Why the Sanctuary Doctrine Matters More Today Than Ever Before
A presentation to the Sanctuary Sabbath School at the Loma Linda University Church on June 21, 2008. The Adult Bible Study Guide Lesson for this date was entitled "The Efficacy of His Priestly Ministry."
Sanctuary in the Old Testament
God introduces the sanctuary for the first time in Exodus 25 where he asks for one to be constructed. This occurs in the middle of the 40 days that Moses spends on Mt. Sinai. That scene is preceded by the giving of the Decalogue and other laws governing the Sabbath, civil justice, and the festivals (chs. 20-23). God then reaffirms his covenant with Israel (ch. 24). God says, "let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them" (25:8). This is followed in chapters 25-31 by detailed instructions on different parts of the sanctuary with specific dimensions and materials to be used.
The fence of the sanctuary was to be 150 feet each on the northern and southern sides and 75 feet each on the western and eastern sides. There was to be a courtyard where an altar of burnt offering and a basin for washing were to be found. Then came the tent which was divided into the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. In the Holy Place, a table of bread, a lampstand, and an altar of incense were to be situated, and the Most Holy Place had the ark of the covenant at the center.
God also gives instructions on the priesthood—that Aaron and his descendants were to serve as priests and that they were to be consecrated for the office. There was to be a high priest who would oversee the work of the priesthood.
The sanctuary in the Old Testament stood for Forgiveness, Reconciliation, Atonement, Peace, Wholeness. It was one which God initiated and provided, though constructed and administered by human beings. It clearly signaled God’s desire to enter the human neighborhood—to dwell with people. The sacrifices reminded of the pain of sin and separation and the need for wholeness. The role of the priesthood was not to accuse or judge (after all, it was a self-reporting system), but to intercede, advocate, and minister. It was risky to be a priest, as improper administration could mean death. To be a priest meant to take risks daily—being willing to die for the sins of the people. The sanctuary itself (God’s dwelling) bore the sins, took responsibility for the people, became contaminated and defiled—for the people. The entire system taught what God does for us and, in turn, how we ought to live.
Sanctuary in the New Testament
Sanctuary Today
Jesus is not the only one with a sanctuary identity and mission. We too are called to be a sanctuary. We are God’s Temple—individually and collectively (1 Cor 3, 6). We are Priests of God’s Kingdom (1 Peter 2; Rev 1, 5, 20). We are God’s Living Sacrifice (Rom 12). We are the Light (Matt 5). We are God’s fragrance of life and the aroma of Christ (2 Cor 2).
This means that we too are called to a ministry of reconciliation, advocacy, atonement, peace, wholeness, following the example of Christ—having the mind of Christ. Christ has ascended and ministers for us as our High Priest in heaven, but here on earth, Christ makes his visible presence known to the world through us. We are his sanctuary, his temple, his kingdom. Now in these last day, this task and calling comes with a greater sense of urgency and importance. Just as God gave the design, but it was people who built and administered the sanctuary, Christ has given us the pattern of being a people of the sanctuary and calls us to be the sanctuary and minister, advocate, intercede, and reconcile the world to God. In real, meaningful terms, the sanctuary that counts for us is not the one that Moses built, or the one that Solomon, or even the one in heaven. The sanctuary that counts is you and me. We are the sanctuary through which God dwells in the world.
Moses already provides us with a powerful example of sanctuary living back in Exodus 32. Just after the sanctuary service is outlined by God, we see Moses back on Sinai, and the scene at the foot of the mountain is bedlam. It’s the Golden Calf debacle. God says, "Leave me alone so that my anger can burn against them and destroy them. Then I’ll make you a great nation." This is a very attractive offer for Moses. But Moses counsels, cajoles, and begs of God. "No! You can’t do that!" He even "threatens" God: "Please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written!" If they go down, I go down with them! Tucked between the minutiae of the sanctuary and Sabbaths and festivals is this wonderful story about what intercession and advocacy is all about.
Remember…the people that Moses is interceding for are idolatrous, ungrateful, blasphemous, ignorant, sinful people whose only value to the world was to provide slave labor.
Our Remnant Calling
The sanctuary doctrine is neither a proof of our specialness, who is right and who is wrong, whether the particulars of our prophetic interpretation are correct or not, nor even about whether we’re ready for heaven or not. It’s certainly not about me, moi, becomingpure so that we can go to heaven.
The sanctuary doctrine is about being a sanctuary that bears the sins of the world, being a passionate advocate for people who are still mired in sin, being willing to forego our salvation for the sake of the dying world.
Being a community of the sanctuary means we seek to extend wholeness and justice to every member of society. It means to speak truth to power – not out of self-righteousness or vain heroism, but because that’s what priestly advocacy and intercession require.
Being a people of the Sanctuary means to extend the Sabbath experience to society in real practical ways: to all of creation – land and all of creation; the animal kingdom – the livestock were to rest; foreigners – strangers within your gates;
A Compelling Vision
For too long, Adventists have argued over when Christ moved from the HP to the MHP, what “tamid” means, how to interpret Dan 8 and Heb 8-9. For too long, we have been busy building a sanctuary away from the world for our own welfare. For too long, we have been preoccupied with asking what we can and cannot do as Adventists. For too long, we’ve tried to force relevance and manufacture meaning for this doctrine based on mental gymnastics. For too long, we haven’t cared enough about the Sanctuary.
Without recovering the compelling, life-transforming vision that the sanctuary message provides us with and living it out in our community in becoming a people of the sanctuary, all our exegetical, theological battles are meaningless and outright wasteful.
We the people of God are the sanctuary through which God dwells in the world.
We the people of God are the sanctuary through which God saves the world.
We the people of God are the priests who are called to take bold risks to champion the sinners of the world.
Through God’s grace, we live and work as agents of transformation who demonstrate the efficacy of Christ’s priestly ministry.
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
Did God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit require the sanctuary service? Or was it Satan who required the sanctuary service? The sanctuary service involved sacrifice(killing) and ultimately human sacrifice. When we hear about heathens sacrificing their children, we cringe in horror(I do). But isn’t traditional Christianity centered in God the Father sacrificing his child? Is there a problem here? I think so. Does the sanctuary service involve a sort of appeasement of ‘the gods’?
It seems to me that Satan had more to do with the sanctuary service than God. Jesus did away with the sanctuary service. It further seems that Satan claimed ownership of the human race, and required worship, and that God had to literally strike a deal with the Devil to liberate us. Jesus waged spiritual warfare with all the forces of hell and won, thus opening the door for our liberation. The death of Christ on the cross was symbolic of a victory which had already occured. God could, and did, forgive sins throughout the Old Testament. But there was this stupid Satan problem. The spike that was driven through Christ’s heel continued through the serpent’s head. Unfortunately the serpent is still writhing and will continue to do so until human beings win a spriritual warfare with the forces of hell in a manner similar to that of Christ. Jesus showed the way, but he has had few takers for nearly 2,000 years now. Ellen White tried to rev up the troops, but had few takers really. So this thing keeps dragging on and on. A concerted spiritual warfare might well culminate in what is known as Armageddon. Satan and his cohorts will not give this earth up without a huge fight.
The substitutionary atonement was not to satisfy a bloodthirsty God…but rather to silence the demons infesting this earth. The crucifixion of Christ was the first payment, and when a critical mass of human beings do what Jesus said to do, the 2nd and final payment will be made. Might this be the final application of the atonement that Adventists catch so much flack over? Does Satan, rather than God, require the so called Investigative Judgement? Isn’t Satan the ultimate legalist? Retentive to the nth degree? I’d say so.
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:41 am
I don’t believe the sanctuary service was ever about God requiring blood to make a “payment” for our sins. From the beginning God warned of the detrimental affects of sin. Through the principle of “substitution” God attempted to rescue humanity from the self imposed consequence for sin, but I don’t believe it was ever meant as a permanent solution. It was to bridge the gap, until human beings came to the knowledge that sin literally causes death. Once they obtained that knowledge they could avail themselves of the cure; the life of Christ. That’s why Paul writes that we are “dead in trespasses and sin” (Ephesians 2:1) and that it is no longer I who lives but “Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2: 20). The sanctuary service is all about healing, reconciliation and restoration to communion with God, not to satisfy some legal requirement for blood. Until we get this we will never manifest the power of Christ in our lives and be the salt and light He means us to be in this world. As you say, as God’s “sanctuary people” we should be at the forefront of advocating for social justice and practical Christianity and making a difference in this present age.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 am
I like the direction you’re taking, Julius. But I have a question. What do you do with 1844? Did something happen in 1844 or not? What you’re saying is true whether something happened in 1844 or not. Why would we want to keep 1844 (assuming that most Adventists do), if we go with what you’re saying as the basis of the sanctuary doctrine. You may be using the same language but you’re talking about a very different sanctuary doctrine. Help me out here.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:25 am
I really like the analogy of the sanctuary and we as the sanctuary (temple) of God. It brings forth a new facet of our higher calling, knowing that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and bringing that temple to sin degraded humanity. I recently read that 70% of Americans attend no church whatsoever, and 35% of SDA’s leave the church. What an opportunity to bring the “sanctuary” to the world. If we could quit spending so much energy arguing amongst ourselves over trivial matters and concentrate on bringing God’s sanctuary to the world, think of the harvest that could be brought in. We’d have to build more churches to hold all the converts. Thanks Julius for opening my understanding of the sanctuary in a new way.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: ‘A priest must not make himself ceremonially unclean for any of his people who die, except for a close relative, such as his mother or father, his son or daughter, his brother, or an unmarried sister who is dependent on him since she has no husband–for her he may make himself unclean. He must not make himself unclean for people related to him by marriage, and so defile himself. “‘Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies. They must be holy to their God and must not profane the name of their God. Because they present the offerings made to the Lord by fire, the food of their God, they are to be holy. “‘They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God. Regard them as holy, because they offer up the food of your God. Consider them holy, because I the Lord am holy–I who make you holy. “‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. “‘The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become unkempt or tear his clothes. He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother, nor leave the sanctuary of his God or desecrate it, because he has been dedicated by the anointing oil of his God. I am the Lord. “‘The woman he marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the Lord, who makes him holy.’” The Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the Lord by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’” So Moses told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.—Leviticus 21:1-24 (New International Version)
“When the loud cry, ‘It is finished!’ came from the lips of Christ, the priests were officiating in the temple. It was the hour of the evening sacrifice. The lamb representing Christ had been brought to be slain. Clothed in his significant and beautiful dress, the priest stood with lifted knife, as did Abraham when he was about to slay his son. With intense intrest the people were looking on. But the earth trembles and quakes; for the Lord Himself draws near. With a rending noise the inner veil of the temple is torn from top to bottom by an unseen hand, throwing open to the gaze of the multitude a place once filled with the presence of God. In this place the Shekinah had dwelt. Here God had manifested His glory above the mercy seat. No one but the hight priest ever lifted the veil separating this apartment from the rest of the temple. He entered in once a year to make an atonement for the sins of the people. But lo, this veil is rent in twain. The most holy place of the earthly sanctuary is no longer sacred. All is terror and confusion. The priest is about to slay the victim; but the knife drops from his nerveless hand, and the lamb escapes. Type has met antitype inthe death of God’s Son. The great sacrifice has been made. The way into the holiest is laid open. A new and living way is prepared for all. No longer need sinful, sorrowing humanity await the coming of the high priest. Henceforth the Saviour was to officiate a priest and advocate in the heaven of heavens. It was as if a living voice had spoken to the worshipers: There is now an end to all sacrifices and offerings for sin. The Son of God is come according to His word, ‘Behold, I have come-in the volume of the Book it is written of Me,-to do Your will, O God.’ ‘With His own blood’ He entered in ‘the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.’ Heb. 10:7; 9:12.”—Desire of Ages p. 807-808(Home Library Edition)
June 24th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Somebody wants me to go out on a limb! But, frankly, Eugene, I appreciate your question. It’s a fair one.
I find it difficult to say unequivocally that Christ entered the Most Holy Place for the first time on Oct. 22, 1844, or that He began a new phase of his priestly ministry in heaven on that date. I like Occam’s razor, and the simplest explanation for 1844 seems to be the Adventist pioneers’ desire for an alternate, non-falsifiable explanation for 1844. Now, I can’t say that I know definitely what happened or didn’t happen in heaven in 1844, but based on what I read in the New Testament I can’t say for certain what happened in heaven in 1844. The only thing I can say is that Christ, after ascending to heaven, has been engaged in a high priestly ministry of reconciliation and intercession (what that means precisely I don’t know) as a co-equal, co-eternal member of the Godhead.
Then, what of the visions of Ellen White? I trust that those experiences were real and given by God. At the same time, as I compare her record of the visions to what I considered to be the best interpretation of Scripture, I find problems in accepting her claims in their entirety. Was God giving her new information that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place which had been shut until October 1844? Or was God directing the attention of the disappointed Adventists to the reality that Christ had been engaged in the Most Holy Place ministry all along? I wonder if the visions weren’t God’s way of bringing these Adventists into the Most Holy Place. Of course, this is pure conjecture on my part. But I just can’t be sure if White understood and communicated the visions accurately. Perhaps she communicated them as perfectly as God would have her.
Any way you look at it, these words of Ellen White in Early Writings need to be understood differently than absolutely literally for them to have meaning for us today who recognize her as a prophet:
“Sabbath, March 24, 1849, we had a sweet and very interesting meeting with the brethren at Topsham, Maine. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon us, and I was taken off in the Spirit to the city of the living God. Then I was shown that the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ relating to the shut door could not be separated, and that the time for the commandments of God to shine out with all their importance, and for God’s people to be tried on the Sabbath truth, was when the door was opened in the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary, where the ark is, in which are contained the ten commandments. This door was not opened until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the holy place of the sanctuary in 1844. Then Jesus rose up and shut the door of the holy place, and opened the door into the most holy, and passed within the second veil, where He now stands by the ark, and where the faith of Israel now reaches.”
In short, while I certainly don’t want to be dogmatic about this, I don’t think anything extraordinary happened in heaven in 1844, and I disagree with Ellen White on her understanding of 1844 (whether those views found in Early Writings or Great Controversy). Yet I still believe that the recovery of and renewed emphasis on the sanctuary is an extremely valuable resource that must be celebrated and developed further (along the lines that I’ve tried to outline in the blogpost above) as we seek to proclaim the message of Christ’s Kingdom on earth.
June 25th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Hello all,
It’s amazing to me that every time Jesus’ high priestly ministry is brought up in an Adventist setting, we start debating 1844, the most Holy Place, the scapegoat, etc.
In doing so, we entirely miss the message of Hebrews.
This past weekend, I led one of the adult SS discussions at my church, and this is immediately what happened. The poor visitors!
Anyway, about reconciling 1844 with the passage that talk about Jesus “ascending to the right hand of the Father.” (This issue also came up in the SS discussion.)
I wonder if the medieval distinction between univocal and analogous uses of language is helpful here.
According to thinkers like Aquinas, human language, especially when applied to God is not univocal. Human language, and the concepts they express, cannot adequately encapsulate God.
This, however, does not mean that our religious talk is unintelligible; we are not left in agnosticism. There is an analogous connection.
Seems that we could fruitfully apply this distinction to our talk of the sanctuary. The sanctuary does not “exist” in heaven as on earth, and Jesus is not moving around room to room. Likewise, Jesus “ascending” to the right hand of the Father, does not mean that God the Father is sitting in a big gold chair in the sky.
Likewise, EGW’s vision does not mean what see saw is literal, much like what John claimed “to see” in Revelation.
However, this language communicates something–analogously. Perhaps in 1844 there was some kind of change in Jesus’ ministry.
(I’m not disagreeing with you Julius, just trying to positing the possibility of a via media between dogmatic adherence of the traditional reading and a total rejection of it.
BTW, really like your personal spin on this in your lesson!)
June 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Aye, aye, Zane. I too think that 1844 gets overplayed. I frankly no longer see the value of clinging to the “1844-change in Jesus’ ministry” connection, except as it produces a sense of urgency to act and live to be a “sanctuary people.” Connected to 1844, I found it interesting that S. Bacchiocchi recently moved from a “quantative” view of the 1260 days to a “qualitative” view—moving away from a rigid 538-1798 view on the 1260. Such a move from a clearcut historicist reading to an “idealist” reading of Daniel and Revelation seems to be the increasing trend among Adventists. Not this proves anything. I’m just commenting on the growing ennui that Adventists seem to be experiencing with the traditional historicist/typological reading of Scripture. I for one feel that way. Hence the need to re-appropriate the traditional stance (without dogmatically rejecting it).
By the way, I like your reference to Aquinas!!!
Now that the subject did come up … how do you read Daniel 7 & 8, Zane?
June 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Hey Julius,
First of all, I’d be interested in a “qualitative” view of 1260! What does this mean? I’ve heard that this being used to describe “eternal” life in John (”eternal” does not just mean “forever” but the kind of life one lives now) and found it very helpful.
To be honest, I don’t really have hard-line view on the interpretation of Daniel or Revelation (historicist, preterist, futurist, idealist, etc.), yet. =)
The details of eschatology, for me, systematically speaking, is very far from the center or foundation of things…so I don’t find it something to loose sleep over.
I think that we have made it central traditionally. (Many evangelistic series still take the “We live at the end of the world” approach.)
I think my issue is more of emphasis than actual interpretation.
With that said, my issue with the 1844/IJ is a pragmatic one. It has resulted in a twisted view of soteriology–a double justification of sorts. Jesus saves us and then we have to “hasten” the second coming or “get ready” for the last day and this usually means, that I need to shape up…The first justification is by faith, the second by my works?
Practically, it has resulted in a lot of introspection and personal turmoil instead of confidence, hope, and loving service in the world.
Secondly, our fixation with pinning the little horn and the beast and its mark on other Christians, seems to me to be a serious case of Nietzschean ressentiment! =)
At this point, I don’t think the historicist approach needs to be entirely rejected, but that our application of it to specific groups and our confidence that this is indeed correct is problematic.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
‘”When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another.” Thus Christ on the Mount of Olives pictured to His disciples the scene of the great judgment day. And He represented its decisin as turning upon one point. When the nations are gathered before Him, there will be but two classes, and their eternal destiny will be determined by what they have done or have neglected to do for Him in the person of the poor and the suffering. In that day Christ does not present before men the great work He has done for them in giving His life for their redemption. He presents the faithful work they have done for Him. To those whom He sets upon His right hand He will say, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation fof the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.” But those whom Christ commends know not that they have been ministering unto Him. To their perplexed inquiries He answers, “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherised the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. How surprised and gladdened will be the lowly among the nations, and among the heathen, to hear from the lips of the Saviour, “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” How glad will be the heart of Infinite Love as His followers look up with surprise and joy at His words of approval!’—Desire of Ages pgs. 685 & 686 (Home Library Edition)
June 25th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Zane, oh, no, I don’t mean to reject the entire historicist schema. In fact, I think it’s very useful if held not too tightly or rigidly.
Bacchiocchi summarizes his view on 1260 thus: “My conclusion reflects the recent research done by Adventist scholars who are deeply committed to the message and mission of our Adventist church. We shall see that their analysis of this prophecy shows that these time designations have more a qualitative and than a quantitative significance. In other words, the focus of this prophecy is not on the time of the rule of the Antichrist, but on the nature of its rule, manifested in the persecution of God’s people and in the promotion of false worship.”
This tendency toward a more qualitative or idealist reading is something I’ve seen in Doukhan, Paulien, the Stefanovic brothers, Tonstad, and Haloviak. I’m probably more “qualitative” in my reading, but I appreciate the direction that these scholars are setting for us.
I’m thinking that a new look at distinctive Adventist doctrines is in order. Re-thinking what it means to be “Adventist” today–re-envisioning/re-imagining Adventism. Consider this:
* Scripture –> Becoming a people who are not stuck on following what Scripture says, but what Scripture points to
* Sanctuary –> Becoming a people who advocate for and take on the burden/sins of the people (my blogpost above)
* Sabbath –> Becoming a people who give rest and liberation to children, the poor, immigrants, animals, land, creation
* Conditional Immortality –> Becoming a people of wholeness who view life as integrated, inter-connected, organically whole
* Spirit of Prophecy –> Becoming a people who are fearlessly prophetic, calling the world to remove idolatry in its various forms and to seek justice
* Second Coming –> Becoming a people who bring the Kingdom here and now, living the fierce urgency of the now, being the final generation of goodness, justice, and peace
* Three Angels’ Message –> Becoming a people who speak out against falsehood, oppression, persecution, greed, abuse of power, etc.
This is a project that could very well consume the rest of our lives….
June 26th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Thank you for a thought provoking article Julius. Thank you also for your brave comment!
June 26th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Julius,
So Bacchiocchi maintains a historicist read in general, but is willing to loosen up on the meaning of the 1260 days/years?
It’s still unclear how the number 1260 can qualitatively point to the nature of the Anti-Christs rule, persecution of God’s people, etc.
About your revisionist version of Adventist distinctives…love the ethical/pragmatic spin you’ve given them. Instead of calling for a rejection of them, or a de-emphasis (which is the position I’ve held), you’ve found away to deepen our understanding of them.
I think that a study of the implications of our doctrine of conditional mortality is especially important.
If the ethical outworking of Platonic dualism is quietism and other-worldiness (we await to leave our sinful bodies and this material world to go to heaven), the ethical outwork of an Adventist holism should lead to the opposite–care for what happens to this body and in this life.
We’ve been good about the former, but not so good with the later, because we’ve replaced Platonic dualism with a temporal dualism–present bad, future good.
In my opinion, this needs to be re-worked by rediscovering the “already-no-yet” tension of Jesus proclamation of the kingdom of God–which I think is what you are saying with your new version of the doctrine of the second coming. (But, maybe you’re not and going for the full “realized” eschatology?) =)
We also need to take another look at what we think will happen at the second coming–total annihilation or purification/transformation? But this is a topic for another post.
And yes…this is a task of a lifetime, but than, what are theologians for? =)
June 26th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I prefer a qualitative rather than quantitative approach to scripture. I’m not real big on numbers games! As for the proposed Social Justice Adventism which redefines traditional Adventist doctrine, and doesn’t necessarily do what Jesus said to do…but rather what he pointed to…how about re-establishing the U.S. Constitution to its rightful place in American politics…and publicly opposing corruption wherever it is found…even within the church?
June 26th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Jeff - Thanks. Any chance you’ll be making your way to the Stateside again soon?
Zane - You’ve cast my freewheeling thoughts in better light than deserved. I’m in full agreement with you on the re-working of our view of history within the frame of the already-but-not-yet tension. I may compromise on literalism passim, but I haven’t given up on the literal second coming of Christ as a dramatic intervention of history. I expect to be humbled by the abysmal depth of my theological inadequacies that day
By purification/transformation, are you referring to the earth or people?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Thank you very much for your most useful SS comment, and the interesting feedback/comments on your Web Site. The 1844 subject is worth to be re-studied by the Adventist scholars.
Regards
C.B. Schäffler, Basel/Switzerland
June 27th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Hey Julius,
Lol. Hopefully a purification of all our theologies.
I was thinking of the earth, along with all the good/beautiful/positive things people have created on the earth, i.e. culture. I guess people would be included in this, although I’m not a universalist.
Ryan Bell had a nice post on the annihilation/transformation view, with a great quote from Volf, on his blog a couple weeks ago.
Check out:
http://www.ryanjbell.net/intersections/2008/06/annihilation-or.html
June 27th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Regarding the redefinitions:
* Scripture –> Becoming a people who are not stuck on following what Scripture says, but what Scripture points to
* Sanctuary –> Becoming a people who advocate for and take on the burden/sins of the people (my blogpost above)
* Sabbath –> Becoming a people who give rest and liberation to children, the poor, immigrants, animals, land, creation
* Conditional Immortality –> Becoming a people of wholeness who view life as integrated, inter-connected, organically whole
* Spirit of Prophecy –> Becoming a people who are fearlessly prophetic, calling the world to remove idolatry in its various forms and to seek justice
* Second Coming –> Becoming a people who bring the Kingdom here and now, living the fierce urgency of the now, being the final generation of goodness, justice, and peace
* Three Angels’ Message –> Becoming a people who speak out against falsehood, oppression, persecution, greed, abuse of power, etc.
An atheist or agnostic would have no problem with this new Adventism. But is there a supernatural side of life? And if so, is there a good and a bad side of the supernatural? And if so, is there a God who rules the good side, and a Satan who rules the bad side? And if so, is Jesus Christ considered to be God? And if so, is there a Great Controversy between Christ and Satan? And if so, is there a heaven to win, and a hell to shun? And if so, what do Christians in general, and Adventists in particular, have to say about these things? We need to include all of the things mentioned in the redefinition. They have often been neglected. Truth is truth, whether we have recognized and promoted it or not. We have often had our heads in the sand and other places. But we need to include the old, old story of Jesus and his love in any redefinition or reformation of seemingly troublesome and useless traditions.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
David V:
That list wasn’t meant to be a comprehensive list or a manifesto. Rather, simply, how those ideas on the left might be expanded and deepened.
In response to your comments, though…
We see Jesus in the hungry, the naked, the impoverished, the imprisoned. (Matt 25)
We see Jesus in nature, all of God’s creation. (Rom 1)
We see Jesus in all people to whom His light shines. (John 1)
I wonder if the “old, old story” of Jesus needs to be told less. Rather, shouldn’t we learn to see Jesus in the world and listen more to the stories of Jesus from the world? In them, we find the supernatural, the conflict between good and evil, and eternity.
And oh, it would indeed be a beautiful thing to have agnostics and atheists find Adventism meaningful and applicable to them. It really shouldn’t take much. Consider the magi and the centurion!
June 27th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Julius:
Thank-you for your reply. The Episcopal church is in the middle of a redefinition, and what you have hinted at sounds similar to what they are doing. One of the phrases they use is one of my favorites, and similar to what you wrote. It is, “Seeing Christ in All Persons.” One unfortunate result of this redefining is the breaking away of many Episcopal churches from ECUSA and aligning themselves with the world-wide Anglican Communion. Of course the consecration of the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire didn’t help! Making the main thing the main thing, and then stating it simply and clearly through the best in modern methods of communication is probably a good thing.
I would agree with you, perhaps, that the “old, old story of Jesus needs to be told less”…especially when this story is interlaced with paganism, astrology, and sun worship. The words of Jesus are much different than the mythological story told about Him. No wonder athiests and agnostics find the story unbelieveable.
The words of Jesus, on the other hand, need to be repeated more and more…and given a reasonable contemporary application, which acknowleges modern science, psychology, and even the best in contemporary expressions of spirituality. Otherwise we may have churches full of baptized athiests, agnostics, and pagans, who came just as they were…and stayed just as they were.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Julius,
Great post and stellar comments everyone!
Thank you!
June 30th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I try to resist, but the flesh is weak. The following is sort of related to my previous opinionated, impartial rather, comment:
Not many people of moderate persuasion have much sway in the church any more. I was reminded why recently when the Episcopal Church did two important things: It elected a woman bishop to head the denomination, and it backtracked on appointing gay bishops. The first move seems Christian. Women deserve to hold church office as much as political office (one diocese, however, was so incensed that it voted to leave the church, and worldwide there are still Anglican movements that do not permit women to be bishops or ordained priests).
The second move was an act of cowardice because it did not reflect the ideals of love in Christianity and was motivated by reactionaries in the Episcopal denomination. Countering a long tradition of laissez-faire tolerance, the reactionaries have gotten tough and threatened to form their own church if gays are promoted in the priesthood. The worldwide Anglicans are more intolerant, upholding that homosexuality is forbidden, unnatural, wrong or an outright sin, depending on who is doing the disapproving.
You’d think that someone would stand up and ask a simple question: Who are we to condemn gays if Christ didn’t? In fact, who are we to condemn any sinner, since Christ didn’t? Christianity is about forgiveness, and for the past two decades, as fundamentalism swept through every Protestant denomination, moderates and liberals have been driven out, and were roundly condemned as they left. Along with them went tolerance and forgiveness, not to mention love.
Did Christ teach love or is that just a liberal bias? In the current climate, it’s hard to remember, but one thing is certain: Once a tight cabal of fundamentalists takes over any denomination, Christ’s teachings go out the window. The reversal of Christianity from a religion of love to a religion of hate is the greatest religious tragedy of our time.
Those of us who haven’t been swept up in worldwide fundamentalism, which has corrupted Islam, Hinduism and Judaism as well, have been caught in a double bind. We can’t join any sect that preaches intolerance, yet we can’t fight it, either, because by definition fighting is a form of intolerance. To escape this double bind, moderates have stayed silent and stayed home. But that tactic failed. As healthy as it is to nourish your own devotion and faith, it’s disastrous to allow extremists to take over the church, because the statehouse, the board of education, the Congress, and eventually the presidency are next.
Perhaps civil society will solve the problem of religious extremism. So far it hasn’t. America finds itself in the sad plight of being the world’s most prominent secular society hijacked by sectarians. One can only hope that the church comes to its senses and regains its moral center. If that doesn’t occur, the core teachings of Christ will be lost, for all intents and purposes, to this generation. — Deepak Chopra
July 6th, 2008 at 9:47 am
That’s a beautiful essay. Thanks for sharing it, David!