogues in houses and borrowed rooms or court yards/other land spaces to conduct their services and activities. There were more street meetings and house meetings than being within the four walls of a building called 'church' in the early church age. These services had no standardised rituals and liturgy has we have today. The believers did not go to a building at a set time each week to perform or carry out rituals. 'Christian' ceremonies today are man-made and not God-ordained, except for communion (which is another story) and baptism. Baby blessings, infant dedication, christening, funeral and wedding rites are all just cultural imports and adaptations of Jewish rites and traditions.

We must remember that Jesus warns that our traditions can come in the way of the commandments of God and in the way of true worship (Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7). He states that true worshippers need not a place to worship God (John 4:23). We do a disservice to God, by erecting our own worship traditions and then insisting that these are how people must worship and to use these standards to judge others by. May I also remind you that Jesus went to the synagogues as a 'custom', but did his ministry both within the synagogue as well as outside and every day of the week. He needed not a set day to minister to the people, teach the people or heal them. But everyday to him was a day to do ministerial work. Jesus met the people where they were, and so the did the apostles, going into their market places, workplaces and their homes.

State-controlled church in the "free" world

Have you ever believed that you would see a state-controlled church in a democratic and free country? Well just like communist China, the state control church is beginning to emerge in North America.

For the past weeks I have listened to and read stories of that confirm this phenomenon. Mid-December I read and heard of the fact that Canadian Catholic-owned schools are being told that in order to get state funding, they must implement 'gay-straight clubs' at school as an anti-bullying measure (Click to see 1 such article on the matter - Desmond 2011). This week I learned that Catholic owned hospitals will lose state owned funding if their health care does not cover contraceptives, abortion or abortion referrals. Catholic owned orphanages are also being told that they will lose funding if they discriminate against parents who seek to adopt children based on sexual orientation. (Click to see 1 such article by Goodstein 2011). However, I find it strange how we got to this in the first place. When is it that the church needed to depend on state funding to take care of the fatherless and the infirm and to disciple the young?

Perhaps these situations are not as extreme as in China, where the state regulates religion (see this link for China's state regulations of religion - State Council of the People's Republic of China 2004).  One YouTube video I watched at a church service on the Chinese state-owned church, declared that the church's Bible, sermons and hymns are edited (although I question the truth of this, as I cannot find official evidence - see article by Galli 2004 ). However I wonder how long before the North American democratic states get to the place of telling churches what passages of scriptures can or cannot be read aloud during services, what topics pastors cannot preach and what songs the congregation cannot sing. Then to the state of barring pastors as marriage officers for not marrying gay couples. Today, we are seeing a reversal of the separation of church from state (See article on 'The faith (and doubts) of our fathers'). I predict that democratic states will soon like the Chinese state, develop regulations for religion, and persecute all non-conformists as law breakers. Then, not I, but the word of God already prophesies this (See Matthew 24:9 for one such prophecy). As is was with the early beginnings of Christianity, so shall it be towards the end.

References:

Desmond, Paige. (2011, Dec 15). Anti-bullying bill causes controversy: Catholics groups say no to gay-straight alliances. Cambridge Times. http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news/local/article/1264867--anti-bullying-bill-causes-controversy


Galli, Mark. (2004, November 1). The Chinese church's delicate dance: A conversation with the head of the Protestant Three-Self Patriotic Movement. Christianity Today
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/november/30.68.html?start=1



GOODSTEIN, LAURIE. (2011, December 28). Bishops say rules on gay parents limit freedom of religion. originally appeared in The New York Times. MSNBC.com. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45808954/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/t/bishops-say-rules-gay-parents-limit-freedom-religion/#.Tv7IztQ9m6q

State Council of the People's Republic of China (2004, November 30). Religious Affairs Regulations (№ 426). Passed on July 7, 2004 at the 57th session of the State Council. Took effect on March 1, 2005. Signed by Premier Wen Jiabao in November 30, 2004. English Translation by Peter Erickson. http://www.orthodox.cn/contemporary/zjshwtli_en.htm


The faith (and doubts) of our fathers: What did the makers of America believe about God and religion? The subject is stirring the very rancour they wanted to avoid. (2011, Dec 17). The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/21541718

Addendum:

I also learned that here in Canada from the pastor of the fellowship I attend that churches have to be trained in the disabilities act so as to accommodate persons with disabilities attending their congregations. I also learned that if churches have any meal programmes where food is consumed by the public, that they must have trained persons with food handlers permits to oversee the operations. I will conduct the research to locate those official requirements though to ensure the truth of the matter.