Final part of a review of Samir Selmanovic, It’s Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009).

    In this third and final review I turn to some concerns about the above book. First, it seems to me that the weaknesses of this book are closely related to some of the strengths mentioned in the previous blog. It is true that we can learn from others, both others of faith and others who express doubt and skepticism. But learning from others can also lead us astray. We can learn things from others that are not God or are contrary to God. We can become fascinated by their idols without even realizing it. So I wish the book had focused a bit more on the matter of discernment. While God can be found in the other, God is not always found in the bustle of human activity, but in the “still, small voice” that goes against the popular grain.
    I find that there is some looseness in the way the author handles “truth.” He grounds his view of “learning from others” in the image of God concept of Genesis 1:26-28. The fundamental truth of this conviction is compelling, but it does raise the question of where to draw the line between truth and error, good and evil. Can we learn about God from Adolph Hitler or Osama bin Laden? If the line between truth and error, good and evil, runs down the center of each of our hearts, can we really trust anything that we learn from others? What is the safeguard for this kind of learning that prevents us from falling into gullible nonsense at every turn? Most Christians would find that safeguard in the Bible. Samir seems a little less sure. A little more clarity on how he distinguishes truth and error in his own life would have been helpful.
    For example, the author clearly appreciates the work of the great “mystics” of the Christian church. At its core mysticism is the process of finding God within. There is clearly danger in this. One can find many things within, including one’s own personal confusion, the projected expectations of others, satanic deceptions, etc. One can also find the promptings of the Holy Spirit within. What I don’t see clearly in the book is any kind of guideline as to how to discern right from wrong, or the voice of God from the other voices in our heads and hearts. Traditional Christian faith finds its guidelines in the Scriptures. Dr. Selmanovic rightly recognizes the dangers of bibliolatry, where the Bible (which is “not God” in Samir’s terms) in essence becomes an idol that takes the place of God. We can fall in love with the words of the Bible or our views about the Bible instead of the God to which the Bible points. But the answer to bibliolatry is not an abandonment of revelation in favor of an unfiltered acceptance of what our hearts and the hearts of others have to teach us about knowing God. This is an area that I felt lacked some clarity in the book.
    Second, the book rightly highlights the perils of certainty. Religions help people find certainty in life, but one person’s certainty becomes another person’s threat. When a person or a group “knows” there is an implied criticism of every person or group that differs. So religious certainty tends to divide the world and isolate people from “outsiders.” There is much to be said for this critique of certainty. Paul himself echos Samir when he says “we know in part and we prophesy in part” (1 Cor 13:9-12). Those statements are a key part of the “love chapter,” 1 Corinthians 13. Evidently, for a human being to be absolutely certain diminishes love.
    Nevertheless, something bothered me as I read this part of the book. Perhaps this is an unfair criticism, but in the post-modern context I get the impression that the author is certain that the certainty of others is more flawed than his own uncertainty. “All certainties are wrong,” is a certainty of its own. So I’m not sure Samir has fully escaped a logical circle here. Having said that, I think he offers a message that the religious zealots of the world desperately need to consider.
    Finally, there is one place in the book where I, as a biblical scholar, just could not follow the author. On pages 238 and 239 he takes Genesis 12:1-3, which describes Abraham being a blessing to the world, as a call to allow the world to bless Abraham and his descendants. While there is much that is appealing about that idea, it simply is not in the text itself, and implying that it is seems to me a leap of faith. I loved the part of the book that follows, where Dr. Selmanovic points out the pitfalls in being a blessing, but his argument there is not grounded in Scripture, it is grounded in life. That for me is enough, I wish he had left the Scriptural claim out of the book.
    Here’s the “life” part I liked. The recipient of a gift is usuallyperceived as the weaker party in a transaction. The receiver becomesobligated to the giver and loses some of his or her independence. Thisexplains the reluctance of people to receive gifts at times. Givingputs us in control of the other to some degree. So a major motivationfor Christians to “bless” the world is that it makes the worldobligated to them. Everyone wants to teach, nobody wants to learn. Theauthor argues that a mature Christianity will offer its gifts in thehumility that accepts gifts in return. It will offer teaching in ateachable spirit. It will learn along with those who learn from it. Theworld will need Christians once Christians learn to need the world.
    Let me offer a small caveat to this challenging argument that cuts to the heart. The blessing which was offered to the world through Abraham is a blessing that came from God and God alone. Abraham could bless others only to the degree that he himself was already blessed by God. It was “bless others as you have been blessed.” In the end, the hero of this story is not Abraham, but God. So if it’s really all about God, it is possible for Christians to “bless” the world without implying any obligation in return. When self is put out of sight, God alone will be honored. When God alone is exalted in the blessing, the world will truly be blessed. And to the degree that Christianity has failed to bless in this way, it has failed in its mission to the world. When the blessing we offer is a tool to gain political and economic advantage over others, whether or not we have intended it as such, it is no blessing at all.
    The author of this book has “blessed” us all with a clearer vision of the one God who is all in all. But he could only give what he has already received. I invite you to embrace the gift and pass it on. Or in the words of a recent movie, “Pay It Forward.”

        

    The biggest strength of this book is that the author asks the kind of questions the rest of us would rather not answer. He forces us to consider evidence that we would rather not know about. So even if we don’t want a book like this, I believe we need a book like this. Believing Christians need a book like this because we have tended to isolate ourselves from the world in order to avoid corruption. But that very isolation has meant that our messages resonate less and less with the mainstream of society. Christian bookstores everywhere are struggling because fewer and fewer people expect to find anything there that will be relevant to the lives they live every day. Many Christians have shut the world out and as a result, the world has shut us out. This book offers a painful but powerful diagnosis.
    If there is one thesis in the book that stands above all the others, it is the idea that in today’s world people of faith need to “find God in the other.” I detect two fundamental reasons for the author’s taking that position. First, we live in a world where people of radically different faiths can no longer hold each other at arm’s length. We have all been tossed together into a mixing bowl. The diversity that has long characterized cities like New York is now found almost anywhere. Children named Harry and Sally are now growing up and going to school with children named Mohammed, Keisha, Sanjay and Hiroshi. Before you know it Harry meets Keisha and Sally meets Mohammed and two worlds are blended into one. So we can no longer ignore the “other” as if the other were somewhere else. Second, there is a biblical reason to find God in the other. All human beings are made in the image of God. To some degree each of our life stories reveals something important about God. In that case listening to others will confront us with evidence about God we would have missed in isolation.
    The author, therefore, argues that in today’s world Christians can no longer “preside” in discussions about religion, as was the case in the colonial era. He calls on Christians to enter into dialogue with others and not expect to “call the shots.” There is Another who presides over every religious conversation, God Himself. And we all have to submit our certainties and our prejudices to the One that we all know only in part. For those who live by the evangelistic imperative, this is foul-tasting medicine. Yet it must be admitted, true evangelism has always been a two-way street. Every evangelist has to accommodate the message to new audiences and new situations. This is exactly what God did in Scripture. So as troubling as Samir’s book may be to some, there are profound truths here that have often been ignored. That’s what makes this book such a treasure.
    I think my favorite part of this book is the author’s picture of God. He remembers an early experience with footwashing, a ritual his new religion drew from John 13 (pages 162-164). A local church leader tenderly washed his feet and said, “This is how God does things in the world.” This perspective is confirmed by the biblical text. John 13:31-32 declares that in the footwashing, Jesus demonstrated the “glory” of God. God’s greatness is not found in power, wisdom or universal presence. It is found in humility. This kind of God is the opposite of religion, which boasts about how great it is and wants to conquer all other religions.
    Dr. Selmanovic drives home how easily religions become “God management systems.” While religions arise in response to God they too often end up helping people avoid God. God can be “tamed” by the words of our theology and the rituals actions of our liturgy. We extol God’s work in the past in order to avoid His work in the present. According to Samir, the unwritten code of most religions is, “We are in charge of God. If you want to find God you have to come through us. If we haven’t thought about God in a certain way, you have no right to think that way.” But God can never be made captive to our religions. He cannot be managed by us.
    Related to this is the author’s expansion of the concept of idolatry. Pagans worship physical idols. Non-religious people worship nongods such as work, possessions, lovers, children, causes and sports teams. But if idolatry is the worship of anything that is not God, then religious people often worship churches, doctrines, festivals, rituals and laws. The purpose of idolatry is to shrink God to a size we can manage. The fascinating thing is that we can always recognize other people’s idols. They are obvious and strike us as ridiculous, which they are. But our own idols make perfect sense to us. In other words, nongods create delusional fields around us. Judaism is not God. Christianity is not God. Islam is not God. And anything that is not God can become an idol. Since we are blind to our own idols, people of other faiths are needed to challenge the idols we have created out of our own faith. True conversion is not so much generating faith in God as transferring our faith from nongods to the true God.
    This brings me to the author’s most radical insight. Samir considers at least some forms of atheism a “blessing.” Atheism at its best challenges the religious certainty that leads to delusion, division and violence. Atheism at its best serves the world by challenging the “God” offered in the markets of religion. Atheism at its best helps challenge the idols we love to put in the place of God. So even atheists can bear witness to the image of God. Samir reminds us that in ancient Rome Jews and Christians were considered atheists, because they refused to acquiesce to the prevailing pictures of God. Early Muslims were considered atheists by their pagan contemporaries. In today’s world, when traditional views of God seem inadequate, believers with a fresh view of God may again be rejected as atheists. So atheists today can have a “prophetic” role in challenging the false gods of our time. Doubt can feed genuine faith as well as destroy it.
    Dr. Selmanovic’s view of God leads him to a fresh answer to an age-old question. If God is both infinitely good and infinitely powerful, why is there evil in the world? The book’s answer is: God is not like us. If I were infinitely powerful and good, I would certainly clean up the mess in the universe and do it yesterday. I would make a frontal assault on evil and put an immediate end to evil-doers. But God is not like me. My thoughts are not His thoughts. My ways are not His ways (Isa 55:8-9). The footwashing of John 13 shows that real and permanent change comes through the power of humility and weakness. Hatred does not disarm the enemy, love does. God subverts evil with good. He subverts power with humility and weakness.
    To most human beings this sounds crazy. Humility doesn’t work. Showing weakness seems naive. But that’s the whole point of John 13. God is not like us. And that is why religions tend to become “God management systems,” as Samir puts it. If we can make God over into our image, we can control God. We can have a diminished certainty. And we are satisfied. But what we end up with is not God.
    Let me close this blog with one more positive about the book. I think the author offers a profound insight into the reading of the Bible. All the major religious texts include statements that explicitly exclude others. The rabbis said the world is like a thorny bush with one rose and Israel is that rose. The Bible says that no one comes to God except through Jesus. The Qur’an tells us that there are times when unbelievers need to be destroyed. Samir makes a powerful suggestion. “The meaning of these texts will change if they are read in the presence of the other” (260). The golden rule is at the core of the three monotheistic faiths. Texts like these need to be read in the light of the golden rule. When the “thorns,” “infidels,” and those outside of Christ are present, we will read these texts differently and we will weigh the impact of our words on others like ourselves. We will feel the pain of rejection and begin to see them, not as partisans to be excluded or destroyed, but children of God who need to be loved and nurtured. “In the presence of the other, everything changes” (261).
    In the third and final blog I will address some concerns about the book.

        

    We live in an age when spirituality is considered good, but religion is considered bad. People want to know God, but find religion getting in the way. Enter Samir Selmanovic. He has written a ground-breaking book called It’s Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009). The book combines serious reflection about God and religion in the context of the author’s own unique and fascinating journey. He grew up in a secular Muslim home in Croatia, converted to Christianity, became a pastor in New York and California and keeps the Sabbath. Life has uniquely prepared him to address the intersection between all three monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and secular, post-modern spiritual concerns. The book has an almost prophetic power to jar the reader into considering thoughts and options that the reader had not imagined before picking up this book. You get a sense of his jarring style in chapter titles such as “Your God Is Too Big,” “The Blessing of Atheism,” and “When My God Becomes Our God.” But this book is no treatise on traditional ecumenism. It is rather a throbbing, personal spiritual quest that points to God as the sole legitimate purpose for religious institutions.
    Why are people rejecting religion today? Because religion is the place where many have experienced division, violence, anger, hatred, manipulation, accusations, judgmentalism, coercion and many other unpleasant things. In the name of God we religious people have made God an undesirable option for many. But this book is not about getting rid of religion in the service of some higher kind of spirituality. Rather the author tries to find the balance between affirming religion when it offers a positive witness of God and critiquing it when it makes God look bad. The author sees religion at its best as crucial to our learning about God in this world. Each religion is a witness to some facet of God’s character that might be missed if that religion did not exist.
    Religion at its core is not a bad thing. Religion is how human beings respond to their perception of God’s presence and revelation. At its best, religion is a human response to a mighty act of God. As such, religion can become a powerful witness to the presence of God among us. But religions that were founded to point toward God too often end up pointing to themselves and perpetuating themselves. Religions too often end up managing God more than extolling Him. Painful as it may be to read, Dr. Selmanovic’s critique of religion sounds a lot like the biblical prophets to me.
    In some ways, this a quintessentially post-modern book. It does not pursue truth with a rigorous, logical, scientific precision. Instead, its prose often meanders from point to story to point, carrying the reader along more like poetry than prose. One comes to the conviction that something important has been said and learned, yet at times it is difficult to put one’s finger on exactly what it was or how to put that truth into a short, summary sentence. Yet I would have to confess, reading this book is a life-changing experience. Having worked with the author over more than one draft, I still found the most recent reading a fresh, moving experience. I recommend the book to everyone whose faith is not so dependent on certainty that any expression of doubt or uncertainty will cost them their faith. If you haven’t changed a religious opinion in a decade, this book is not for you. But if God has made you painfully aware of your own ignorance, this book will be a joy.
    I could write a whole book in response to this one, but I will restrain myself to three fairly brief blogs. In the next blog I will share a few of the most profound ideas I picked up from this book, the stuff I loved about this book. In the third and final blog I will share a couple of concerns or ways I might have written it differently were it up to me.

        

I know this would have been more appropriate to post this two or three weeks ago, but it was the Christmas experience itself that led to the reflections below and I didn’t want to lose track of them.

Many people in today’s world are concerned about self-esteem or self-worth. We all have a certain sense of personal value or lack of it, often grounded in childhood experiences. People can spend a lifetime searching for value and few seem to find it in ways that are both satisfying and lasting.

What does this have to do with Christmas? Christmas is not about what we think we are worth, it is about what God thought we were worth when He sent Jesus to be born in Bethlehem. In the words of Matthew 1:23: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel (which means, God with us).” In sending Jesus to be born of a woman, God placed a high value on human existence. It was something like the architect of a church becoming a cricket or a beetle to explain to the insects in the church the meaning of their existence and environment.

There are three basic ways that people attempt to find value for themselves. First, they seek value in the things that they possess. This is expressed by the bumper sticker on the Mercedes: “He who dies with the most toys wins!” This is the bottom line approach: the more you have the more you are worth. But it doesn’t really work. The things we buy rot, rust, scratch and crash. The more you have the less value you find in things. And in any case, you can’t take it all with you when you die (although the Pharaohs really tried!). It may feel good to buy stuff, but the feeling doesn’t last. Ask any rich person.

The second way people seek value is in performance, to be the best at something, whether it is sports, business, politics, fashion or even church. “If I can be the best, then I’ll be somebody.” “If I become president, then I’ll be somebody.” And achievement really does mean something. But again, as the basis for self-esteem, it does not last. Athletes get old and decrepit, teachers get old and senile, beauty queens wrinkle and fade, and even if you are at the top of your game, you can still have a bad day, and then what?

The third way people seek value is in other people, what others think of them. The ugly duckling becomes a beautiful swan in the eyes of a young Prince Charming. People drop names of the celebrities they have met. Parents find pride and meaning in their children. But even this method doesn’t last. The people you love may move somewhere else, change their minds, betray you or even die. And nothing is more damaging to self-esteem than divorce. Relationships are meaningful parts of the value we sense in ourselves, but they are rarely permanent enough to based one’s self worth upon.

The bottom line is this. If possessions, performance and people solved all of life’s problems, Tiger Woods would be the happiest man on earth. He is worth a billion dollars, has achieved the top all-time rank in a high-profile sport, and obviously has the attention of more beautiful women than he knows what to do with. But would any reader really want to trade places with him right now? The rich know that things don’t truly satisfy. The high-achievers know the limits of satisfaction that performance provides. The well-connected know how fragile relationships really are. The rest of us are dreaming about things that will not get us where we need to go.

It seems to me that there is only one path to genuine and lasting self-worth. And that is to find our value in relation to a unique kind of friend, someone with the following four characteristics: He or she is genuinely valuable, knows all about us, loves us just the way we are and lives forever. The love of such a friend would provide a sense of worth that would even out the emotional ups and downs of life, it would provide inner peace and stability. To be loved by such a person means it would no longer matter what other people think of us.

Such a friend lives! His name is Jesus. Is He genuinely valuable? He made the whole universe. He knows all there is to know about us, yet loves us just the way we are. Having died on the cross, He will never die again. No one can separate us from His love. To know the love of Christ is have a sense of infinite value, He would have died just for you. And no one, not even death, can take that away from you. That’s the infinite value of God did on the original Christmas day.

That’s what Christmas is all about.

        

I will be making a short presentation on this topic on Loma Linda Broadcasting Network Saturday morning (10:30 PST). So I thought I would welcome the new year by sharing the essence of that presentation here. I also hope to post some reflections on Christmas before the weekend is over.

In the Bible the main place where the “fruit of the Spirit” concept is found is in Galatians 5:22-23. This is figurative language. When it comes to spiritual matters it is very difficult to use direct speech. God is real, yet very few human beings have ever seen, heard or touched Him in any way (Moses and Jesus are examples of exceptions). So when it comes to spiritual matters, we generally use metaphors, analogies or other figures of speech.

For example, when it comes to salvation, the Bible frequently makes use of law court metaphors. The human condition is described in terms of guilt and condemnation. We are legally out of synch with God. Salvation is then described in legal terms such as justification, acquittal and vindication. On the other hand, if the human condition is described in terms of debt (a banking or financial metaphor), the appropriate salvation word would be forgiveness or possibly redemption. People often treat such language as if it were scientifically precise with reference to salvation (which itself is a metaphor based either in the realm of rescue operations or healing), but it is actually metaphorical, speaking about something beyond the five senses in the language of concrete, everyday existence (“concrete” itself is here a figure of speech!).

The Bible also uses metaphors when it comes to expressing Christian community. For example, Paul speaks about the church as the “body of Christ” (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 4:12), an analogy based on the human body. Christ is the head of the church and individual believers can be described as various parts of a body, some more critical to survival than others, but all useful. Another metaphor speaks of a temple, with Christ as the cornerstone and each believe as a brick or stone out of which the temple is constructed (1 Pet 2:4-10). Both the body and the temple metaphors express the essential unity of the church, while the body metaphor also describes the diversity in function of those who make up the Christian community.

The “fruit of the Spirit” describes Christian character growth, in contrast to the “gifts of the Spirit” (1 Cor 12:28-31– which combines analogies of body and gifts), which focus more on abilities than virtues. It is an agricultural metaphor. Fruit grows on trees and trees grow in soil. Agricultural metaphors can be used to express a variety of spiritual concepts, in Galatians 5 the fruit expresses qualities of character, such as love, joy, peace, kindness and patience.

Horticultural analogies are very fruitful (metaphor alert!) in describing spiritual life. Let me close with a few examples. 1) The deeper the roots, the stronger the plant. It won’t fall over in times of storm and stress. The root of spiritual life is found in relationship with God (John 15:1-7 is an agricultural metaphor expressing this, although “fruit” there is describing the outcome of the disciples’ evangelistic efforts rather than character qualities). 2) Plants are healthier when they are pruned. Christians need to deal with emotional and personal issues if they wish to grow spiritually. 3) Shallow-rooted plants need others around them to hold them up (the importance of a spiritual community, especially for new believers). 4) Food, water and sunshine are not normally generated from inside of a plant, they come from the outside. The healthiest kind of spiritual life comes by looking outward rather than inward. 5) In order to be healthy, nutrition needs to be supplied to plants in a certain balance. Too much of one nutrient and too little of another has a detrimental effect. Spiritual communities that focus only on one spiritual metaphor are rarely healthy. 6) The same plant can look quite different if located in the middle of a desert or by a river. Plants are affected by their environment and adapt to it. The spiritual environment in which we place ourselves has a powerful impact on our lives.

Obviously, metaphors have their limits and can even be dangerous. It is easy to switch from reality to analogy and turn the conversation in directions that the Bible doesn’t support without people even noticing the shift. While we need metaphors to describe spiritual life, we also need to be careful in their use. In light of the above, I invite you to have a fresh look at Galatians 5:22-23.

        

Back in August I mentioned a number of significant projects that kept me from blogging for the better part of a year. The most exciting of these projects was to produce a set of 24 DVDs on the Book of Revelation. Most of this was shot on location in Turkey and Greece and in studio in southern California last summer. Things are moving along and the DVDs should be ready by March of next year, the latest. I will let you know here, of course.

But perhaps more exciting is that the series was accepted for broadcast by the Hope Channel and will be available on Direct TV and by satellite dish and internet beginning on January 2. The plan is to broadcast the 24 programs one per week on weekends. They plan to run the program five times every weekend beginning on Saturday the 2nd of January at 4 PM EST. Other scheduled times are 10 PM EST on the 2nd and 5 AM, 11 AM and 5 PM EST on Sunday the 3rd of January. Each program will include material shot on location in the area of ancient Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey, and the island of Patmos), and clips from some of the world’s finest specialists in the study of the Bible. My co-host will be Graeme Bradford of Australia, who has decades of experience in holding meetings for the general public on biblical themes.

The programs will include some footage that has probably never been seen on TV before, such as the remains of a small odeon in a back yard of ancient Philadelphia. We were also able to get special permission to visit ancient sites before and after hours, so we could do filming without having to work around large crowds. Among the 25 scholars who contributed to the series you will recognize accents from Germany, Norway, Africa, China, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and, of course, the USA.

You can watch the programs online at http://www.hopetv.org/watch-now/watch-live-online/english/
See me there!

        

Thanks to Terrie Aamodt for correcting my information on Joan Hedrik in the previous blog. Hedrik is not a professor at the University of Southern Maine. Rather she is the Charles A. Dana Professor of History at Trinity College.

Grant Wacker is a major figure in church history studies. He was trained at Stanford and Harvard. He is Professor of Christian History at Duke University. He is president of the American Society of Church History. For eight years he served as the senior editor of the scholarly journal Church History. He is currently working on a cultural biography of the evangelist Billy Graham. To have him involved in the Ellen White biography project (he is writing the introduction to the projected volume) is a major asset. On Friday night the 23rd of October, he gave a lecture entitled “Billy Graham and the Challenge of Biographical Research” at the First Unitarian Church of Portland, one of the few downtown buildings to remain from the time of Ellen White’s childhood. In what I write below I am attempting to share what Wacker said that night, rather than my own views.

Billy Graham is still alive, 91 years of age, and lives alone with a nurse. It is estimated that Graham has spoken to some 215,000,000 people face to face. But in spite of that a large portion of the younger generation doesn’t know him anymore, so this is the golden time and the last chance to do a living biography right.

The working title of the biography is Billy Graham’s America. There are already some 40 biographies of Graham. What do you do when there are already a lot of books on the landscape? You hope to fill in parts of the story that haven’t been covered. You ask about the larger significance of the story. Why does Billy Graham’s life matter?

Wacker reviewed a number of key differences between Billy Graham and Ellen White. They lived in different centuries. Had he lived in the 19th Century Graham couldn’t have traveled the way he did and had the world impact he has had today. Obviously Graham was male and Ellen White was female. As a white male he was a recipient of “unearned favor” in the larger society. He certainly was born with a remarkable voice. By contrast, we don’t know much about what White’s voice sounded like. White had visions. Graham claimed no visions or healings. Ellen White was a revealer, Billy Graham was an expositor.

The first step in writing a biography is determining the role of the author. In a way, the author needs to find his or her own voice in writing about another person. As an evangelical Christian, Wacker approaches Graham from the perspective of an “insider.” He has some automatic knowledge of the nuances that make evangelicals unique. But the problem with “insiders” is that they have a tendency to varnish the story. The “hagiographers” do more damage to the subject than the detractors do. Hagiography damages the author with the audience and robs the subject of their human nobility, the nobility of the human struggle, of learning how to be who they are. Graham often made mistakes and had to say he was sorry.

Another option is for the biographer to deliberately write as an “outsider,” using the language and tools of academia. As an outsider, you immerse yourself in the available materials until you know the subject better than the subject knows himself or herself. You study the person until you know the difference between a twitch and a wink. But you don’t go so deep that you lose your own perspective on the subject. The ideal biography is suspended somewhere between the insider and the outsider perspective.

The outsider must strive to be fair. Wacker believes it is important that you can “look the subject in the eye” when you’re finished. The subject needs to be able to recognize themselves in the portrait. Fairness is also needed toward the critics of the subject. In biography there are often non-negotiable divides. For example, either God was working in a given situation or it was coincidental. Either Ellen White’s visions came from God or they did not. You can call it “plagiarism” or you can call it “insufficient attestation.” There is a certain pretentiousness in an ordinary person sitting around and evaluating someone who changed the world. The responsibilities of Graham and White were much greater than that of their biographer’s. The responsibility of speaking to thousands (in Graham’s case 50,000 to 100,000) of people at a time. It is draining when you know how many people are listening to or reading your material.

Sometimes when you are writing a biography there is too little evidence, it is just too sparse. But at other times the evidence is just too vast. That is the problem with both Graham and White. It is the problem of selection. Which statement is normative? Which statement tells us who the person really is. It is an issue of low priority versus high priority. Which are more important, considered comments or off the cuff comments? When is a subject intentionally not talking? There is also the problem of protection. The “handlers” are usually more protective of the subject than the subject is himself. So the biographer needs to develop a relationship with the handlers in order to be successful. On the other hand, the lieutenants (in Graham’s case musicians, organizers, tech people) rarely receive their due, so their sensitivity is understandable.

In the end, the biographer has to decide which Graham to choose. Is it the one who could be very sensitive or the one with the thick skin? Is it the one who was extraordinarily humble in his self-descriptions or the one who was constantly dropping names of the people he met and worked with? Is it the one who was naive or the one who was politically astute? His multiple personalities were and are mediated by the organization that represents him. And these are often barriers to the evidence. Who is the subject? Is a person like Graham best understood as a celebrity, a hero, a leader, simply interesting, a receptacle of others’ values, someone who was influential, a legend in his or her time, or a “sower of winter wheat” (someone who’s greatest influence may be after death)?

A biographer needs to evaluate but not to judge. A biographer needs to lay out the correspondence between the subject’s best intentions and their actions. There needs to be a hermeneutic of charity. Sometimes there is an isolated comment or a single event that is totally out of character with everything else the person stands for. Critics will want to judge the entire person on the basis of those isolated occurrences. On the other hand, hagiographers prefer to hide the evidence. The biographer needs to find a fair and appropriate balance.

Wacker offered a striking conclusion. All good biography enables us to live the present in the light of the past. The task for the biographer is not so much to evaluate the subject but to stand back and let the subject evaluate us.

This concludes my five-part review of the Ellen White Conference in Portland, Maine that took place from October 22-25, 2009. I hope this review has been helpful.

        

The opening event of the Ellen White Conference in Portland, Maine was a public lecture by Joan Hedrik, a Pulitzer Prize winning author and professor at the University of Southern Maine. Hedrik received the Pulitzer Prize for her biography of Harriet Beecher Stowe, a contemporary of Ellen White. The lecture took place at the University of Southern Maine, which is also in Portland. Her lecture was entitled, “The Art of Biography.” I take it from the title (and the lecture by Grant Wacker the following night) that the organizers of the conference wanted these renowned biographers to help the group understand what it takes to write a successful biography of a significant historical figure such as Ellen White was.

According to Hedrik, there is no such thing as a truly objective biography. Biographies by definition must select from the body of evidence, skip over many important things, and view the person from a particular point of view. The biographer needs to be aware of the angle they are taking and be open with the reader about it. They must do more than just tell a story, they must also tell the significance of that story. So great biography cannot be divorced from interpretation.
It must also strike a balance between being didactic (where the reader learns new things) and entertaining (so potential readers will buy it and actually read it).

When it comes to writing a biography, the first step is a matter of plot. How do you find the right plot for a stereotypical woman’s life in the 19th Century? Most 19th Century American women were perceived to have spent the first part of their lives sitting around waiting for the right man to sweep them away. Then the rest of their lives were lived in relation to the goals and interests of their husbands. Both Harriet Beecher Stowe and Ellen White ended up breaking that mold to a degree. The stereotype may also help to explain some of the challenges Ellen and the strong-minded James (her husband) faced in their marriage.

Hedrik then asked a fascinating question. What “authorized” Ellen White to write? Most Adventists would glibly answer “her call from God.” But Hedrik suggested the answer might be a little more complicated than that. She illustrated from her work on Harriet Beecher Stowe. What authorized Stowe to write in a world where women largely remained at home? Three things. Her family, her education and her religion.

First of all, family. The typical role for the women of Stowe’s day involved four things related to the home: piety, purity, domesticity and submissiveness. But Harriet Beecher Stowe transcended her domestic world through writing. The central social activity of mid-19th Century America was gatherings in the parlor. To write from the parlor was not out of keeping for the role of women at that time. They often wrote occasional poems for family occasions. So while woman’s role was largely domestic at the time, writing was an important feature of home life.

Second, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s education broadened her world beyond the parlor. It threw her together with girls from all over North America. Most women did not go to college then as they were expected to marry after high school. But Stowe did go on to prepare herself at a higher level. This was in contrast with Ellen White, whose formal education was limited to third grade because of illness associated with an accident around the age of 9. Imagine a woman with three grades of education founding medical schools and other institutions of higher learning! (The last line is mine not Hedrik’s)

An influence related to the first two was her involvement in the “Semi-Colon Club” where the writings of members were read anonymously and critiqued, which would have been greatly valuable to a budding young writer. This literary parlor culture (to which women had as great access as men) might be invisible to the typical historian yet it was critical to her development. The roles of both Harriet Beecher Stowe and Ellen White were shaped in the 19th Century world, yet both women clearly transcended the roles that were typical for women at the time.

A third foundation of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s writing was her religion. Her father, Lyman Beecher, was a prominent minister, a major public figure. He was deeply concerned about the cultural diversity being introduced into American society by Catholic immigrants, who brought their saloons and carnivals over from Europe. So Stowe grew up in the home of a major “culture warrior.” Perhaps on account of her education, Harriet was much more open to diversity than was her father.

If the subject of a biography was married, the biographer must determine the weight that relationship should have in the biography. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s husband, Calvin Stowe, was one of the top biblical scholars in the country (JP note: Calvin Stowe was the source of Ellen White’s wording on biblical hermeneutics in Selected Messages, vol. 1: “It is not the words of the Bible that were inspired, but the men that were inspired.”). So Harriet and Calvin were intellectually compatible. On the other hand, they were psychological opposites. He was very ordered and she was spontaneous. He delighted in permanency and she delighted in eternal change.

Another important aspect of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s experience was losing her child by illness (something Ellen White also experienced). This helped Stowe to understand how a slave woman felt when her child was put on the auction block. Theologically, Harriet (like most people of the time) believed that the death of her child was a punishment from God for not learning the lessons to be gained from the illnesses of her older children. Uncle Tom’s Cabin was her way of redeeming the punishment which she felt God was placing on her in the death of her son. She wrote out of her sorrow. She felt that God’s wrath would be poured out on the United States of America if it didn’t abolish slavery. The plot of Uncle Tom’s Cabin was conventional, but the subject was extraordinary.

In a related detail, all nine of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s brothers became ministers. In those days women couldn’t preach or vote, so novels were the only way they could express themselves politically. Harriet used the pulpit that was available to her, her writings. (JP note: Ellen White ended up adding the traditional pulpit to the one she gained through writing.)

One final note. Ellen White has often been criticized about leaving her children for long periods of time in order to travel and preach. But this was not unusual in that time and place. Families then were much more extended than they are today and so mothers were not expected to be as consumed with their children as mothers in our society. Children were often left with aunts and grandmothers for periods of time. (JP note: Ellen White herself wrote against the practice, but was torn between her own mothering and the call she felt from God to impact her wider world.)

Thank you, Joan Hedrik! The last blog in this series will address the Friday night lecture by Grant Wacker on the challenge of biographical research. That lecture was delivered in the venerable Unitarian Church, one of the few buildings in Portland that was around when Ellen White was a child. Most of the city center was destroyed by a fire in 1866.

For photos of the conference see http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellenwhiteproject/.

        

The Ellen White Conference in Portland, Maine (October 22-25) was by invitation only. Recordings were deliberately avoided so the conversation could be free and authentic. The purpose of the conference was to help the primary authors prepare for a multi-author scholarly book telling the story of Ellen White’s life (a biography). The book would be introduced by Grant Wacker of Duke University and a retrospective article (after the other chapters are complete) would be written by George Knight (retired– Andrews University). The working editors of the volume are Gary Land (Andrews University), Ron Numbers (University of Wisconsin), Julius Nam (Loma Linda University) and Terrie Aamodt (Walla Walla University).

The goal of the editors is to have all the chapters in hand by early summer and arrange for publication as soon as possible after that. In my opinion, this will be a very challenging goal. Many of the papers presented at the conference were still at a fairly rudimentary stage and the critiques generally called for major rather than minor revisions. So it remains to be seen when we can expect the finished volume in our hands. My personal guess is 2011 at the earliest with 2012 more likely. A lot depends on the editors finding the time to coach the writers through to rapid and effective completion. The rest depends on the time-frame of the chosen publisher. The goal is to publish the book through an academic publisher of top rank. The presence of Ron Numbers among the editors is crucial for that goal, as he has achieved much success in the past with these types of publishers.

For now, outsiders to the conference will have to be content with blogs such as these and personal encounters with people who were there. I thought it would be helpful to provide a list of major presenters, their assigned topics (in italics), their chosen titles, and their respondents. (In a side note: I mentioned in the previous blog that Adventists at times characterized others at the conference as "unbelievers" in the inspiration of Ellen White. They also tried the language of "insiders" and "outsiders." Both terms of comparison were rejected by the "outsiders." They preferred simply "non-Adventists.") The following list is in the order of presentation at the conference and the presumed order in the book. The introductory and retrospective articles by Wacker and Knight have not been written yet.

1) Jonathan Butler, Biographical Sketch ("Ellen White as a Modern Victorian Woman"), respondents: Craig Newborn and Heather Curtis.

2) Gary Land, Historiography ("Between Faith and History: Ellen G. White Among the Historians"), respondents: Don McAdams and Amanda Porterfield.

3) Ronald Graybill, Religious Culture ("Visions and Revisions"), respondents: A. Gregory Schneider and Joseph Conforti.

4) Merlin Burt, Shaping Sabbatarian Community ("Ellen G. White and the Emergence of Sabbatarian Adventism"), respondents: Gilbert Valentine and Margaret Bendroth.

5) Graeme Sharrock, Development of Adventist Community ("Ellen White’s Testimonies: The Pursuit of Perfection and the Development of Community among Eearly Adventists"), respondents: Beverly Beem and David Rowe.

6) Ann Taves, Early Religious Experiences ("Experiencing Visions: Methodists and Adventists"), respondents: Ginger Harwood and Robert Fuller.

7) Ronald Numbers, Health ("Science and Medicine"), respondents: Daryll Ward and Jean Silver-Isenstadt.

8) Eric Anderson, Race Relations ("Race, Slavery and Rebellion: Ellen White’s Understanding of the House Divided"), respondents: Joan Francis and John Grayson.

9) Rennie Schoepflin, Mind and Metaphysics ("Ellen White and the Self: Mind, Body, and Soul"), respondents: T. Joseph Willey and Jon Roberts.

10) Benjamin McArthur, Popular Culture ("Ellen G. White and the Dilemma of Cultural Change"), respondents: Roy Branson and Charles Reagan Wilson.

11) Theodore Levterov, Adventist Understandings ("From Defense to Dogma: Adventist Interpretation of the Prophetic Gift, 1863-1882"), respondents: Alden Thompson and Ruth Alden Doan.

12) Douglas Morgan, Society ("Ellen White and Society"), respondents: Ronald Lawson and Shawn Peters.

13) Woodrow W. Whidden, II, Theologian ("The Triumph of God’s Love: The Optimistic, Theological Theodicy of Ellen G. White"), respondents: George Knight and Grant Wacker.

14) Jeff Crocombe, Eschatology ("The Eschatology of Ellen White"), respondents: Jon Paulien and Paul Boyer.

15) Jerry Moon, Institution Builder ("Ellen White as Denomination Builder"), respondents: Bert Haloviak and Randall Stephens.

16) Arthur Patrick, Author ("Ellen Gould Harmon White: Author"), respondents: Susan Gardner (For some reason I have no record of a second respondent).

17) Terrie Aamodt, Public Speaker ("Hearing Ellen White: A Woman Finds a Public Voice"), respondents: Marilynn Loveless and Joan Hedrik.

18) Laura Vance, Women’s Roles ("Ellen White and Gender Issues"), respondents: Lisa Diller and Bernadette McCauley.

19) Floyd Greenleaf, Education ("‘Proper Education,’ An Adventist Reform Initiative"), respondents: W. G. Nelson and William Trollinger.

20) Michael Campbell, From the Outside ("Ellen G. White from the Outside"), respondents: Ciro Sepulveda and J. Spencer Fluhman.

21) Paul McGraw, Legacy ("Epilogue: The Legacy"), respondents: Jud Lake and William Peterson.

Which papers did I like the most? It is probably not fair for me to respond to that question as I did not have the opportunity to read all of the papers ahead of time. So take the following with a grain of salt. Hands down my two favorite papers were those by Graeme Sharrock and Ann Taves. Sharrock’s analysis of Ellen White’s series of testimonies to members of a single church in Michigan over more than a decade was entertaining and hugely enlightening. He also did a great job of tying the local situation into the larger economic and political setting of the times. Ann Taves’ article (actually an excerpt from a published book) was a model of objective, fair, respectful analysis of Ellen White’s early visions and charismatic experiences.

Will all 21 papers become chapters in the final book? Perhaps, but one option the editors have is to go with the papers that are truly ready by the cutoff point next summer. Any 12-15 of these papers published together would be a huge advance in our understanding of the life and times of Ellen White. Authors of weaker papers would be advised to step up their efforts in response to the comments at the conference. Based on responses at the conference a number of papers are "on the bubble" moving forward.

The first two evenings of the conference were taken up with presentations by Joan Hedrik and Grant Wacker. These presentations will not be part of the biography, but were the highlights of the conference for me. Since no papers were handed out, I took copious notes. The final two blogs will offer a summary and reflections on each of these two presentations.

        

The conference on Ellen White took place in Portland, Maine from October 22-25. In terms of background, the participants brought two radically different worlds of study to the conference. On the one hand were the Adventists and "Adventist alumni" who were as familiar with the life and writings of Ellen White as most people are with breathing. Many had written books on the subject and virtually all had written something and/or lectured in relation to the life and writings of Ellen White. On the other hand, the non-Adventists at the conference were largely ignorant about the life and writings of Ellen White but instead brought a vast and diverse expertise regarding the religious world of 19^th Century America. Many of us were concerned that the conference might get bogged down with all this diversity of knowledge, that people might just talk past each other and everyone go home convinced that they had just wasted a good weekend.

In addition there was an unspoken "elephant in the room." The Adventists, in particular, were well aware that some of the attendees had written books and articles that were severely critical of the life, writings, claims and motivations of Ellen White. Would Ellen White’s claims to inspiration become a point of contention, splitting the attendees into warring camps that would set Ellen White studies back for a generation? Scholars are not immune from the fearful emotions that sometimes make people overly cautious or slow to take decisive action. I, for one, felt from the beginning that the conference was absolutely necessary and a huge opportunity, but I nevertheless wondered what the outcome would be. Conferences like this are not risk free.

Well, we need to wonder no longer. The conference is now history and I am aware of no attendee who feels that it was a failure or a waste of time. While leaving open the question of inspiration (which is what diverse scientific historians do when they talk with each other), the overall outcome of the conference was an increased appreciation for the amazing contributions of a frail woman who could easily have spent her life as an invalid whose impact on the world was limited to a close circle of family and friends. There was also an increased appreciation for how skillfully Ellen White worked within the thought world and history of 19^th Century America.

The process in general was if the person reading the paper was an Adventist, the paper would be critiqued by an Adventist and a non-Adventist with expertise in the specific area of the paper. If the paper was presented by a non-Adventist, there were usually two responses, one by an Adventist and another by an "Adventist alum." The process meant there were no "free rides." Every paper had to pass muster with individuals who had specific expertise on the topic and in many cases had expressed divergent perspectives in the past. While such a procedure can be frightening to people of faith, it makes sure no one gets away with nonsense or incompetence. Every presenter and respondent needed to "have their game face on" if they wanted their work to be respected.

The non-Adventist scholars present faced a steep learning curve as paper after paper was presented by Adventist scholars who were often accustomed to in-house audiences and in-house language. Adventist presenters were often criticized for not connecting their work to the wider context of the times and not making reference to the historical and literary scholarship that already exists in regard to those times. Several Adventist presenters were criticized for not using inclusive language in a paper about a woman! But in spite of these valid criticisms the overall sense was that the non-Adventist scholars were drinking in the content of these papers and rapidly developing a great appreciation for the contributions of Ellen White within her time and place. Scholar after scholar stood up during discussion times and said, in effect, "I have never in my life attended a conference in which I learned as much as I have in this one." Statements of appreciation overwhelmed statements of concern. The non-Adventists took home a treasure-trove of new knowledge about Ellen White and they seemed universally enthusiastic about what they learned. Many seemed determined to find ways to "put Ellen White on the map" of 19^th Century religious leaders in America. It was even suggested that at some point it would be interesting to have another conference focusing on Ellen White’s contribution to the world outside North America.

A sideline to the "elephant in the room" was how to characterize the division among attendees with regard to Ellen White’s inspiration. It was humorous to see Adventists try to express that divide without offending anyone. Adventists have often been told that the term "non-Adventist" is offensive, so some Adventist speakers instead threw out the terms "believer" and "unbeliever" to characterize the divide. The non-Adventists in the room quickly rebelled! They much preferred to be called simply "non-Adventists." There was a general understanding that all attendees were interested in Ellen White as a person and a historical figure and that we could all contribute to the understanding of who she was and of the world in which she lived.

For their part, the Adventists at the conference were amazed at the relevance of the vast historical knowledge that the non-Adventists brought to the subject. Time after time, non-Adventist respondents brought up individuals and historical trends that illuminated Ellen White’s writings and actions. Each attendee brought both a body of knowledge and many gaps in understanding. Because the bodies of knowledge were so diverse, nearly every comment at times was an "aha" moment for someone. The Adventists came away with a sense that there were new worlds to explore and that the journey would shed a flood of light on issues that are heavily debated among us. Adventists were also taken aback by the enthusiasm with which these great non-Adventist scholars expressed their appreciation for the Ellen White they were discovering. They were coming to see her as a hugely important figure in her time, not just for the Seventh-day Adventist church, for a much wider audience.

Due in part to the vitriol of recent internet debates regarding Ellen White, many Adventists have been tempted to downplay her role and authority for the church. To see the admiration with which these great scholars addressed the same issues was a surprise to me and a great encouragement. While triumphalism is never appropriate, Adventists do have a "treasure" that we have often been reluctant to share with others. The attitude of most of the non-Adventist scholars seemed to be "bring her on, this is good stuff!" So a surprising outcome of the conference may be a greater willingness of Adventist scholars to share what they know with a wider world that can use all the help it can get. Ellen White was not an embarrassment at the conference, she was a source of great learning and much delight. The extreme views on the internet, both for and against her, did not get any encouragement at this conference.

Since the conference was by invitation only, many are wondering when the wider world of people interested in Ellen White will be able to get their hands on these "treasures." Stay tuned.

        

This previous weekend I had a chance to be part of a truly historic event. It was the Ellen White Biography Project Conference at the Regency Portland Hotel in Portland, Maine, Ellen White’s childhood home town. According to a leading participant in the conference, "This is the most important conversation about Ellen White in 90 years." The conference was co-sponsored by a consortium of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities and the University of Southern Maine, which is located in Portland.

For those who have never heard of Ellen White (1827-1915), she was probably the most prolific female religious writer in 19^th Century America. The recipient of dreams and visions, she helped to found and develop the Seventh-day Adventist Church through a writing and speaking career that spanned more than 70 years, from 1844 to her death in 1915. Although she was sickly for much of her life and faced much opposition both inside and outside of the church, her achievements are absolutely amazing. She helped turned a few dozen scattered Americans into a church that today has some 17,000,000 members that can be found in virtually every country on earth. She helped found a parochial education system that today is probably the largest Protestant educational system in the world. A hundred years ago she directed the founding of a small medical school in Southern California that today is the world-renowned, billion-dollar Loma Linda University Adventist Health Science Center. Not to mention that Loma Linda, California is considered the longest-lived community in the United States, largely on the basis of the health principles she taught. Not bad for a frail woman that most people have never heard of. (Full disclosure: I grew up reading the writings of Ellen White and found them inspirational as well as a guiding light for everyday behavior.)

Just a quick note. I have not forgotten my promise to continue a series of blogs on politics in the church, but the Ellen White Conference seemed too significant to ignore, so I will report on that first and then get back to the other series.

What does Ellen White have to do with a web site on the battle of Armageddon? She herself wrote a significant book on church history that concludes with a visionary outline of the final events of earth’s history that is based, in part, on the Book of Revelation. The book is known today in its seventh edition (1911) as The Great Controversy. At the conference I served as a respondent to a proposed chapter on the eschatology of Ellen White.

The Ellen White Conference was historic in that it brought together just about everyone alive who has written something significant about Ellen White or about the 19^th-Century American religious context in which she lived and wrote. By my count there were 66 participants at the conference. About half of these participants (34) were Seventh-day Adventists who work for the church or its institutions. These included such illustrious names as George Knight, Ron Graybill, Kendra Haloviak, Doug Morgan, Gil Valentine, Merlin Burt, Gary Land, Roy Branson, Jud Lake, Floyd Greenleaf, Alden Thompson, Ben McArthur and Jerry Moon. Another 10 participants were Adventists in background, but have either left the church or chosen employment outside the church. These included well-known names such as Ron Numbers, Jonathan Butler, Vern Carner, Ron Lawson, William Peterson, Don McAdams and Graeme Sharrock.

The 22 non-Adventists were almost a "who’s who" of American religious studies. There was Paul Boyer, Harvard-trained professor who specializes in America and prophecy. There was Ann Taves, president-elect of the American Academy of Religion. There was Amanda Porterfield, co-editor of the journal Church History. There was Joan Hedrik, the Pulitzer Prize winning biographer of Harriet Beecher Stowe (a contemporary of Ellen White). There was Grant Wacker, president of the American Society of Church History and author of the upcoming, definitive biography of Billy Graham. The better-known institutions represented by these scholars included Harvard, Princeton, Duke, Wheaton, Wisconsin, Tufts, Bradley, Trinity, Boston, Florida State and Mississippi and Brigham Young. A very distinguished list. Never before has a group like this gotten together to study the life and work of Ellen White. It is hoped that outcome will be a carefully researched and respectful biography of Ellen Gould Harmon White.

Some inside scoop into the workings of the conference in my next blog.

        

Should there be politics in the church? Isn’t the idea of politics in the church something of an oxymoron (putting two things together that don’t fit together)? At its most basic, I define politics as the process of balancing competing interests in a social system. For example, in the island nation of Fiji you have two main ethnic groups, native Fijians and Asian Indians. The two ethnic groups have very little in common. Native Fijians are darker-skinned (Melanesian) and have lived in the Fijian islands since before being "discovered" by westerners. The Indians are lighter-skinned and arrived during the colonial period. The Fijians tend to farm and live in the countryside, the Indians tend to live in the cities and towns and to be involved in commercial businesses. The Fijians tend to be Christians, while the Indians are usually Muslim or Hindu. When it comes to dividing up the island nation’s resources, the interests of Fijians and Indians almost always diverge. So the political way to keep the peace is to make sure that the respective political interests of Fijians and Indians are kept in a rough sort of balance. Colonial rulers sometimes kept the balance out of a lack of interest in the concerns of either side. But now that Fiji is an independent country, the prime minister will naturally come from one group or the other. There is always potential for power plays and strife as the competing interests are sorted out.

Sometimes different regions within a country will have competing interests. In China, for example, the people who live on the coast have very different interests from those who live in the interior. Coastal people tend to be involved in business and trade, people in the interior tend to be involved in farming. Coastal people interact more with the outside world, people in the interior of China tend to be more inward-looking. The coastal areas of China have a larger proportion of Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group. Various parts of the interior have large numbers of other ethnic groups, such as the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Keeping the country together by distributing resources fairly is a major focus of Chinese government. But competing interests have made it hard to keep the country together throughout its history.

Whether we like it or not, there are competing interests in any religious organization. Growing up in New York City, I remember the tensions that arose in my own church conference (diocese) between Hispanics and Anglos. The power in the conference had historically been held by Anglos, but as the Spanish-speakers rose in numbers, they felt that they were often left out in the distribution of power and resources and demanded greater representation in the "halls of power" or they would secede and form their own conference. Today there are strong and continuing efforts to make sure the composition of leadership in that church organization roughly reflects the ethnic makeup of the membership. Should it be that way, or should the leadership be chosen by God through more "spiritual" processes?

Theological differences can also create competing interests. Among Seventh-day Adventists, for example, there has always been some tension between a healing and service focus, on the one hand, and a doctrinal focus based on the study of biblical apocalyptic, on the other. Both of these foci are grounded in Scripture, but tend to lead in somewhat different directions theologically. The healing side of Adventism tends toward an outward focus of engaging the world to make it a better place. The apocalyptic side of Adventism tends toward an inward focus of avoiding contamination from the world. Naturally, when Adventists from both sides get together, there can be tension, as it is always possible that each side will see a given issue from a somewhat different perspective. Theological discussions are easily politicized when the outcome of a theological discussion could favor the competing interests of one side or the other within the church.

Is the politicization of a theological discussion helpful or hurtful? Is there any way to avoid such politicization? Does God express his will through the outcome of political debate or does political discussion make it harder for people to hear the voice of God? Is it possible to balance competing interests in the church without conflict? Is "politics in the church" always a bad thing? Stay tuned.

        

For those who expected a more regular presence from me on this web site, I have an apology to make and some "splainin" to do. When I set up this web site it was fully my intention to blog once or twice a month and add new content on a regular basis. But life turns out to be what happens when you are making other plans (anyone catch the allusions?). I apologize to the regular visitors who were expecting more.

What happened is that long-range promises combined with once in a lifetime opportunities to create an unsustainable situation. I ended up starting and completing three massive projects, any of which would have been fully worthy of a year’s time. I will report on these in detail at a later time. One you may already be aware of. I am one of the author’s of the Andrews Study Bible which seeks to provide marginal helps that are scholarly in quality but provided to assist readers in the basic questions and accessible to the average person. I wrote the helps for John, the Thessalonian letters and Revelation. I believe there are twelve other authors, each expert in their own parts of the Bible.

Next I wrote some Bible Study guides to the Thessalonian letters of Paul. I was the primary author and this took all of six months in itself. Most recently I became involved in a massive film/TV/Documentary project which was the culmination of a five-year collaboration with colleagues in Australia to provide materials for pastors and lay people to hold Revelation Seminars for both small groups and larger audiences. A set of DVDs was conceived to provide a model for how to teach such a class. The project expanded to include location shooting in Turkey and Greece and the collaboration of some 25 top scholars in the field, thanks to some gracious sponsorships. But that meant doing the whole project (24 one-hour DVDs) in less than three months! Needless to say, I have been working 14 hour days pretty much since the last week of May.

But the bulk of that project is now in the hands of professional film editors, so I am beginning to breathe a little easier. That means I can start to catch up on the many things that fell behind while I was involved in these three projects. I will keep you posted on developments here as things move forward.

The next major event in my life is an office move from Griggs Hall in Loma Linda to the spectacular new Centennial Complex on the north end of the Loma Linda University campus. The School of Religion will be taking up residence on the third floor overlooking the beautiful San Bernardino mountains. The move-in date is September 8. This move will consolidate the School of Religion with its two centers, the Center for Spiritual Life and Wholeness and the Center for Christian Bioethics. Hopefully, we will be completely moved in by the middle of September. The bulk of classes will begin the last week of September.

        

I need to begin with an apology for the long time between blogs. A number of issues arose, including trips, an accreditation visit and the opening of a new school year at Loma Linda University. I think of my readers on a daily basis and appreciate every comment that has come in, but urgencies have blocked the way for a while.

The quality and vigor of the comments since my last blog have been excellent and there are many issues I would like to address. I will take them somewhat in the order that they were posted.

R. J. Humpal wrote in response to the blog on the first part of Revelation 17: "I am amazed at the opinions of all of the people I meet who believe the Woman of Revelation 12 must be the "Church". Since when was the church ever in heaven? And as for the church giving birth to Jesus Christ? Where do people come up with this news? But what puzzles me the most is how can a church have offspring? Isn’t the church always the church?"

With regard to the church in heaven, New Testament scholars generally agree that the NT age did not replace the Old, rather it "overlapped" it, with the new and the old going on side by side until the Second Coming of Jesus. I have written on this at some length in What the Bible Says About the End-Time. I will post some of that on the web site soon. That means NT writers often portray believers as if they were already in heaven. Eph 2:6 and Col. 3:1-3 are examples. Revelation scholars often include Rev 14:1-5 as a further example, although the spiritual location is less clear there. Now if past posts are to be believed, Humpal might respond that Paul was a tool of Satan and is not to be believed. In which case the vast majority of Christians are the ones who should be "amazed." (smile) But more on that another time.

With regard to the church giving birth to Christ (Rev 12:5), the symbolism may seem weird, but that is what apocalyptic is all about. There are many first century examples of apocalyptic outside Scripture and it gets even wilder than Revelation. God meets people where they are, using their language and imagery. I am comfortable with the response of Kevin James to this on July 31. As to the church having offspring, while the "church" can be described as a single entity throughout time, it also has various manifestations at different times. Note Revelation 7, where it is 144,000 from the twelve tribes and also a great multitude from every nation. I believe the evidence is overwhelming that these are two different ways of describing essentially the same thing, perhaps at different times and places.

Credit where credit is due. Humpal notes the challenging identity of the Great City in Revelation (11:8; 14:8; 17:18; 18:10). It sounds like Jerusalem in 11:8, but is clearly identified with Babylon in 14:8 and 18:10. It may be helpful to note that Jesus warns his disciples ("when you [plural] see") to "come out of" Jerusalem before the Romans destroy it (Matt. 24:15-20; Mark 13:14-19; Luke 21:20-24). In Revelation, on the other hand, God’s people are called to "come out of" Babylon in the last days (Rev 18:4). So a strong analogy is drawn between the fate of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the fate of Babylon at the end of the world. Babylon is clearly a hostile world power that has an identity as a follower of God (note the similarity between Babylon’s clothing and that of the OT High Priest).

To the other respondents, don’t worry, your day is coming (God willing). (smile) I want to treat ideas and opinions carefully and with respect and also do a little research and checking as I have time. I could talk off the top of my head easily (known to do that all the time), but I think this venue calls for more carefulness, hence my slow responses at times. Thanks for checking in.

        

Sorry for the delay in finishing this blog series. I was in Russia for over a week (including travel time from California) and did not have access to email the whole time. I have been struggling to catch up ever since!

I appreciate the responses and suggestions made so far. I agree with Kevin James that one cannot ignore the parallel between the woman of Revelation 17 and the woman of Revelation 12. What one does with that parallel is the challenging question. I am reminded of the time I had lunch with Josephine Ford, a Roman Catholic scholar (and author of the Anchor Bible commentary on Revelation). In the middle of lunch, she suddenly asked me, "What do you do with the harlot of Revelation 17, anyway?" She is a dear, sweet lady, so I knew there was no hostile intent, yet I realized that how I responded would be as important as the content of what I would say.

After brief thought I said, "I believe John was telling us that the greatest enemies of the Church would be inside the house rather than outside." She looked me in the eyes for a moment, then smiled, "I believe that, too. I’ve never been convinced by the Roman Empire interpretation anyway."

Her response indicates that she (a lifelong expert in Greek and Hebrew, etc.) saw the same connection with chapter 12 that Kevin and I have seen. It underlines the point that all institutions of religion are human attempts to respond to the revelation that God has given to the human race. As human attempts, all religious institutions are flawed and even capable of being "turned" to serve the opposite of what the founders intended. Profession must be accompanied by constant vigilance and careful attention to the words of Scripture. Revelation 17 projects that the great counterfeit of true faith at the end of time will have a Christian face. When that time comes, we will all hear the call, "Come out of her, my people." Rev 18:4.

Here’s the notes for Rev. 17:7-18:

17:7 angel. Angel of verse 1 explains the vision of 3-6a. carries her. She is in a position of temporary dominance (until verse 16). Religion controls the political realm, just as it did in the Middle Ages.

17:8 was and is not. Parody of God (1:4; 4:8, etc.). ascend. . . pit. See 11:7. perdition. The eternal destruction of the wicked. Book of Life. See note on 3:5.

17:10 one is. The seven heads are consecutive. Since John is the point of reference, the "one is" would be the Rome of his day (17:18). The five fallen kings would then be Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece.

17:11 eighth (head). The beast of the final crisis. of the seven. A rebirth of one of the previous seven heads.

17:12-13 ten horns. See 12:3; 13:2; 17:3-11; Dan. 7:7-8. no kingdom as yet. These powers did not exist in John’s day. with the beast. Time of eighth head, the final crisis.

17:14 Lord. . . kings. See 19:16-21. called. . . faithful. The saints, who are sub-kings with the Lamb (1:6; 5:10).

17:15-16 waters. . . sits. See note on 17:1. The Euphrates River represents end-time, worldwide political power. ten horns. See note on 17:12-13. hate. . . fire. This event is parallel to the drying up of the Euphrates River in 16:12. burn her. See Lev. 21:9.

17:17 God is ultimately in control of the events of history, including satanic actions (9:1-5; 2 Thess. 2:11).

17:18 great city. See note on 11:8. Rome was the Babylon of John’s day. End-time Babylon will be a religious counterfeit of gospel faith. See notes on 13:1-7, 18; 14:8; 17:4-5; 18:1-4. rules. Continuous present tense. The great city lies behind all opposition to God throughout history.

        

I here post Study Bible notes on Revelation 17:1-6, the most natural breakpoint in the chapter. There is a vision, followed by a lengthy explanation in verses 7-18. I will share the notes on the rest of the chapter in a couple of weeks.

I was delighted with the rapid and vigorous response to the first set of notes. A few comments on those responses would be in order. As one reader notes, if anyone wants to know the exegetical and theological principles upon which I do my work, they are clearly delineated in my books What the Bible Says About the End-Time (theological principles) and The Deep Things of God (exegetical principles). I consider these principles a work in progress, yet they have not been confronted with significant objections in the last twenty years (I have been teaching them well before the dates of publication), so they are a useful in ferreting out the evidence of the biblical text. Those who don’t follow principles like these tend to overlook significant evidence, leading to problematic conclusions.

While the word "Armageddon" occurs only once in the whole Bible (Rev 16:16), it is clearly the defining point of the sixth and seventh plagues (Rev 16:12-21), which are elaborated in chapter 17, although the word "Armageddon" is not repeated there. I am well aware of the "har-moed" interpretation, but have not gone in that direction because it requires too much of a stretch (I believe) in the linguistic move from moed to mageddon. For the scholarly details, see my entry on Armageddon in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, volume 1.

I agree that more words would be desirable, but that is not a decision for me to make. I understand the reluctance of some to even have an "Adventist study Bible" and I hesitated on those grounds, but since the project was going ahead with or without me, I thought it was too significant to ignore. It might have more of an impact on people’s thinking than anything else I have written, I’d be a fool not to try to make a difference in this way.

It does not seem to me that a project like this violates Rev. 22:18-19, as one reader suggests. It seems plain to me that the passage warns against tampering with the wording of Revelation itself rather than warning against interpretation of the text. If the latter were the case, we should have nothing at all to say about the Bible. Don’t preach it, comment on it or write about it, just read it! I note that the writer raising the concern also writes about Revelation, so I am not sure I follow the point.

Anyway, here’s the next batch of notes:

Study Notes on Rev. 17:1-6

17:1-18 This chapter elaborates on the sixth and seventh plagues (16:12-21).

17:1 one of. . . bowls. Probably the sixth bowl-angel (16:12), as the waters of this verse are the Euphrates River. harlot. Prostitute. See 17:4-5. many waters. See 17:15; Jer. 51:13. The river of Babylon (Euphrates).

17:2 See 14:8.

17:3-6a A vision of prostitute Babylon riding on a beast.

17:3 in the Spirit. See note on 1:10. wilderness. See 12:6, 14. woman. Same as prostitute of 17:1, 5. scarlet beast. See 12:3 and 13:1-2. Represents worldwide political power in support of Babylon.

17:4-5 Many parallels between prostitute Babylon and the OT High Priest (Exod. 28:1-43). A counterfeit end-time religious system (see 16:13, 19), the heir of the medieval papacy. forehead, name. In Hebrew context, a reflection of character.

17:6 the martyrs of Jesus. See 6:9-11. Many interpreters note that the medieval papacy produced more martyrs than any other opponent of God’s people.

        

I am currently involved in a truly fun project, helping a team of a dozen biblical scholars write a study Bible, which provides notes at the bottom of the biblical text. It means being able to say a lot in a few words and that has made it a lot of fun. The version chosen by the editors was the New King James Version. It is not my favorite version, but the Word of God shines through in all translations, so I am happy to work with it.

I thought it would be great to get some feedback from visitors to this web site. So I will share the notes I have made on the Battle of Armageddon texts in the Book of Revelation (Rev 16:12 - 17:18). I have added the notes on Rev 16:12-21 below and will share the notes on chapter 17 when they are ready in a few days. Enjoy, and let me know what you think!

16:1-21 Many parallels with seven trumpets of Revelation 8-11. Trumpets affect thirds of the earth, these plagues affect the whole earth. The first four bowl-plagues are probably to be taken literally, as there is not a natural symbolic meaning. The last three bowl-plagues have clear symbolic reference.

16:12 Euphrates. See note on 9:14. Babylon’s defense system (Jer. 50:35-38). Here represents political powers of the world (17:1, 15). dried up. See Isa. 44:24-28. Here means Babylon’s loss of political support (17:16). east. Literally "sunrise." See Luke 1:78; Matt. 24:27.

16:13-15 The symbolism implies the possibility of human decision, so these verses describe prior events leading up to the sixth plague and Armageddon.

16:13 unclean spirits. See 18:2. Agents of the dragon, beast and false prophet. frogs. Recalls Exod. 8:1-9. Dragon, beast, false prophet. The counterfeit trinity of Revelation 12-13. Together they make up end-time Babylon (16:19).

16:14 demons. Satanic angels. Counterparts to the three angels of 14:6-12. signs. See 13:13-14. kings of the earth. Equivalent to Euphrates River, as defined in 17:15.

16:15 thief, awake. Recalls Matt. 24:43-44; Luke 12:38-40; 1 Thess. 5:1-6. blessed. See note on 1:3. garments, naked, shame. Allusion to 3:17-18.

16:16 they. Actually "he." Armageddon. A Hebrew/Greek mixture meaning "mountain of Megiddo." Could recall Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18) or OT battles at Megiddo (Judg. 5:19).

16:17 out of the temple. See 15:6. throne. There is no distinction in Revelation between the heavenly temple and God’s throne room.

16:18 noises. . . earthquake. See 4:5; 8:5; 11:19.

16:19 great city. See note on 11:8. Babylon. Summary fulfillment of 14:8-11. three parts. See 16:13.

16:21 talent. 30-45 kilograms. blasphemed. Confirms unwillingness of the wicked to repent during the plagues.

        

Last week we noted that the validity of the Bible stands or falls on the validity of its testimony regarding the resurrection of Jesus. N. T. Wright (Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church) argues that the only credible historical approach to the New Testament texts is that the disciples had overwhelming evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead. Wright offers four arguments that he believes would make sense to a historian. In my mind they place Christian faith in the resurrection on solid historical ground.

First, the gospel writers never mention the Bible in their accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Elsewhere in the gospels, there are multiple quotations and allusions from the Old Testament. In the resurrection stories of the gospels there are none, even though Paul always associates the resurrection with "according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3-4). The Fourth Gospel even tells us that the disciples did not know the OT prophecies about the resurrection (John 20:9). The resurrection of Jesus was a surprise. Only later did they study the Scriptures to understand the meaning of the resurrection. Their study of the Bible did not lead them to expect the resurrection of Jesus. The best explanation of that story is that they fully believed it had actually happened.

Second, the presence of women as the primary witnesses to the resurrection is striking. Women were not regarded as credible witnesses in the ancient world. Paul completely ignores the role of the women in the story (1 Cor 15:4-8). No one in the ancient world would fabricate a story in which women were the primary evidence the story was true. The best explanation of the women in the gospel stories is that those stories recall actual events that didn’t follow the expected script.

Third, someone fabricating the story of a resurrection would embellish the appearance of the resurrected one in the attempt to make their belief credible and convincing. Instead, the resurrected Jesus is quite ordinary in the gospels. He is not some shining superstar. He is easily mistaken for a gardener or a fellow traveler along the road. The best explanation for the low-key element in these stories is that they actually happened.

Fourth and finally, the gospel stories about the resurrection never connect it with the hope of the Second Coming. Elsewhere in the NT the resurrection of Jesus is always connected with the Christian’s future hope (see 1 Cor 15: 20-23, for example). But in the gospel stories of Jesus’ resurrection there is no mention of the Second Coming, life after death, or the resurrection of the righteous. The best explanation of this is that the gospel stories were not manufactured at the end of the first century on the basis of Christian theology, rather they reflect the actual circumstances that created Christian faith in the first place. The gospels stories are not the product of faith, they are the origin of it. The stories are very early, before the time of Paul and have not been substantially altered in the process of transmission and reflection.

Wright concludes that the compelling power of early Christian faith lay in the conviction that something unique had happened among them, something not even imagined before (Jewish faith anticipated an end-time resurrection of the righteous as a whole, but not an individual resurrection within history, the Gentiles anticipated nothing of either sort). In the midst of history, God Himself came down in the form of a man and by dying and rising in a tangible body, completely reshaped the world view of those who experienced him. If God Himself had broken into this world, something fundamental has changed in terms of life, death and history; a new creation has come. This is the unique and decisive testimony of biblical faith.

        

The day after I posted last week I received my author copies of the new book Armageddon at the Door: An Insider’s Guide to the Book of Revelation. So you should be able to get copies from Amazon or at www.adventistbookcenter.com. This book is the sequel to The Deep Things of God (2004) which lays out an approach to the interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Armageddon carries out that approach for chapters 16 and 17 of Revelation and includes a number of pieces that can be found on the main web site (http://www.thebattleofarmageddon.com/).

Last week I communicated my excitement over the new book by N. T. Wright called Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. I promised to share some thoughts on the resurrection of Christ and its crucial relationship to the New Testament understanding of the end of the world, which includes the Battle of Armageddon.

For Wright the old idea that all religions are basically the same is nonsense. There is a world of difference between a Muslim who believes that a boy killed by Israeli soldiers goes straight to heaven and a Hindu who expects to return to earth after death to work out another stage of his or her destiny. There is a world of difference between an Orthodox Jew who believes in a bodily resurrection of the righteous and a Buddhist who hopes to disappear like a drop of water into an ocean. And for Christian faith, death is not just a transition into a new form of existence, it is an enemy, but an enemy that has been defeated in the resurrection of Christ and will ultimately be abolished forever from the universe. This is substantively different than all other views of death and its relation to human existence.

At this point the skeptic chimes in and says, "So what? Everybody believes what they want to believe. But why should we take the Christian claim any more seriously than any other?" Wright would respond along the lines of Karl Barth and a famous children’s song: "The Bible tells me so." This is of interest to visitors to this web site, because if the Bible is not true then all discussion of a Battle of Armageddon at the end of time (which is based on the Bible’s account of the End in the Book of Revelation) is a waste of time. So we, like the skeptic, are interested in Wright’s answer to the question: Why? Why should we take the Bible seriously?

Wright believes the validity of the Bible stands or falls on the validity of its testimony regarding the resurrection of Jesus. It is not just modern skeptics, but also ancient skeptics who mocked the idea of resurrection (Acts 17:18, 31-32). Resurrection from the dead was no more a common experience for the ancients than it is for scientifically-oriented people today. What caused early Christians to believe something that made no sense at all in everyday experience? Something must have happened. Did the disciples have hallucinations? Were they deliberate deceivers? Did they make up stories based on their Old Testament expectations? Wright rules these options out as not worthy of historical rigor (you’ll have to read the book for the details on that). Instead he argues that the only credible historical approach to the New Testament texts is that the disciples had overwhelming evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead. Wright offers four arguments that he believes would make sense to a historian. I will summarize those arguments for you next week. In my mind they place Christian faith in the resurrection on solid historical ground.

        

I apologize for the slow pace of blogs the last few months. As an administrator now, my life often carries me along with urgent demands that limit opportunity to read, reflect and write. Nevertheless, I celebrate the publication of my latest book (Everlasting Gospel, Everchanging World). My copies arrived three weeks ago. Unfortunately, although it is listed online by both Amazon and Barnes and Noble, the publisher has not yet arranged to supply books to them! I did find it by entering my name into the search engine at www.adventistbookcenter.com. The book explores what I have learned about sharing faith from my three children (ages 20-26) and son-in-law. They have been an awesome laboratory regarding the impact of "post-moderism" on faith in today’s world. If you have teen or young-adult children or grandchildren, you should find this book helpful.

Ironically, a further new book from me (Armageddon at the Door) is available from Amazon for a special pre-publication price, although I have not yet seen a copy of the book. Revised excerpts from that book are available here by clicking the button "Armageddon Trilogy" on the main web site (http://www.thebattleofarmageddon.com/). My webmaster hopes to have daily devotionals on that site up in a short while.

What triggered this particular blog was a gift. I was handed a book and asked to evaluate it. This happens a lot and I rarely have time to follow through, but this case was different. The book was called Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. It was written by N. T. Wright, perhaps the best-known and most-prolific New Testament scholar in the world today. He is the Anglican Bishop of Durham and has been resident theologian at Westminster Abbey. He is the heir to the legacy of C. S. Lewis, as one might guess from the title of the book. He recently published Simply Christian, a fresh update of the classic Mere Christianity.

Wright’s new book Surprised by Hope should be of great interest to guests of this web site. He offers a fresh and biblical critique of traditional views on the Second Coming (including an offhand comment on Armageddon), human nature and life after death, and the nature of resurrection, judgment, heaven and hell. While I think there are problems here and there at the edges, I found the core of what he wrote profoundly moving and thoroughly biblical.

I particularly gained a fresh perspective on issues related to the resurrection of Jesus, which Wright sees as foundational for the entire Christian world view in general, and its view of the end-time in particular. I plan to share some detail on how he approaches the resurrection of Jesus next week. Stay tuned.

 

        

I stumbled into this text in the Bible the other day. It is one of the more troubling passages I've run into. Thought you might like to see how I handle texts like these. "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed." Isa 65:20, NIV.

The problem with this text is the context, Isaiah 65:17-25. The whole passage contains one of the most beloved descriptions of what life in the new earth will be like. God will create a new heavens and a new earth (verse 17). There will be no more weeping and crying there (19). God’s people will build houses and live in them, they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit (21). Then there is the glorious climax, "‘The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,’ says the LORD" (25).

What troubles people about this text is the presence of death in paradise (verse 20). God’s people will live long in this new earth, "as the days of a tree" (22), but they will not live forever. How can this be harmonized with the "forever" of other biblical texts (Daniel 7:18; Joel 3:20; Micah 4:5; 1 Thess 4:17; Rev 22:5)? The key to resolving this problem is to explore briefly the historical context in which the prophecy of Isaiah 65 was given.

The central theme of Isaiah through Malachi is the exile of God’s people to Babylon followed by their eventual return to the land promised to Abraham. This "Exile and Return Theme" is dominant in the writing prophets whether they wrote before, during, or after the Exile. They prophesy that the return from Babylon would be accompanied by a three-fold transformation of reality. In Ezekiel 36, for example, God planned to transform human society by restoring Israel to her land and to her witness to the nations (Ezek 36:24,28,33-36, see also Mic 4:1-5, Isa 2:2-5; 11:2-5). He would transform human nature with a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek 36:25-27, see also Jer 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-29; Isa 35:5-6). And He would eventually transform the natural world itself, banishing hunger and violence (Ezek 36:30,35, see also Isa 11:6-9; 35:1,2,7; Ezek 47:1-12).

Unlike the Flood story and the Book of Revelation, where the end of the world means the full, physical destruction of the planet, the End of the prophets would come within history and geography as they understood it. God would intervene mightily within history to transform society, human nature and the natural world. This End is usually described in the context of the exile to and return from Babylon.

There is no question that the view of the End in the Old Testament was a developing one. God always meets people where they are. As they are able, He reveals more and more of His purpose. This principle is clearly stated by Jesus in John 16:12: "I have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now."

The danger in this is that later readers would try to universalize these early prophecies and expect every detail to be fulfilled at some time in the future. Instead we should allow later revelation (such as the New Testament) to guide us through the Old Testament material to a clearer picture of the End than was possible earlier. Each stage of Biblical history offers a fresh window into the mind of a God who meets people where they are, yet knows all along where He is going!

Isaiah 65:20 needs to be understood in light of the triple transformation of reality that was promised at the time when God’s people would return from Babylon. This triple transformation would take place within history, within the time, place, and circumstances of the prophetic writers. The "new heavens and new earth" of Isa 65:17, at first glance, sound very much like the book of Revelation, where God destroys the earth before creating it anew. But in Isaiah, it is Jerusalem that is created and the life span is far short of eternity (Isa 65:18-20). "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed." Isa 65:20, NIV.

As attractive as these numbers sound in our degenerate age, they fall far short of the text "there will be no more death" (Rev 21:4). Isa 65:20 is a "problem text" when read from a New Testament mind-set, but it made perfect sense in the setting of what might have been after the return from Babylonian Exile. Although God would intervene in spectacular fashion, according to the prophets, the fullness of paradise would only be restored a little at a time. In the wake of the Christ event, the book of Revelation portrays a much more radical picture of the End.

I suspect this brief essay may not connect with where most people live today. But it does offer a reason why there are so many challenging statements in the Bible. God meets people where they are. That means a text makes the best sense in the original context. When we move to today, it is easy to get confused by the differences between the Bible's world and our own. The same holds true for what the Bible says about the Battle of Armageddon. Only as we interpret Armageddon texts in their original context can we avoid the kind of wild speculation that is taken as fact in all too many circles.

        

Adventist study of Revelation early on focused on the identification of the United States with the land beast of Revelation 13. Particular attention was paid to idea that the land beast has lamblike features when it first appears but comes to speak as a dragon (Rev 13:11). In this perspective, America comes on the historical scene as a relatively positive power, a haven for the oppressed, particularly the religious minorities of Europe. Unlike most nations, whose political position is governed by corporate self-interest, America arose with a corporate vision of its responsibility to feed the hungry, help the weak, and rescue the oppressed. When America went to war, it was for a just and noble cause, not out of corporate selfishness.

America’s geographical location is fairly unique. It is sheltered by oceans on the east and on the west. It is so rich in natural resources that, until the last fifty years (the need for foreign oil), America was self-sufficient in most raw materials. Its abundance of rich farmland means that wars need not be fought for basic survival needs such as food. From the mid-nineteenth century on, the only nations that border the United States, Canada and Mexico, have not been hostile and are, in any case, relatively weak militarily. (The recent bout of insecurity regarding the border with Mexico is a relatively new thing for the United States) The last invasion of the "lower 48 states" was during the War of 1812, unless you count the brief foray into New Mexico by Pancho Villa in 1917. America’s borders have not been a major concern for some time until recently.

The United States, therefore, has been blessed with the luxury of living without significant threat to its existence from potentially hostile neighbors. Because of its abundant natural resources, it has not needed to be an aggressor power like Japan, dependent for its survival on imports of food and raw materials. Japan has to be obsessed with the good or bad intentions of its neighbors (including the United States), as there are so many ways that the country’s survival can be threatened from outside. The United States has had few such concerns until very recently.

Compare the United States with China, for example, a country of similar physical size. China has always felt itself under threat from hostile neighbors. There is the great bear of Russia to the north. There are the unpredictable tribes of Central Asia. There is India to the southwest and Vietnam to the south (China has fought brief wars with both since World War II). To the east are Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Wars have been fought with all three in the last hundred years. And then there is the unlimited reach of the United States navy to worry about. So the Chinese must be constantly thinking of their own political and economic self-interest. The very survival of its people demands it.

As the examples of Japan and China suggest, most nations are naturally driven to a political stance of corporate selfishness. When people feel cornered, they defend themselves vigorously. Their full attention is on their own needs and interests. America was no different at the time of its founding. It was threatened by native peoples nearby and by European powers such as Britain, France and, for a time, Spain. But by the mid-nineteenth century, America felt secure from outside threat and began to develop the sense of "manifest destiny," that it had been placed on the earth to be a blessing to the world. It was not to operate from selfish ambition. Freeing the slaves was, to some degree, motivated by the desire to be a nation that was not tainted by the kind of selfish ambition that is so characteristic in traditional geopolitics.

But all of that began to go by the wayside with World War II. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor shattered the sense of security that had once been complete. The Cold War also made it clear that in today’s world, a nation does not have to be near to be threatening. America came to realize that its security and even its survival depended to a large degree on events in the Eurasian land mass (from Great Britain to Singapore). The population and resources of Eurasia are so great that any power that can completely control the Eurasian landmass will rule the world. So the continuing worldwide reach of the American navy and air force is not an accident. Contented isolation is no longer an American option. It is very much in the national interest of the United States to act in ways that keep the nations of Eurasia divided.

This has transformed the United States from a benevolent power that intercedes in world affairs to protect the weak to one that aggressively acts to ensure its own interests. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was perceived as a major turning point in the minds of many. Whatever motives of rescuing the Shiites or the Kurds there might have been, the overwhelming purpose of the invasion was America’s own political self-interest. In the eyes of the world America is now perceived more as a neighborhood bully (dragon?) than as an understanding partner.

And there is no turning back. Al Qaeda and its allies will not go away quietly. The threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is an ongoing threat. In order to ensure its own survival America must act as an empire, intruding into the affairs of its neighbors around the world in the hunt for those who desire to harm her. It does not matter if a Democrat or a Republican is president. The geopolitical realities of today’s world cannot be ignored. The same President Carter who sought to slow down the development of the "dragon," set in motion events that led ultimately to the invasion of Iraq. America now speaks as a dragon and feels fully justified in so doing.

        

I hope that readers will not mind, but I’d like to focus once more on the Seventh-day Adventist context and the book Questions on Doctrine. Readers from outside the Adventist tradition may find analogies to their own situation, but I will be addressing the Adventist context directly in this blog.

Recently at Loma Linda University, several presenters repeated their contributions at the Questions on Doctrine conference in October (along with a couple of new presenters) in an attempt to share that experience with the Loma Linda audience. We were reminded of the long history of inner-church conflict precipitation by the publication of the book.

It dawned on me during a panel discussion that there are several inner forces at the core of Adventist belief that will inevitably spawn conflict. In other words, the core values of Adventism tend to work against each other somewhat in a dynamic tension that can be invigorating and fruitful, when people are open and affirming, but can be destructive when people focus on one or the other value at the expense of the others.

The first of these values is a strong concern for the "landmarks" of Adventist faith. There is the sense that Adventism has made some significant contributions to the world of faith and no amount of doctrinal development can or should change that. Those who see this value as central to the neglect of the other two will tend to be overcritical of change of any kind.

The second core Adventist value that can create conflict as well as positive change is what I call restorationism. This is the idea that Adventists are called to restore the values of the New Testament (such as Sabbath and sanctuary) that have been lost in the course of Christian history. This value was a major driver of change in the first two generations of Adventist doctrinal development. Related to this is the idea of "present truth," that Adventism at its best will be constantly evolving in its relevance. People who adopt this value as central to the neglect of the other two will tend to promote change at the expense historic Adventist views.

The third core Adventist value is mission, the sense that Adventists have a message for the whole world. But as the Adventist world president said recently, "Theology is being driven by mission." The challenges of reaching out to a world filled with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and many others is causing God-fearing people to reconsider how the gospel can best be expressed in settings other than the Western, Christian world in which Adventism came into being. So mission is becoming an increasingly powerful engine of doctrinal change and re-expression. But the great danger of a theology driven by mission is syncretism, where true faith is diluted by accommodation to world views that may not be compatible with the gospel.

Each of these core values is thoroughly Adventist. Yet the confluence of these core values will inevitably lead to conflict whenever one is privileged over the others. The more we become aware of our own natural biases, the more sympathetic we will be to perspectives that differ from our own natural tendencies.

In looking at myself, I think my theological work has been driven by mission, restorationism and fidelity to the landmarks in that order. All three have been important to me, but I realize that I may not have given the "landmarks" perspective as much weight as mission in the development of my own understanding of theology. But self-awareness here is half the battle. And to the degree that I keep all three values in balance, my own understand of God and faith will be richer and more helpful to others.

So when it comes to discussions such as those surrounding the book Questions on Doctrine, conflict is inevitable due to people’s natural tendency to emphasize one or another of the basic Adventist core values. But when we discover that there is more than one right way to think, we will find ourselves enriched by those we have disagreed with in the past.

        

People have approached me in the last few months, troubled over my move from Andrews University in Michigan to Loma Linda University in California. They wonder how can I give up the Seminary setting, where my specialties are front-row and center and move to a health science university, where I have to, in effect, start all over. The implication is that I have taken a big step down and have given up my best chance to change the world. Some have even implied that the move is some sort of exile.

I certainly don’t see it that way. Loma Linda University is in an amazing position to change the world. For one thing, it has the only faith-based medical and dental programs in the United States. There are several Jesuit institutions that offer medical programs, but none of them includes religion in the curriculum. They are simply secular programs offered at faith-based universities. Loma Linda is a health-science university that builds faith and wholeness into every single degree and certificate program. In light of recent publicity suggesting that religion can have a positive effect on overall health, Loma Linda is well-positioned to be at the cutting edge of health care in the decades to come.

You may be aware that National Geographic recently identified the Loma Linda community as one of the three longest lived communities on earth, and the only one where longevity is not tied to an isolated and non-duplicatable culture (the other two communities were in isolated parts of Okinawa and Sicily, I believe). The Loma Linda lifestyle may be the world’s best hope for significant advances in longevity in the near future.

In light of the above, the opportunity to be in charge of the religion and humanities curricula of Loma Linda University (Dean of the School of Religion and Division of Humanities) was too good to pass up. I have the opportunity to work with health scientists to integrate the spiritual, emotional and mental sides of the human condition with the latest advances in physical and medical sciences. If the Loma Linda philosophy of wholeness has produced a community that lives ten years longer than the California average, there is something here that is well worth being a part of.

Let me share with you a discussion I chaired between faculty of religion and faculty in the basic sciences at our School of Medicine on January 4, 2008. If there is any aspect of a health science university that could be considered at the opposite end of the spectrum from religion, it would be the basic sciences, which are completely dependant on hard data and careful empirical research. What value could religion classes possibly have to a PhD program in the basic sciences?

We asked the professors in the basic sciences to share the goals and objectives of the program and how religion could contribute to the lives of aspiring scientists. Here are some of the things we came up with:

1) Help students understand that faith is not incompatible with the production of new knowledge. Science is not of dubious usefulness for faith. Rather, faith needs to understand. Religion is worthy of the same kind of intellectual rigor that we expect from scientists. And science can also be engaged in from the standpoint of service to God. One of the things Loma Linda University can contribute to the world is the concept of faith-based and faith-motivated science, something happening in no other educational institution. Is the idea of a faith-based equivalent to Stanford or MIT too big a stretch? I think not. Is the world today ready for such an institution? I think so.

2) Scientists need to know that the Bible is worthy of serious scientific study. Religion teachers can help them learn healthy ways to read texts and common fallacies about the Bible and its interpretation to avoid.

3) Religion classes in a science curriculum can create a safe and respectful environment where students can sort out their own convictions about faith and knowledge. Religion can help them discover the spiritual significance of their lives and develop a sense of God’s purpose in their scientific endeavors. Not all students come to class as spiritual people, but they are all trying to figure out the meaning of their lives.

4) Explore whether the study of science inevitably leads to a loss of faith. And if faith is lost what kind of faith is lost? Can such an occurrence be a blessing at times?

Don’t you wish you could have been listening in on the discussion that produced ideas like that? I was pumped to be part of such a fruitful and life-changing discussion, with many more to come.

So to my two or three fans out there, don’t cry for me. I am having the time of my life. And I promise you I won’t neglect the research and publishing agenda I have pursued for the last twenty years, and that has led to this web site. Stay tuned for some fresh studies on the Battle of Armageddon in the next month or two.

        

I have been reflecting further about the Questions on Doctrine conference I attended last month. I’d like to expand here on some thoughts I shared at the conclusion there. The whole controversy over Questions on Doctrine, it seems to me, revolved and still revolves around an unspoken subtext. I summarize that subtext in the following sentence: Is there more than one right way to think?

I have little doubt that the earliest Adventist pioneers would have instinctively answered No to this question. In their minds truth was basically clear and unchanging. There was only one right way to think. It seems to me, however, that the answer of Adventist history as a whole to this question has increasingly been Yes. Very early on a considerable diversity of expression can be seen in the pages of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. And it has become increasingly evident that Adventist understanding of truth was both developing and fragmenting throughout our history. Our pioneers expressed an awareness of both development and fragmentation at the 1919 Bible Conference, but these thoughts were largely held in private. What brought an awareness of development and fragmentation into public knowledge was the controversies that developed around the publication of Questions on Doctrine. So whether we like it or not, Adventist history bears witness to both doctrinal development (which means that the "one way to think" of the past is not adequate for the present) and increasing fragmentation. Is this good or bad, healthy or unhealthy? What would the Scriptures teach us?

Is there more than one right way to think? Scripture answers this question with a qualified Yes. The answer of Scripture is grounded in the principle that God meets people where they are. The thoughts and ideas of inspiration come from God. But the form those thoughts take are grounded in the time, place and circumstances of specific human beings. Time constraints require me to limit myself to just two biblical examples.

The first and most obvious example is the presence of four gospels in the New Testament. In the highest sense there is only one gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ. But that one gospel finds itself expressed in four different ways by four different people. While there is an essential unity and harmony in their presentation of the gospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are each a unique and creative expression of that gospel. None of the four gospels has the whole picture. Each comes at the story with a unique purpose in mind. Each story is a true outline of the same events, yet they are all distinctly different. To put it another way, the four gospels testify that there is more than one right way to think. In the four gospels, the differences are due to different human standpoints in telling the story of God’s greatest revelation in Jesus Christ.

In Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 God Himself is the one who articulates this diversity. The two visions cover essentially the same ground: a series of four empires followed by a time of political division followed by the kingdom of God. The purpose of the two visions is the same: to show God’s overarching control of history (see Dan 2:21 and 7:26). To the pagan king He develops this outline of history in the form of an idol. To the Hebrew prophet He develops the outline as a midrash on creation. The story is the same, but the form is different. In other words, there is more than one right way to think.

Now in saying this I do not mean to imply that all viewpoints are right simply because they have been expressed. I am not promoting uncontrolled relativism. There were at least a dozen or so written gospels in the early Christian centuries that did not make it into the biblical canon. These contained, at times, fanciful and even bizarre features. All ways of thinking are not right. But my basic point remains valid. We must not, in our fear of relativism, be too quick to marginalize any viewpoint we disagree with. Just because someone else doesn’t see through my eyes does not mean that what they see is false. Differing perspectives can be windows into the larger truths that we all seek.

It is helpful in theological discussion, therefore, to keep in mind that if someone expresses a truth in a form different from mine, it should not automatically be assumed that if I am right the other must be wrong. To accept that there is more than one right way to think keeps us open to learning fresh dimensions of truth, and it inoculates us against the pride that can come from attainment of truth. There is much to be learned from theological controversy, even when we disagree. To still voices that differ from us may be to still the voice of the Spirit.

        

I apologize for several months of silence during my family’s move from Berrien Springs, Michigan (Andrews University) to Beaumont, California (Loma Linda University). I am now Dean of the School of Religion at Loma Linda, a health science university affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Helping to guide and develop the teaching of religion in the context of the scientific enterprise is a unique and exciting venture for me. Recent studies indicate that the quality of one’s religious experience may be a large factor in one’s relative health and resistance to the harmful effects of stress and aging. Loma Linda, California was recently named by National Geographic one of the longest-lived communities on earth, because of the uniquely healthy lifestyle of the thousands of Seventh-day Adventists who live in the area. It’s exciting to be part of this. Maybe I’ll even live longer.

Anyway, the stresses of moving and acclimating to a completely new kind of job are beginning to abate and I hope to be back in the blogging saddle from here on. I intend also to catch up on reading and responding to comments that have been added to the Armageddon web site over the last several months.

On a different note, I have just experienced an historic event. This last week a major conference occurred in my old bailiwick at Andrews University (October 24-27). A collaborative effort between Loma Linda and Andrews Universities (along with Oakwood College in Alabama), the conference marked the 50th Anniversary of the publication of the book Questions on Doctrine. This book has been described as “the most divisive book in Seventh-day Adventist history.” Print debates about the issues raised in the book have seriously divided Seventh-day Adventists and also involved significant figures in the evangelical world, such as Donald Barnhouse, Walter Martin, Kenneth Samples and Donald Dayton.

For the first time since the book was published in 1957, this conference brought together most of the major living figures in the, at times, rancorous debate. All major viewpoints were represented. Every participant that I spoke with was very nervous going into the conference. But instead of shouting and name-calling, all participants spoke with passion and conviction, but also with respect and kindness. The discussion exhibited a level of scholarship and maturity I would not have expected. Viewpoints were clarified. People listened carefully and openly to those opposed to them. Everyone seems to have come away with a fresh appreciation for the intentions and perspectives of those they disagreed with.

But the highlight of the whole conference occurred on the last morning. The organizers took the unique and risky step of concluding the conference with a communion service (Eucharist or Lord’s Supper to many), experiencing together the bread and cup of our Lord. Standing on the platform leading out were George Knight, Angel Rodriguez and Colin Standish. Among the deacons distributing the elements were Russell Standish, Arthur Patrick, Larry Kirkpatrick, Roy Adams and Woody Whidden. If you know even half of these names you will understand how historic this event was. Dave Larson (a colleague of mine at Loma Linda) and I completely lost it. We wept unashamedly at this enactment of the unity for which Jesus prayed while He was on earth (John 17:20-26). For many years I have dreamed, hoped and prayed for reconciliation in my community of faith. Yet I was blindsided by the moment, thinking that the age of hostile discourse we see in the public square has so permeated people of faith that the answer to my prayers would be unlikely or even impossible. But with God, nothing is impossible!

I cannot guarantee that the participants in this conference will not go home and write articles and blogs that reopen old wounds and paint a negative picture on the conference or on various of the participants. But I return home rejoicing in what occurred. I return with hope that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is entering into a new era of humility, honesty, openness and mutual respect. In such an atmosphere we can all learn much, not only intellectually, but also in terms of character and relationships. It seems to me that Pentecost must have been a little like this.

Jon

        

I have been quiet for a while and I thought I should explain. In July my wife and I finished a house in California, sold a house in Michigan, packed up my office in Michigan and moved to California. Here my family is moving into a new house and my new office looks like a warehouse with boxes and bins everywhere. So pray for us and if all goes well I'll be back with a new blog sometime in September. Thanks for your understanding.

I plan that the devotionals will keep flowing and also to post my translation of the Book of Revelation by this Fall. When I get back in the flow I also plan to read through the more recent comments and offer some responses.

Jon

        

Here I am sitting at a computer. It suddenly dawned on me that one of the creators of the internet, Bill Joy, thinks my computer wants to kill me. Joy is the chief scientist at Sun Microsystems and the creator of Java, a software application that helped make the internet what it is today. While Joy is at the cutting edge of technological development, he nevertheless argues that technology always leads to "unintended consequences." Just as the widespread use of antibiotics and DDT have had unforeseen and potentially disastrous consequences, Joy argues that "Murphy’s Law" is an inevitable part of technological advances in computing as well. The following is based on his article in Wired, April 2000.

Building on the work of Ray Kurzweil and Dan Moravec, Joy notes that computer systems are very complex, involving interaction among and feedback between many parts. Any changes to such a system will cascade in ways that are difficult to predict. If Moore’s Law of hardware advancement (doubling computer performance every 18 months at no increase in cost) continues to operate, by 2030 we will be able to build machines that rival human beings in intelligence. Joy argued that when such "robots" exceed human intelligence and become able to self-replicate, the extinction of the human race becomes conceivable, perhaps as early as 2050.

Joy sees the danger in genetics, nanotechnology and robotics (GNR) as even greater than the dangers of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare. The latter are military weapons that remain under human control. The dangers of GNR, on the other hand, are grounded in their commercial and economic benefits. They will, therefore, be promoted and developed by the marketplace, with unintended consequences that will be outside governmental control. He concludes, "This is the first moment in the history of our planet when any species, by its own voluntary actions, has become a danger to itself—as well as to vast numbers of others."

There is hope. Jaron Lanier, a specialist in virtual reality systems, put his finger on the flaw in Joy’s argument in a response eight months later (Wired, December 2000). Joy and his supporters have confused "ideal" computers with real computers. While we can conceptualize ideal computers, in reality we only know how to build dysfunctional ones. Real computers break for reasons that are often less than clear, and they seem to resist our efforts to improve them, often due to legacy and lock-in problems. While Moore’s Law continues to work for hardware systems, software seems to be getting worse and worse as systems become more complex.

While in theory, therefore, the hardware could become sophisticated enough to exceed human intelligence, Lanier notes that human beings themselves don’t seem able to write software that would make such a superior machine possible. If anything, Moore’s Law seems to play in reverse when it comes to software. As processors become faster and memory becomes cheaper, software becomes correspondingly slower and more bloated, using up all available resources. So Lanier conceives Joy’s eschatological nightmare to end as follows: "Just as some newborn race of superintelligent robots are about to consume all humanity, our dear old species will likely be saved by a Windows crash. The poor robots will linger pathetically, begging us to reboot them, even though they’ll know it would do no good." Thus the human race will be saved from extinction by "stupid software."

Regardless of the outcome of this debate, it is clear that the Book of Revelation speaks to fears and possibilities that are just as real in today’s world as they were in the days of John.

People like Joy agree with Revelation that society is headed toward catastrophe and chaos unless some extraordinary intervention should occur. He fears that human beings will do this to themselves. But Revelation draws back the curtain to reveal a deeper reality behind the surface. Rev 17:17 shows that nothing on this earth happens completely out of God’s control. Human beings do not have the capacity to write software good enough to replace ourselves. And the One who wrote our software grieves at the mess we have made of things, but holds back the "winds of strife" so we will not completely destroy ourselves. As the robot droned in some old movie I have forgotten, "There is still time to repent!"

        

I am doing a short series of blogs on the movie Left Behind (and behind it the series of novels by that name) and its view of the Bible in general and the Book of Revelation in particular. In the first blog I shared some positive elements of the Left Behind phenomenon and promised to start dealing with what I perceive as the flaws in the thesis, which can be very convincing to the uninitiated. In the sequel I talked about the tendency of those following the rapture theology to jump from text to text in the Bible rather than following an approach of careful reading of the texts most directly and clearly addressing the question. In the third blog I addressed the two texts in Revelation that clearly and directly address the issue of end-time deception (Rev 13:1-15; 16:13-16), which was so central to the movie. In this concluding blog I will look at the other two end-time deception texts, Matthew 24:23-27 and 2 Thess 2:8-12, and draw some conclusions.

A surface reading of the text makes it clear that Matt 24:23-27 uses the same language and is on the same theme as the other three end-time deception texts (Rev 13:13-14; 16:13-16, and 2 Thess 2:8-12). In Matt 24, as in 2 Thess 2, the end-time deception is a secret return of "Jesus"! The key to unmasking the end-time deception is to know that it will not be universally visible like the true coming of Jesus. "If anyone tells you, ‘check it out, he’s in the desert,’ don’t go out, or ‘check it out, he’s in some secret place,’ don’t believe it, for as lightning comes out of the east and shines even to the west so will the coming of the son of man be." The end-time deception is a counterfeit of Jesus. The end-time deception has a Christian face!

The tragic thing is that, for believers in the rapture concept of Left Behind, the very events portrayed in Matt 24:23-26 will be seem to be evidence that their reading of the Bible was correct (as was the case in the movie). Many sincere people will be convinced by events that Jesus has somehow already returned to earth. But that return will be a deception. How will you know? Matt 24:25, "Behold, I have told you ahead of time." The end-time deception will betray all trust in the five senses. The only safety for the people of God in the end-time is to trust in the broad message of Scripture that they have known and studied in advance. The end-time equivalent of Mount Carmel will prove the opposite of the truth. Truth and reality will be in contradiction.

It is, therefore, my fear that this movie could be part the greatest setup in human history (totally contrary to the conscious and sincere intention of its producers). If Satan were to pull off some sort of rapture, people would be conditioned by the movie’s scenario to believe that the Christian reaction to world events is the only safe place, when in fact the true anti-Christ will not be a latter-day Hitler, but will seem to be the very person of Christ Himself! The anti-Christ will seem to be the savior of the world, and the Christian’s only hope. The final deception will have a Christian face.

What kind of God would allow a deception so severe that even His own people will tremble in anxiety over it? 2 Thess 2:9-12 suggests that He more than allows it. "God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie (2 Thess 2:11)." In the original language, the phrase "powerful delusion" is related to the phrase "working of Satan" in verse 9. The end-time deception serves a purpose in God’s plan, even though Satan is its author. What is the purpose of this deception in God’s eyes? "So that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness (2 Thess 2:12)."

The word "condemned" translates the Greek root word for judgment. The purpose of the deception (from God’s perspective) is to clarify where everyone alive on earth during the End-time stands in relation to the truth about God. There are three classes of people on earth today. One group is made up of people who love the truth, people who will not be deceived no matter what. The second class of people is made up of those who hate the truth. But those who love the truth and those who hate it are in the minority. The third class of people consists of the majority who neither love nor hate the truth; they prefer to avoid commitment, to sit on the fence.

God’s purpose in allowing the great End-time deception, according to Paul, is to say, "It is time to get off the fence. It is time to commit yourself one way or the other." Circumstances on earth are arranged in such a way that decision is forced. Everybody ends up on one side or the other. When the End comes everyone on earth will have made a firm decision to either love the truth or to love unrighteousness.

Fortunately, there is good news in the midst of the Bible’s description of the End-time deception. The original language of 2 Thess 2:10 explains why people get deceived in the last days, it is not because they were hypnotized by the anti-Christ, "They perish because they did not receive the love of the truth." The text explains that those who are deceived at the End refuse to receive the love of the truth. The love of the truth is something you can receive as a gift. And that's good news. When you receive God’s gift of love for the truth, when you have a whole-hearted desire to know God and to do His will, you can know that the deception at the End will have no power over you. 

        

I am doing a short series of blogs on the movie Left Behind (and behind it the series of novels by that name) and its view of the Bible in general and the Book of Revelation in particular. In the first blog I shared some positive elements of the Left Behind phenomenon and promised to start dealing with what I perceive as the flaws in the thesis, which can be very convincing to the uninitiated. In the sequel I talked about the tendency of those following the rapture theology to jump from text to text in the Bible rather than following an approach of careful reading of the texts most directly and clearly addressing the question.

When you read through the New Testament carefully you will find that there are four passages which address the issue of the end-time deception. They are Rev 13:13-14, Rev 16:13-16; 2 Thess 2:8-12, and Matt 24:23-27. In each of these four texts you will find the same basic language and scenario; signs and wonders are used to deceive the people of the world, and there is some representative of an anti-Christ. Interestingly enough, not one of these texts is mentioned in the movie, even though the movie claims to portray this very end-time deception.

In the movie the deceptive anti-Christ is a political figure who is hostile to Christian faith and seeks to gain his ends through economic and political means. The deception of the anti-Christ is a hypnosis in which people do not see what is actually going on. Only true Christians see what is actually happening. This is very different from the biblical picture of the anti-Christ and of the end-time deception found in the four clearest passages. When read carefully the startling collective message of these four passages is that the end-time deception will have a Christian face. Unlike the cold-hearted political calculations of Nicolae Carpathia, the anti-Christ of the Bible will be a spiritual leader more than a political or economic figure.

We have already looked briefly at the text in 2 Thessalonians 2. So I will begin with Revelation 13. The anti-Christ figure of Rev 13 is a beast that comes up out of the sea (Rev 13:1-5). In many ways this beast is a clear counterfeit of the life, death and ministry of Jesus Christ (for a more detailed look at the Christ counterfeit of the sea beast read my book, What the Bible Says About the End-Time, pages 109-119). In fact, the three enemy characters of this chapter (dragon, sea beast, and land beast) function as a counterfeit "trinity," offering a parody of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Christ counterfeit is most obvious in verse 3: "And one of his heads was, as it were, slaughtered to death. . ." There are many Greek words for death, dying and killing. This is not one of the most common. What is interesting is that the very same Greek word is found in verse 8, "the Lamb which was slaughtered from the foundation of the world." There is an unmistakable parallel between the description of the sea beast in verse 3 and the description of Jesus (the Lamb) in verse 8. "And the wound of his death was healed" (13:3). In the final crisis of earth’s history there is an entity whose very character is based on a parody of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The end-time deception has a Christian face! In Rev 13:13-14 the land beast brings fire down out of heaven in order to deceive the world to follow the first beast, the anti-Christ of this text.

The second end-time deception text is Rev 16:13-14. The dragon, beast and false prophet here are the same characters as the unholy trinity of Rev 13. The three frogs that they send out deceive the world by means of the signs that they do. This text is on the same subject and uses the same language as Rev 13. What is interesting for our purposes is that these three frogs are the "spirits of demons" (Rev 16:14). They are portrayed in the story as three evil counterparts to the three angels who give God’s message in Rev 14:6-12. There are two world-wide messages in the last days, one represents the true gospel, the other is a counterfeit of that gospel. The end-time deception has a Christian face!

The climax of this deception is associated with a place called in Hebrew "Har-magedon." I have elsewhere argued that this phrase is a reference to the showdown between Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (on the main web site click the button labeled "What is Armageddon?" for more). There Elijah brought fire down from heaven to earth in order to prove to the onlookers that Yahweh was the true God and not Baal. Rev 16 tells us that the Mount Carmel experience will be replayed at the end. Once more there will be a showdown between the true God and the false. Once more fire will come down from heaven to settle the issue. But one thing will change this time. The fire will fall on the wrong altar (Rev 13:13-14)! In the end-time deception the eyes and ears will deceive. The five senses will tell us that the truth is false and that the false is true.

In Left Behind the deception was a sort of supernatural hypnosis. Unbelievers saw what was going on, yet they didn’t see. They were mesmerized by the charisma of the anti-Christ. On the other hand, the believers in the movie saw the deception with their own eyes and were convinced that the evil lay in the political realm and that safety was in the church. Yet this is the opposite of the picture in Revelation. In Revelation the deception is a natural thing. It appeals to the five senses, what we can taste, touch, see, hear and smell. In Revelation the unbelievers see and are convinced. It is what they actually experience that deceives them. They don’t need to be mesmerized, the anti-Christ is manipulating reality itself. On the other hand, it is the believers who don’t see what they expected. It is the believers who are led to question their own understanding. Their only hope is their trust that the Word of God is true, no matter what their eyes see or their ears hear. This will become even clearer in the last end-time deception text, Matt 24:23-27, which we will cover in the next blog.

        

The previous blog began a short series on the movie Left Behind (and behind it the series of novels by that name) and its view of the Bible in general and the Book of Revelation in particular. I shared some positive elements of the Left Behind phenomenon and promised to start dealing with what I perceive as the flaws in the thesis, which can be very convincing to the uninitiated. Following are some of the flaws I saw in the movie and some cautions I would offer to whose who are intrigued by its message.

First, always beware when people jump from text to text in the Bible. In the movie, what little Bible was actually mentioned was in the form of strings of texts without any inherent connection. You can take Bible texts from a variety of contexts, and put them together to prove anything you want to prove. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and even some Seventh-day Adventists, have built compelling theologies on strings of texts whose primary relationship was a system in the interpreter’s mind rather than the ideas expressed by the biblical writers themselves. When the compelling impulse for Bible study is to support your existing beliefs, it isn’t hard to see what you want to see in the Bible. When you string texts together out of a concordance, the original purpose of those texts is often lost and God’s intention can be lost with it.

The safest approach to the Bible is when you ground your understanding on the clear texts and on the broad reading of whole Bible books. The clear texts of Scripture ground the reader in the great central themes of the biblical message. This provides a safeguard against the strange ideas all of us can come up with when examining texts that are more ambiguous. What I mean by a clear text is one that clearly address the subject you are interested in. Such texts can be safely compared with others that are clearly on the same subject and use the same kind of language. Similarly, when you read Biblical books from beginning to end, the Biblical author is in control of the order and flow of the material. When the author is allowed to lead you naturally from one idea to the next, your exposure to the Bible is much less likely to be controlled by pet ideas from your own background. Broad reading of the Bible naturally encourages a teachable spirit and helps you see the text as it was intended to be read. Let’s apply the broad reading/clear text approach to the "biblical" teachings of the movie.

I challenge anyone to read the entire Bible from end to end and find a single text that clearly teaches that there will be two distinct comings of Jesus, a secret one such as the one portrayed in the movie, followed by a public, visible one that will be seen by all. See also if you can find any text that expresses the coming of Jesus with a plural. Do the reading with an open mind and with attention to the purpose of each biblical book. If you do this, you will find that there is only one text in the Bible that comes remotely close to teaching two distinct comings of Christ, 2 Thess 2:8-9. Since this text directly addresses the perspective of the movie, let’s take a closer look at it. Please indulge me for using my own translation in order expose the force of the original language.

"(8) And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay by the breath of His mouth and put an end to by the brightness of His coming, (9) whose coming is according to the working of Satan. . . ."

Hold it right there! Whose coming is according to the working of Satan? The natural meaning of the language would point to the "His" in verse 8. But Jesus’ coming itself is not according to the working of Satan. Nevertheless, the two uses of the word "coming" are almost side-by-side in the original, so they are clearly in some kind of relationship.

"(9) Whose coming is according to the working of Satan in all kinds of miracles, signs and lying wonders."

So the "whose" in verse 9 must refer back to the revelation of the lawless one in verse 8. What we have here is a counterfeit of the true coming of Jesus! Which will be first, the coming of the lawless one, or the coming of Jesus? Verse 8 tells us that the lawless one will be destroyed by the brightness of Jesus’ coming, therefore the counterfeit comes before the true.

Please do not miss this point! There is only one text in the Bible that talks about two separate comings of Jesus, and in that one text, the first of these comings is a counterfeit! Could this movie and its underlying theology be part of a giant setup to get people to confuse the satanic counterfeit with the real thing? In the blog that follows this one, we will take a closer look at how the movie’s portrayal of end-time deception stacks up against the clear teaching of the Bible.

        

The movement often called "dispensationalism" originated in the 1800s in Great Britain with John Nelson Darby. This Protestant perspective on the Bible has a number of features, including the division of human history into "dispensations," a literalist reading of biblical prophecies, and the understanding that nearly all of the book of Revelation was written solely with regard to the last seven years of earth’s history. The aspect of dispensationalism that is featured in the movie Left Behind is Darby’s idea of a secret rapture, seven years before the close of earth’s history, Christ would come secretly and snatch up all Christian believers, leaving 144,000 Jews as God’s representatives on earth to prepare the way for the visible coming of Christ at the end of the seven-year period.

This viewpoint first came to the attention of the wider American public through the writings of Hal Lindsey in the 1970s. Based on his understanding of the Bible, Lindsey predicted that the rapture would take place in 1981, leading to seven years of chaos and the visible coming of Christ in 1988. More recently, Tim LaHaye wrote a series of novels (now being featured as movies) to once again popularize the viewpoint, but without Lindsey’s date-setting aberrations. Thanks to the books and the movie, Christians in general, and even many in the secular environment are talking about this scenario and wondering what the Bible actually has to say about it.

While I have not read the books, I have seen the movie a couple of times and my comments relate specifically to that. One positive aspect I see in the movie is that it uplifts the Bible as the antidote to a media-manipulated reality. This is clearly the central message of much of the book of Revelation. In the last days of earth’s history the deceptive forces of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet will try to deceive the world by means of spectacular actions and events (Rev 13:13-14; 16:13-14). Things will not be as they seem. The evidence of the eyes and ears will lead people to believe a lie. At such a time, the only safe course for followers of Jesus is an unwavering reliance on the Word of God over against the evidence of the five senses. The movie makes this point repeatedly and with emphasis. I agree.

The success of the movie could also encourage a trend toward more sensitive portrayals of Christian faith in Hollywood. For years Christians and Christian faith have been ignored in Hollywood movies, except for the occasional self-righteous bigot. Some readers may be tempted to say "so what", but the reality is that the godless perspective of Hollywood has a huge impact on society as a whole. For Christian faith to have a fighting chance in today’s world, it cannot hurt to have some positive, sensitive portrayals of genuine faith in the public square. Left Behind has been followed by The Passion of the Christ and The Nativity, among others, a very positive development in my opinion.

But perhaps even more important, a movie like Left Behind causes many to think and to study the Bible, perhaps for the first time. For some secular people watching this movie or movies like it may be their one and only shot at a genuine openness to Christian experience. When Christians express cynicism about other Christians to a secular person, it only reinforces their sense that all versions of Christian faith are irrelevant to real life. Whether you agree with the thesis of the movie or not, it has had a marvelous pre-evangelistic effect in many people’s lives.

I wish I could end on this note of encouragement, but I cannot. There are serious, serious problems with the message of the movie and its underlying theology. I believe that the most important thing that was "left behind" in this movie was the message and intention of the writers of the Bible. Whole books could be written, and have been written, detailing many of the ways in which Left Behind theology deviates from the biblical perspective. I will need to limit myself to a few basic points that were featured in the film. Please stay tuned to the blogs that will follow on this subject.

        

In an exciting new development, the webmaster of my Battle of Armageddon web site (John Miller) has posted video of my interview with Danny Shelton on 3ABN, January 4, 2007. In the interview, titled "Simply Revelation," we cover some of the basic issues of interpretation in the book. The interview can be accessed by clicking on the 3ABN Live Interview button that is on the left side of the home page at www.thebattleofarmageddon.com. I thought John did a great job with the interface.

The interview starts with the basic principles of interpretation that emerge from the introduction to the Book of Revelation itself. I then cover some of the keys to understanding the Letters to the Churches, the Seven Seals and the Seven Trumpets. At a time when there are a lot of strange ideas around, a few basic principles can help us all stay on a helpful track as we study Revelation and its outline of God’s plans and purposes for human history. Doing the interview was great fun. I hope you enjoy it!

        

I have exciting news. Plans are being laid to record a four-hour DVD miniseries entitled Simply Revelation: A Beginner’s Guide to the Most Challenging Book of the Bible. In this miniseries I will lay out the fruit of thirty years of intensive scholarly study of the Book of Revelation. But the goal of the series is clarity and simplicity, not obtuse depth. In harsher terms, this miniseries will be "Revelation for Dummies." The purpose is sound scholarship unpacking the essence of Revelation at a level that anyone can understand. Watch here for news of the recording dates and the publication of the DVD series, hopefully by mid-summer.

Please also note that today I read through all blog comments from the opening of this web site until now. I have responded to many of your comments and I appreciate each of your contributions to the web site.

In my previous blog I tried to answer a visitor’s question about the bowl-plagues of Revelation 16. This led me to some further thoughts that I would like to share here. In Revelation 15:8 the temple in heaven is filled with smoke from the glory of God. As a result of this glory, no one is able to enter the temple throughout the time when the bowls of wrath (Rev 15:1) are being poured out. In other words, the emptiness of the temple reflects a time when no one will be performing intercession from inside the temple. Mercy has ceased and probation has closed. The seven bowl plagues pour out the wrath of God unmitigated by any trace of mercy. Probation is over and the consequences of disobedience are lived out.

But if the bowl plagues come after the close of probation, no one is repenting any more. So what is the point of these plagues? If people can no longer repent it seems vengeful and capricious to torment them further. It is one thing to remove oppressors and abusers from the universe, it is quite another to drag them from torment to torment along the way. That sounds like cutting of a cat’s tail inch by inch. If the job needs doing you can get it done with a lot less torment than that.

The answer to the question may lie in a major underlying theme of the seven bowls: the justice or fairness of God. The actions of the seven bowls are not arbitrary. God is not some celestial sadist who enjoys the suffering of His creation. There is an ultimate purpose in everything He does. The crucial text is Revelation 16:5-7 (NIV): "You are just in these judgments, you who are and who were, the Holy One, because you have so judged; for they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve." In other words, the punishments of the plagues are appropriate to the crime. The wicked, as objects of God’s executive judgment, are receiving in kind what they have done to others.

You see, the justice and the fairness of God is the ultimate issue. How can God judge people for all eternity on the basis of a few years of up and down behavior? How do we know the wicked wouldn’t change if they knew God better or had the opportunities that the righteous had? Can we really trust the end-time judgment of God?

The plagues demonstrate that the wicked continue to oppose God no matter the circumstances. Sufferings that have led millions to cry out to God over the centuries only cause the opposition of the wicked to become even more pronounced and severe (Rev 16:8-11). Earlier plagues had brought people to repentance (Rev 11:13) but now the wicked have turned away so long and so completely that they are no longer capable of opening themselves to God’s salvation. At the same time, the sufferings of the righteous in the last days do not turn them away from God. The same sufferings have a solidifying effect on all. The righteous remain righteous and the wicked remain wicked.

The close of probation, therefore, is not an arbitrary decree on the part of God. It is simply a time when world affairs are so arranged that everyone makes a settled decision for or against God at the very same time. The plagues are not arbitrary, even though they come after the close of probation, because they also serve God’s purposes. To put it differently, the plagues of Revelation 16 demonstrate the truth of Rev 15:3-4: "Just and true are your ways." In other words, even though God’s judgment is based on what to us would be inconclusive evidence, it is completely fair and completely accurate. The pouring out of the bowl-plagues demonstrates to the universe that God knows what He is doing, whether or not we fully understand it or accept it.

        

Frequent visitors to this web site will have noticed silence on my part for the last few weeks. This was necessary because of travel in remote places like the South Pacific where my access to the internet was limited. I am back in the office now and planning to do a little catching up in the blog business. I also plan to read through the comments to earlier blogs and leave some responses here and there, so come back often in the next two weeks!

A recent visitor to the web site sent in the following question: "I have a question concerning the trumpets and plagues. The first four trumpets affect the earth, sea, rivers, and heavenly bodies and most Adventist take them as symbolic. The first four plagues affect man, seas, rivers, and heavenly bodies and they are taken literal. What is the rationale behind this? Why is one taken symbolic and the other literal?"

This is an excellent question and one I hear quite often. Are the bowl plagues of Revelation literal or figurative? It is difficult to know directly from the language of Revelation 16. Many scholars prefer a figurative reading of Rev 16:1-8. The very first verse of the book tells us that the vision upon which Revelation is based was "signified" (Rev 1:1). In other words, the book as a whole was placed in symbolic language to express the deeper meaning of God’s purposes for the end of human history. Generally in the Bible it is wise to take the text literally unless a symbol is clearly intended. In Revelation, however, the introduction informs us to take the language of the book symbolically unless it is overwhelmingly clear that a literal reading must be taken. In other words, if a specific passage makes sense symbolically, that is the way it was intended to be read. On the other hand, if a symbolic reading makes no sense, but a literal one does, then the text can be interpreted literally.

I would suggest, therefore, that the seven trumpets of Revelation (Revelation 8-11) should probably be normally read in a symbolic way. Not only does the introduction to Revelation suggest a symbolic approach, but the seals and the trumpets also have specifying information which points to a figurative approach (Rev 8:8; 9:7,17). And a symbolic reading makes sense within the world that John was living in. A literal reading, by way of contrast, is rather challenging to make sense of. You can learn more about my approach to the trumpets from my book Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets and my article entitled Interpreting the Seven Trumpets. Both of these documents are available on the CD of my books and articles available at the shopping area of this web site.

But what about the bowl plagues? Could they be taken symbolically? The opening verse of the book certainly allows for that. So when I look at the first four bowls symbolically I see the following. Figuratively, the plagues could represent the consequences that come as a result of sin, what in the Hebrew Bible is called the curses of the covenant. The boils could represent the suffering caused by sin. The waters turning to blood could represent the suffering of the wicked under the judgments of God. The scorching sun could symbolize the intensified glare of God’s Word as it points out sin and calls for judgment on those who oppose God. But these interpretations seem forced and speculative. When reading these texts in the Greek, you get the impression that something more direct and literal is in view. If a symbolic reading does not bring convincing clarity to the meaning of the text and a literal reading does, the literal reading is to be preferred, but this would be the exception in Revelation, not the rule.

If you take the first four bowl plagues literally, they represent the terrible physical and emotional experience of the last generation of the wicked. God’s restraining hand is removed from the actions of Satan. Wars increase and crime and instability are rampant. Diseases get out of control and no amount of medical or pharmaceutical remedy seems able to stem the tide. The weather goes haywire, producing extremes of heat, wind and rain. Strange chemical changes produce water that is corrosive and undrinkable. This, as you say, is roughly the way most Seventh-day Adventists read Rev 16:1-8.

While it is not certain on the basis of the text whether the literal or the symbolic reading was intended, the evidence of the text inclines me toward a spiritual reading. The symbolic reading is not particularly fruitful theologically. And a literal reading is certainly plausible in terms of the ecological threats that many people perceive lie just ahead for those who live on the earth. But a truly literal reading has its challenges as well. For example, even some sort of universal war would have to produce casualties beyond imagination to turn all the waters of the ocean bloody red.

So the question cannot be decisively answered on the evidence of Revelation itself. But a literal reading would seem to be the more likely.

        

I recently returned from a speaking engagement in Guam, a beautiful island in the Western Pacific. There I met Steve. Steve is the owner and manager of the best-known beach club on the island. He offers visitors waterfront experiences like jet skiing, parasailing, dolphin watching and snorkling. About three years ago he became convicted that the Sabbath (Saturday) was still binding on Christians like himself. But he realized that Saturday was the busiest day of the week for his business. And Saturday was also the day when people signed up for Sunday, the second busiest day. So he would be losing the two biggest revenue days every week and he was already millions of dollars in debt. It was likely that it if he closed on Sabbath his business would go bankrupt and he would have to let all of his employees go. He reasoned that it was not fair to them to be so heavily affected by his own personal decision.

But under the conviction of the Spirit he decided to trust God and close his business on Sabbaths. Informing the major beach hotels of his decision, he received only derision and a complete cut-off of their business, and they had been the source of most of his business! Nevertheless, he moved ahead. That Friday night, he closed the business, turned the lights out and left the answering machine on. That Sabbath was the worst weather Guam had seen in some time! When he checked the phone on Saturday night he was amazed to find scores of reservations for Sunday, far above the norm! This weather pattern continued every weekend for six months. Sabbath was terrible and Sunday was beautiful. With the Christian spirit of service and caring concern for people filtering down through his employees, his beach club not only did not fail, it became the dominant player in the market! I saw this with my own eyes. There were long lines of people waiting to get on Steve’s boats, other boats were half empty. It was a touching reminder to me that God is real and he honors those who risk all in faith.

But what if his business had failed? What if he had gone bankrupt? Steve is still convinced that the only way to happiness and peace is through the gospel of Jesus Christ and through a response to that gospel that includes full obedience to all of God’s commandments. Steve feels that it is better to have nothing in this world than to lose what you have in Christ. This was the kind of spirit manifested by the martyrs of the past. Steve’s commitment is the kind of commitment called for at the end of time, according to the Book of Revelation (Rev 13:15-17). So Steve has gotten a taste, not only of end-time gospel commitment, but of the power of a creator God to make something out of nothing (Rev 14:7)!

        

I’m a little worried these days. I live in a house that’s completely paid for and there is also some income from an apartment on the lower floor. If something were to happen to me, my wife could probably survive quite well on less than a thousand dollars a month, if she had to. But there is a problem with this secure picture. My house is in southwestern Michigan, where housing is relatively cheap. But I’ve just accepted the position of Dean of the Faculty of Religion at Loma Linda University in Southern California. Our comfortable Michigan home will barely provide a down payment on a similar house in Southern California. And while Loma Linda is being very fair with us in light of this reality, the change has introduced a large element of risk for us financially. We will need a huge mortgage in order to get by. It is as if we were starting all over again financially, as a family.

This situation has reinforced for me the reason that I worry. I don’t worry a whole lot about the past. It’s over and I can’t do anything about it (I respect the fact that some readers, on account of abuse or trauma, may find the past a lot harder to shake). I also don’t worry too much about the present. God has been good to me and my family, and I’ve learned to trust that He will take care of us from day to day. When I worry, it is because I don’t know the future. I find it harder to trust in God when I don’t have immediate evidence of how things will turn out. For me, worry is grounded in my inability to know the future.

Daniel, the biblical prophet, had every reason to worry about the future. For forty years he was a hostage in Babylon. As a young man, he had been taken from his home, his family, his temple (and by implication his God), and his land. For forty years he watched as his God communicated with his captor, King Nebuchadnezzar. God seemed to have forsaken him and his people. And the future looked equally bleak. It was in this context that God came to him at night (Dan 7:1) and gave him a dream/vision based on the creation story (Genesis 1-2).

As in the original creation (Gen 1:2) the vision began with a stormy sea over which a wind (spirit) blew, stirring up the waters (Dan 7:2). Then animals came into view (Gen 2:19-20; Dan 7:3-7). Then a "son of man" appeared, who had dominion over the animals (Gen 1:26, 28; Dan 7:13-14). Daniel 7 echos the language of Genesis 1 and 2. In the original creation Adam was given dominion over the animals in the garden (Gen 1:26-28; 2:20). That story is the model for the vision of Daniel 7, but in Daniel the animals represent the nations or empires that were hurting or would hurt Daniel and his people in the course of history.

The message to Daniel was clear. God was telling him that just as Adam had dominion over the animals in the original creation, His "son of man," when he came, would have dominion over the nations that were hurting Daniel and hurting his people. In other words, God was telling Daniel that He was still in control. Even though things seemed totally out of control, God was still in control. And since He is a loving and caring God, he would not allow Daniel to suffer more than he could handle (1 Cor 10:13).

The core message of apocalyptic prophecy is that God is in control, even when things seem out of control. But apocalyptic takes it one better. Not only was God in control of the past, not only is God in control of the present, apocalyptic tells us that God is also in control of the future. And if He is in control of the future of the nations, then He is also in control of my future. I can trust my home, my family and my job to His care.

I guess that’s what I love about biblical apocalyptic. With all of its weirdness and challenging symbols there is an underlying sense of confidence that God can be trusted in everything, even in the future. I kind of needed to remind myself of these things just now. If I make this move in response to His leading, I can trust Him to manage the risk. What about you?

        

A very helpful comment by Jarrod challenges me to consider the unintended consequences of biblical scholarship. He writes, "Are scholars, such as yourself, who are critically re-evaluating our traditional approach to interpreting Revelation (historicism), and are finding significant deficiencies, . . . doing due diligence and preparing the church at large for the can of worms that will be opened?" He goes on to note that my work, for him, has revealed flaws in his former thinking and, so to speak, "tossed the chips of his faith into the air" and he has no idea where they will fall.

His response cost me a little sleep (but it was a fruitful "tossing and turning)" as I think he raises a valid point that needs to be addressed and I will try to begin that process here and now. But before I do, let me briefly address the issue of "historicism" for those unfamiliar with the term. Historicism is an approach to Revelation that sees the whole book as offering a prediction of the 2000-year history of the Christian church. I will be posting articles which address issues related to this. For now, let me just say that historicism as an approach, rightly handled, has great strengths that make it the preferred approach, in my opinion. But the approach has, in the past, led to such chaos of interpretation that mainstream biblical scholars have come to reject it wholesale (see the four-volume Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by LeRoy Froom for multiple examples of this "chaos"). It has been one of my missions in life to help restore the strength of the historicist approach to the interpretation of Revelation without returning to the excesses of the past. Stay tuned to this site for more.

Why is biblical and exegetical scholarship troubling at times? Because the exegetical scholar has two contrasting roles within the church. The process of exegesis (seeking to determine what the original author was trying to say– see my book The Deep Things of God, chapter three, for details) does not necessarily clear up all issues or bring scholars into agreement. Rather, it helps scholars see what is clear in the Bible and what is unclear. There are some things in the Bible that are clear on the surface and all honest readers will agree on them. But there are other things, many other things actually, that are not clear, even after due diligence has been done in attempting to understand.

Here are the two contrasting roles of biblical scholars. Their first role is to clear up issues in the Bible that were unclear before. By studying the original languages and understanding the original context, many troubling issues can be cleared up and the Bible can speak more powerfully and more authoritatively to today’s world. This role of scholarship is a popular one. People praise biblical scholars for helping them gain clarity in their understanding of the Word of God. People praise scholars for exposing powerful evidence that their previous opinions about the Bible were correct.

But the second role is not so popular. There are times when biblical scholars confront things that everyone (in a particular group at least) thought were clear in the Bible but are really not. When you take the "clear" teachings of the Bible and demonstrate that they are not so clear, you become a lightning rod for criticism and disapproval. The dustbin of history is filled with the remains of scholars who "spoke too soon" or troubled the saints regarding pop interpretations. No one likes to find out that they were mistaken, or even deluded. Many of the martyrs of the Inquisition died for this very reason. So honest, evidence-based biblical scholarship has consequences, many of them unintended, as Jarrod points out.

As a result, biblical scholars in service of the faith must walk a fine line, maintaining integrity before God and before the evidence, on the one hand, while respecting that "tossing the chips in the air" can cost some people their faith. Biblical scholars must be accountable for the consequences, intended or unintended, of their work. At the same time, the wider church must not become so arrogant that it is incapable of correction.

Yes, scholarship does open up "cans of worms" that can trouble the saints. And it is a grave responsibility to do so. On this site I will try to raise issues responsibly and explore the possible consequences of following the evidence. When reader responses make it clear that I have missed the mark or unintentionally damaged people’s faith, I will do my best to correct misunderstanding and admit error. No faith that is based on error or fanciful speculation will bring glory to God. On the other hand, genuine faith is worth holding onto, even if based in part on erroneous opinions. I will try on this site to be gentle with "the Lambs" in the faith while pointing toward an evidence-based faith that can stand the test of time. I believe the Bible is a safe guide. I will be learning as I go. I invite Jarrod and others to walk with me on this journey.

        

We extend our warmest welcome to all our visitors.  We hope you will stop back often.  Please consider subscribing to the blog so that you will not miss any of Jon Paulien's posts.   We welcome all of your questions, comments, and suggestions.  While Dr Paulien may not have the time to answer each question that is posted here, he does take each question, comment, and suggestion to heart as he prepares for future topics and posts. Feel free to post them right here.

        

My cat Baby was thirsty one day. There was nothing in the water dish. Instead of asking for a fresh serving Baby remembered there was an unlimited and renewable supply of fresh water in the bathroom toilet. So he made his way there and, perching precariously on the lid, craned his neck to the fullest extent, barely reaching the surface of his water with his tongue. (My apologies to all readers who gross out easily) An instant later a back paw slipped and Baby plunged totally beneath the waves! This was not the outcome he desired! He was a victim of the law of unintended consequences. Basically the law works something like this: Whenever you act in a way that seems to be completely favorable to you and those you love, you can count on negative outcomes that are rarely foreseeable when you start out. This law is constantly at work in the realm of politics as well as everyday life.

In World War II the allies had their hands full with Hitler’s Germany. On the principle of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" they decided to do business with the unsavory Josef Stalin, Premier of the Soviet Union. They provided aid to Stalin in the form of food, weapons, intelligence and technical assistance. And while the Soviet army was an absolutely essential part of the victory over Hitler, this alliance of convenience strengthened the Soviet Union immeasurably and gave Stalin de facto control over more than half of Europe. The unintended consequence of this alliance was the Cold War standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States. The ally in one conflict became the enemy in the next.

The law of unintended consequences played itself out again in events leading up to September 11. The War on Terror actually began in Afghanistan in the late 1970s. A primary focus of American policy in the 1970s was containing the Soviet Union by encircling it with a system of alliances from the northern shore of Norway to the Bering Strait. But the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 threatened to break this encirclement. The leaders of the American military concluded that they did not have sufficient forces to prevent the Soviets from moving all the way to the Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf. So President Carter authorized the CIA to encourage and support Afghan guerillas to harass Soviet troops in Afghanistan and keep them pinned down there.

But Congress was in no mood to appropriate extra funding for the CIA, whose reputation had recently taken a beating. So the Americans approached the Saudis about funding the covert war in Afghanistan. They passed the buck to some wealthy, private families who contributed vast sums to the project. The largest and wealthiest of these families had come to be known as (can you guess it?) the "bin Laden" family. So President Carter presided over the creation of an international army of Islamic fundamentalists. And the Republican presidents who followed him continued the policy until the Soviet Union collapsed.

Enter September 11. In the aftermath of the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the White House was searching for a way to "divide and conquer" the islamic world. A natural fault line beckoned, the division between Shiite and Sunni. The Shiites are the majority in Iran and Iraq, the Sunnis dominate most other places. So by siding with the Shiites in Iraq President Bush felt that the U.S. could win points with the minority while keeping the Sunni jihadists off balance. A Shiite-dominated government in Iraq was the inevitable and predictable result of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (a nominal Sunni).

Unintended consequence number one: The Sunnis did not take their disenfranchisement lightly, leading to an insurgency that has prevented America or the new Iraqi government from getting control over the situation in Iraq.

Unintended consequence number two: Al Qaeda entered the fray, but instead of primarily attacking US forces, the jihadists attacked Shiite mosques, restaurants and community centers. This led the Shiites to retaliate, leading to the spiraling cycle of violence and virtual civil war that we see in Iraq today. And the US Army is caught in the middle, trying to defend Iraqis of all persuasions from the various jihadists, militias and even their own government.

Unintended consequence number three: Sunni allies of the United States, like Jordan and Saudi Arabia are increasingly alarmed by the rising power of Iran. While regretting the strain on the United States that the Sunni insurgency creates, they feel that the Iraqi Sunnis are their best hope to keep the United States from cutting a deal with Iran to settle things in Iraq in a way that turns Iraq into a client state of Iran after the US forces leave.

The result is a mess. The Iraqi Sunnis never wanted the United States there in the first place, but now they are afraid of what Iran and the Shiite militias will do to their people if the US leaves. The Shiites and their Iranian allies were happy that the United States removed Saddam from power, but fear that the US will cut a deal with the Sunnis to block Shiite ambitions and now want the US to leave. The United States wants to go, but fears that leaving will put either the Iranians or the jihadists in charge of Iraq leaving America with a much worse situation than was the case when Saddam was in power. Meanwhile the Jordanians, Egyptians and Saudis fear that a spiraling cycle of Sunni-Shiite civil war will engulf Lebanon and the Palestinian territories as well as Iraq. And there is an even more nameless fear lurking; the Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia itself is largely clustered around the eastern oil fields. . .

Unintended consequences! How does the Bush administration get out of this mess without making itself more vulnerable to terrorist acts on the US mainland? Whatever the Iraq Study Group advises, the US administration will no doubt explore searching out new allies, like Iran, the Iraqi Sunnis, perhaps even al Qaeda itself (at a very covert level if at all). But whatever action the United States takes to extricate itself from this jam, remember that unintended consequences will eventually come.

Sin is a lot like that. It looks right. A beautiful client or secretary that needs to counsel with you about problems at home. An extra large house or more luxurious car that meets your needs, an attractive opportunity to get your name in lights. To take best advantage of the opportunity you let your boundaries slip just a little. It feels good. It feels right. But what Hollywood never tells you is that the sins of pride, lust, greed and power always lead to unintended consequences.

I know my cats and I are trying to learn this lesson. . .

        

      The purpose of this web site is to provide sane, evidence-based information about the Bible's Book of Revelation in the context of the exciting times in which we live. The primary owner and author of the site is Jon Paulien, a professor of New Testament at Andrews University and a specialist in the Book of Revelation. The blogs posted on this site will include studies of particular texts in Revelation and also exploring issues of interpretation and how the Book of Revelation impacts today's world and how today's world impacts the way we study Revelation.
      A companion web site is also under construction. It is thebattleofarmageddon.com. That site will focus particularly on the End-time scenarios of Revelation. It will include devotionals based on the Book of Revelation and an online store where visitors can eventually purchase materials that include audio and video lectures on Revelation and DVD video presentations.
      It is my hope that both sites will be active by the first of January, 2007. Check back by the first of the year and then visit over and over again as new content is added. If you have suggestions about issues I should address in my blogs, feel free to write.

Best wishes,

Jon Paulien