Spectrum Articles

Poking Gentle Fun: An Adventist Caricaturist on His Work

Alita Byrd — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 04:39:23 -0700

An anonymous blogger has begun posting caricatures of famous Adventists online. He's taking requests, so think about who you would like to see in a slightly different light!

Question: Your blog shows caricatures of well-known Adventists, both living and dead. Are you making fun of the people you depict?

Answer: Successful caricatures do two things: they exaggerate and distort reality and they maintain a recognizable likeness of the subject. My caricatures and the accompanying descriptions gently poke fun in the way that editorial cartoons do. My aim is to exaggerate the contours of Adventism, maintaining the reality, while stretching it just slightly to bring out the lighter side of our faith community.

Q: What is the purpose of your caricatures? What do you hope to accomplish by posting them on your blog?

A: Sometimes I get the feeling that Adventism takes itself way too seriously. If we're not busy keeping the law, we're noting how others break it.

And if we're not concerned with legalism, we're busy getting ready for that great waking up morning. And if not that, then perhaps trying to increase tithe giving and membership and evangelistic efforts and on and on. But in the process, we don't seem to be giving "fun" a fair shake, a lot of the time. I want to give levity a voice. And frankly, the Give & Take page of the Adventist Review doesn't always get the job done for me. Besides all that, I need some sort of artistic outlet or I drive my poor spouse nuts!

Q: When did you start your blog? What gave you the idea?

A: I started the blog a few months ago on a whim more than anything else. I had drawn some half humorous pictures of some people from my church including pastoral staff.

Then I tried doing James and Ellen just for fun. One thing led to another... I began posting online, and next thing you know, it's an honest-to-goodness blog.

Q: How long have you been drawing caricatures? What artistic training do you have?

A: I did my first editorial cartoon in fourth grade. I copied a caricature from Newsweek depicting Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, and Ross Perot. I think it had something to do with a school project, but I don't know what happened to it.

I've secretly always wanted to be an artist, particularly an editorial cartoonist. But when I let the secret out, my mother told me that I couldn't make a living as an artist, and that there is a reason they're all starving. So I did a religion major instead. I'll probably wind up starving anyhow...

I've only taken two real art classes. One was in painting, the other drawing. Other than that, I am self taught. My eyes are easily persuaded by good art. I learn a lot by looking at good art.

Q: How long does it take you to draw an average caricature? Do you draw from several pictures, or do you usually use just one to caricature?

A: It takes me anywhere from 30 minutes to three hours to complete most of my caricatures. I usually draw an outline on my sketch pad, take a photo of it, upload it to my computer, and colorize it digitally.

The most recent post, of James White, I did using modeling clay - a first foray into the world of sculpting. I really like three dimensional caricatures and I could definitely get into sculpting my characters.

When I make the drawings, I like having as many photos as possible to round out the features of my subject. But if I can only find one photo (there is only one picture of Samuele Bacchiocchi in all of cyber space!), then I use what I have.

Q: Why do you post your caricatures anonymously?

A: Well, it has to do with that taking-ourselves-too-seriously bit. I have a friend who liked to quote Ellen White to me whenever I'd say or do something offbeat, trying to be funny. Something about jesting and joking behind the sacred desk, and that it was not good.

I know several Adventists for whom that attitude applies to everything. Anonymity allows me the chance to say what I will without worrying that people will start sending me angry letters. It happened to me once when I wrote for my college's humor page. Angry letters, a lecture from the dean. It was the humor page, for pete's sake. I wrote a story saying that the new wing of the dorm would be co-ed, as an incentive for more people to live in it. Evidently, it wasn't that funny.

I don't know. Maybe I am just being a wimp. Maybe I'll go public one of these days. After all, the feedback I've received from people on the blog has been positive. Nobody telling me to become a Presbyterian or anything like that.

Q: What do you do in your day job?

A: Well I'll tell you one thing: my mom was right about artists and making a living. I'm currently a student.

Q: How would you characterize your relationship with Adventism? Are you a life-long Adventist?

A: I am a seventeenth generation Adventist. Or might as well be. I have Adventist roots on both sides that go way down into SDA soil. And you know what happens when you start looking at roots - you find all the mud. But as my pastor once put it, you can find something nourishing and life-giving there too.

I have a pretty good relationship with Adventism. Aside from a few years during that awkward teenage phase when I didn't have a good relationship with anything, I have appreciated being a part of the Adventist community, and I hope that my little niche in Adventism will be part of its becoming an even better community.

Q: What makes you different than other Adventist artists? What role do you think art plays in the Church?

A: I am no Harry Anderson or Lars Justinen. Their ability and style are an entirely different caliber. But like the many young artists in Adventism, I feel that there is a way in which art can say things - important things - that even long and well-written articles cannot say.

Art speaks a language that is often better than speech, in my humble opinion. Most people have seen at least one piece of art that speaks to them that way.

I certainly hope that Adventism will find an increasingly prominent role for art and artists.

Q: What kind of feedback have you got on your caricatures? Have you heard from any of the people you have depicted? Do you let them know when you have posted an image of them?

A: The only person I told specifically was Jose Rojas. I'm not exactly sure why him. I've heard him speak in public, and he seemed very approachable even though it was in a very large auditorium full of people. And wouldn't you know it - he wrote me a note. A brief note but a kind one.

I also got a response from Julius Nam - also a gracious response. Aside from those two, none of the others have responded.

But I did notice that one of the viewers was from the church headquarters in Silver Springs. Data tracking software tells me all sorts of interesting things.

Q: How do you decide which people to draw? Are you worried you might run out of famous Adventists?

A: If I ever do run out of "famous" Adventists, there are several million lesser known Adventists as well.

I've begun taking requests on the blog. If people want to see a certain someone Adventist made into a caricature, I want to hear about it. I've gotten several requests now for Alexander Carpenter.

Q: Which is your favorite caricature so far?

A: That's a tough question. It's like asking a mom which of her kids she likes the best. They're all precious in their own way. Even the one in which I compare Joseph Bates to Smeagol and Abraham Lincoln. Or John Harvey Kellogg with Colonel Sanders.

Q: What challenges do you think Adventism will face in the next decade?

A: The first thing that comes to mind is relevance. I think there are a few people in the Adventist church who have not yet received the memo that society, particularly in the United States, has far outpaced the way we do things as a church.

We're a modernist church in a postmodern world, but sometimes we're talking with a pre-modern voice. That is going to be less and less effective. And it shows in membership statistics.

But I am very impressed by people who are innovative in their outreach and creative in their ministry. Not just for the sake of mimicking culture, as if culture is the thing that guides us, but rather continuing to dialogue with and relate to a rapidly changing culture.

In 10 years, we're not going to be able to get away with doing mark-of-the-beast crusades if we hope to continue speaking relevantly. But thankfully, there are lots of people who have caught on!

Q: Is there anything else important you would like to tell us?

A: Can you imagine a church in which sanctified humor was justified? I say humor is as Adventist as veggie apple pie. Or CHIP-approved, no-sugar-added apple pie made by the Micheff sisters for a live audience on 3ABN during an evangelistic campaign.

Humor and art. Two things Adventism could use more of. And more apple pie, please.

See the Spectrum Blog entry on the caricatures here.

Keep an eye on the caricaturist’s blog and find out the story behind the "SDA Incorporated" drawing at http://sdacaricatures.blogspot.com

Are “Sabbathers” Jews or Christians?

David Larson — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:08:47 -0700

In this column I hope to elaborate an idea that surfaced in Alex Carpenter’s recent blog on “Sabbathing” and in the excellent comments that followed it. This is that celebrating Sabbath can be a powerful and much needed Christian affirmation of Judaism, on the one hand, and disaffirmation of religious coercion, on the other. Chuck Scriven, Monte Sahlin and probably others expressed themselves along these lines. I would like to join them without implying that all of us agree about everything.

In at least two overlapping ways, our situation today is almost exactly opposite to the one the Apostle Paul faced. One of these is that he contended for the full inclusion of Gentiles as first-class citizens in a religious context that was more or less Jewish. The responsibility of many of us today is to press for the full inclusion of Jews as first class citizens in a religious context that is more or less Christian. This is one difference. The other is that the first Christians possessed no cultural or political power, whereas today we often exercise much. Paul’s basic principle remains the same: full inclusion; however, in our time its application often flows in the opposite direction.

Two more Christian realities have made our situation especially challenging. One of these is the longstanding doctrine of supersessionism. According to this ugly distortion of Scripture, now that Christianity is on the scene Judaism has no continuing theological legitimacy. The other is Constantinianism. As it is often used today, this term does not refer merely to what the Roman emperor Constantine did in the fourth century after Jesus Christ but also to the political or cultural hegemony Christianity has exercised in Western culture ever since.

Martin Luther, the sixteenth-century German who revolted against Roman Catholicism, did not reject its supersessionism and Constantinianism. He was exceedingly hostile toward the Jewish people and his cause is remembered today as the “Magisterial Reformation” because various regions in Europe either remained Roman Catholic or became Protestant according to what their rulers—magistrates chose. This was true of many of the other Protestant reformers as well, the chief exception being the Anabaptists and other participants in the Radical Reformation.

Luther’s supersessionism and Constantinianism merged in what is one of the most regrettable things any Christian has ever written. Published in 1543, titled On the Jews and their Lies, and easily available on the Internet, its aim was to prevent German Christians from being seduced by Judaism. Often coarse and crude, in this little book Luther outdid himself in rhetorical intemperance. These are his final sentences:

My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews' malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.

Many historians agree that it is not altogether surprising that the Holocaust took place in Martin Luther’s Germany. But it was not only Lutherans who looked the other way. Many Christians of all sorts—including Seventh-day Adventists—did the same. And it was not only Germany that was at fault. Although they knew what was going on, many nations, including the United States, chose not to get involved until it was virtually too late.

By the twentieth century, the evil brew of supersessionism and Constantinianism had become so potent and pervasive that millions of innocent men, women, and children—primarily Jews but many others, as well—were tortured and murdered in one of the most prominent centers of Christian culture without meaningful outcries from within or without.

We have to take this very, very seriously. It is not credible in our time to be Christians of any sort as though the Holocaust never occurred or that the lethal combination supersessionism and Constantinianism did not make major contributions to what went so horrible wrong. This is why in ecumenical theological circles today both are undergoing the process of severe “deconstruction.” They are being demolished and replaced with better ideas and practices so that we can truly say “never again!”

Although there is still much theological work to do, already there is virtual agreement about one thing. This is that it is possible to be Jewish and not Christian, but it is not possible to be Christian and not Jewish. As a matter of firm theological principle, many Christian thinkers today who are not Seventh-day Adventists hold that even to ask whether we are Jewish or Christian is to pose the question about their relationship in a profoundly unacceptable way.

We know that we have asked that question. We know what our answers have been. We know where they have led. And we know that we are not going to leave open the slightest possibility of going there again. The stakes are just too high.

In this context, “Sabbathers” have something to offer the larger Christian world, which is looking for powerful ways to reconnect Judaism and Christianity. As many have noted, it is a good idea to rest and to reflect on a regular basis and this can be done on any day of the week with equal value. But to celebrate Sabbath when the Jews in all their particularity—some would say peculiarity—do so is to make two very powerful statements. One of these is that, as the Apostle Paul clearly states (Rom. 11:17–24), Christianity is a branch that is grafted into the living tree of Judaism. The other is that every attempt to use the coercive power of government to enforce purely religious observances is anathema.

Despite our continuing interest in chronology, some of us who are current or former Seventh-day Adventists have terrible timing. Just when the circumstances are right for us to make a contribution in the area of abstinence from drinking alcoholic beverages and eating meat, we decide that these are embarrassingly old-fashioned. Likewise, just when the situation is ripe for us to help Christianity in its eager desire to free itself from the horrors of supersessionism and Constantinianism, we decide that “Sabbathing” is “too Jewish” and “too legalistic.”

How funny! How sad!

David Larson teaches in the School of Religion at Loma Linda University.

Weimar Academy and College Get a “New Start”

Alexander Carpenter — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:00:32 -0700

Amazing Facts News Release July 1, 2008

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. The Amazing Facts and Weimar boards have voted to keep the renowned Weimar Academy and College open this coming school year.

Early in 2008, Weimar College faced a serious financial shortfall that handicapped its ongoing basic operations. With great reluctance, the acting Weimar board voted to cease the operations of the college. However, soon after, a miraculous agreement was reached to join Weimar with Amazing Facts.

Now, the recent partnership has provided Weimar Institute with a bright new future for these important centers of education.

Says Pastor Doug Batchelor, president of Amazing Facts, “Both Weimar Academy and College are incredible centers of learning. Nestled in one of the most beautiful North American locations, we want to give these vital institutions the capacity to grow and be at their best, so more students can experience the superior practical, spiritual, and health education that flows from these halls. Adventists must do all we can to keep life-defining education centers strong.”

Currently, initial renovations of buildings and the final hiring of new staff are under way for both the college and academy.

In addition, during the first semester of 2008, the Amazing Facts College of Evangelism (AFCOE) will offer its four-month training course and a general studies program. Weimar College, in step with a growing number of Adventist higher-learning institutions, is now accepting AFCOE hours as course credit.

In another exciting development, one-year certificate programs in pastoral ministry and health evangelism, including massage and hydrotherapy, will be offered beginning in January of 2009. Those completing these programs will have the option of continuing on with degrees that will further prepare them to be effective in service to God and man. Plus, missionary preparedness training and Christian media ministry will be offered as concentrated areas of study.

According to Don Mackintosh, Weimar’s interim academic director, “Great excitement and anticipation is in the air! If current requests for applications at AFCOE-to-Go [a short-term evangelism training course to] are any indication, we are very encouraged about future growth! We had to move the previous class from the planned location in the college building to the newly renovated chapel to make sure we had enough space!”

Finally, Pastor Batchelor adds, “The future of Weimar is one full of unlimited possibilities. With the partnership of the academy and college, along with the world-famous NEWSTART, which is growing and going strong, it can become a powerful force in reaching people, body and soul, for the kingdom of God and training an army of ministry-minded workers.”

For Such a Time as This: The Apostle Paul

Carlos E. Espinosa — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:47:51 -0700

The Apostle Paul had a powerful impact in the world known for its time, bringing Christianity beyond the geographical confines of Israel. His life and ministry is a model for our current mission. (The Sabbath School Bible Study Guide)

The Christian message of Paul is certainly different from that of Jesus. It could not have been otherwise, because Paul was not Jesus. Furthermore, Paul lived in different circumstances. Jesus moved into Jewish lands and spoke mainly to Jews; Paul, however, mainly preached to Gentiles.

Paul had deep Jewish roots and was proud of it (Phil.3 :4–6). He was a Jew from birth; he had been "circumcised on the eighth day." He could trace his family tree, arriving at its roots, even Israel itself. His family came from the tribe of Benjamin, which had given Israel its first king. He spoke Hebrew. He was a Pharisee (the most nationalist and traditional party), and a son of a Pharisee. He was perfectly obedient to the Law of Moses, to the point of being "faultless." And if that were not enough, he had persecuted the church of Jesus with ferocious and active zeal.

But his personal encounter with Jesus altered his paradigm.1 His worldview had been transformed. He had changed from his fanatic Phariseeism. He became convinced that Jesus was the Messiah for which he and Israel had waited for centuries. This meant, firstly, that the Jewish community of followers of Jesus—of which he was a representative— were really Jews "in the interior," and not superficially (Rom. 2:28–29). Secondly, it meant that non-Jews who followed Jesus had been "grafted in the good olive" (Rom. 11:17, 24), namely, the people of the covenant, Israel.

I think the first point that we should take from Paul as a model for our current mission is our way of understanding the Jewish people. In this regard, we must change our paradigm. We have become accustomed to repeating, without reflection or criticism, that God rejected Israel. This is totally opposite to what Paul taught. "Has God rejected his people? In no way, because I am Jewish, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin" (Rom. 11:1). There should be no doubt that Paul refers in this text to the Jewish nation, to "ethnic Israel," and not to so-called "spiritual Israel," as can be seen when the previous verse speaks of "Israel…rebel and contradictor people" (10:21). Leaving no doubt that he refers to his Jewish nationality according to the flesh, Paul identifies himself as coming from the tribe of Benjamin; he was a descendant of Abraham.

For Paul, the Christian church is not an entity separate from Judaism, nor its replacement. For the apostle, God made the New Covenant to the Jews who believed in Jesus, who numbered several thousands (Acts 2:41; 4:4, 21:20), and "Gentiles" who had been "grafted" to Israel. If we share the vision of Paul, our mission regarding the Jews will not be derogatory or boasting (see Rom. 11:18). Although we may not be Jewish—and we may not feel the same love for his nation as did Paul (Rom. 9:3)—our attitude toward the Jews should be one of humility and gratitude.

The second way in which we should take Paul as a model refers to his nonsectarian attitude. For those baptized in Christ, "there is no longer Jew or Greek" (Gal. 3:28), Paul wrote. Obviously, ethnic differences do exist; however, they do not matter to God. Gender differences are not important, either: "there is no male nor female." Privileges of any kind that put a man above the women—in society and the church—violate this principle. The same applies to social differences: "There is no slave nor free"—we are all one in Christ Jesus.

The implications of this teaching are of central importance. "Equality, fraternity, and liberty" should have prompted the Church to transform the world long before the French Revolution started to do so. Furthermore, the change could have been done based on Christian principles, based on love for humanity and its Creator.

To obtain this nonsectarian perspective, Paul had to recognize the spirit that moved Christ. When he understood that “Christ died for everyone," he realized that he could not maintain an attitude of fanatic denominational exclusivity. His physical blindness, which was a product of the encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, probably made him think about his stubborn spiritual blindness. Then he ceased persecuting and devoted himself to preaching Christ crucified for our sins and resurrected for our glory.

As Seventh-day Adventists, it will not be easy for us to abandon our denominational exclusivity. Nor will it be easy for us to abandon traditions that call for us to follow the teaching of the Bible strictly. But if we decide to follow the example of Paul, as written and not as we interpret it to favor our tradition, it is possible that scales will fall from our eyes and we will have a powerful impact in our world. Otherwise, this Sabbath School lesson will be simply one of many that accommodate us as we feed our self-righteousness.

Notes and References

1. In 1962, Thomas S. Kuhn published his classic book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which he stated that, from time to time, certain discoveries have revolutionized knowledge in the scientific community, which have required profound changes in assumptions, theories, methods, scientific language, and so forth. Kuhn called these changes "paradigm shifts." Upon discovering Jesus, Saul of Tarsus became Paul, which also changed his understanding of reality.

Carlos Enrique Espinosa writes from Argentina. He holds a doctor of philosophy from Andrews University and is a professor of theology and philosophy.

On the Ten Rules of Friendship

David Larson — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:22:06 -0700

That the first law of friendship is, they must neither ask of their friend what is Undecent; nor grant it if themselves be asked.
Let no man choose him for his friend whom it shall be possible for him ever after to hate; for though the society may justly be interrupted, yet love is an immortal thing; and I will never despise him I could once think worthy of my love.
There are two things which a friend can never pardon, a treacherous blow, and the revealing of a secret, because they are against the nature of friendships; they are the adulteries of it, and dissolve the Union.
Never accuse thy friend, nor believe him that does; if thou dost, thou has broken the skin; but he that is angry with every little fault breaks the bones of friendship.
Give thy friend counsel wisely and charitably, but leave him to his liberty whether he will follow thee, or no; and be not angry if thy counsel be rejected: for, advice is no Empire, and he is not my friend that will be my Judge, whether I will or not.
Never be a Judge between thy friends in any matter where both set their hearts upon the victory: if strangers or enemies be litigants, whatever side thou favourest, thou gettest a friend; but when friends are the parties, thou losest one.
Never comport thyself so, as that thy friend can be afraid of thee.…No man is a friend to a Tyrant; but that friendship is Tyranny, where the love is changed into fear, equality into empire, society into obedience; for then all my kindnesses to him also will be no better than flattery.
When you admonish your friend, let it be without bitterness; when you chide him, let it be without reproach; when you praise him let it be with worthy purposes, and for just causes, and in friendly measures.
When all things else are equal, prefer an old friend before a new.…An old friend is like old wine, which when a man hath drunk he doth not desire new, because he saith that the old is better.
After all this, treat thy friend nobly, love to be with him, do to him all the worthinesses of love and fair endearment, according to thy capacity and his; bear with his infirmities till they approach being criminal; but never dissemble with him, never despise him, never leave him.

From The Measures and Offices of Friendship

To begin reading about Jeremy Taylor, please click here.

David Larson teaches in the School of Religion at Loma Linda University.

How to Wait for the Second Coming

Tom Dybdahl — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:27:58 -0700

The sky grew brighter and brighter. The earth seemed to shake, and people were rushing about wildly. I didn’t know whether to run or stand still. And then it hit me: This was IT. This was the Second Coming of Jesus.

I wanted to be glad, but instead I was terribly afraid. The light got even brighter, until I could see nothing around me. I heard shouts of joy, but none of them were mine. I tried to speak, but I could make only a croaking sound. Then everything went black. And then I woke up.

This happened several times with variations when I was young. Only one aspect of the dreams was constant. I never knew whether I was saved or lost. I knew only uncertainty, fear, and then the waking.

Seventh-day Adventists live with the Second Coming. It invades our sleeping as well as our waking. Perhaps you have looked up at a clear sky and seen a small white cloud—it the size of a man’s hand?—and watched, wondering. What will it be like? Could this be it…? Or maybe driving on a day with heavy, dark clouds, you have seen shafts of sunlight stream through and thought: Will it look like that? And along with the fascination has there not been at least a twinge of fear?

The one indisputable fact is that it hasn’t happened yet. Jesus has not returned. We believe God’s promise is true. We live in the hope of the Second Coming. We pray that it will be soon. But still we wait, and we cannot continue to simply ignore the questions and doubts.

Then there are the signs. It is always easy to just say that they hadn’t been sufficiently fulfilled as yet. But that doesn’t harmonize with our belief that the primary signs have already been fulfilled—that this was the time of the end, that Christ’s return was "just around the corner."

If we would understand the value and meaning of the signs of Christ’s coming, we could continue to maintain their validity without embarrassment. The signs are not given to enable us to construct a chronological timetable of events preceding Christ’s Second Advent. If this were possible, it would only serve to insure that many of us would wait until the last possible minute to prepare. It is precisely because we think we have this kind of timetable already that we can grow apathetic in the face of signs. (After all, the Sunday laws must come first.)

The signs are not given to tell us the quantity of time that remains before Christ will come. They are given to warn us of the quality of the times we are living in. This is the end time. Current events are just the kinds of things Jesus said would be happening at the hour of His coming. It is not like a time bomb set to explode, it is like a tiger ready to spring. The situation is critical every moment.

This does not mean that last day events will not follow the sequence generally outlined; not that the Sunday laws will not be passed. But it is a frightful kind of arrogance for us to demand that God follow our time schedule, or fit precisely into our understanding of things. He has plainly warned us that both His promises and threatenings are alike conditional.

If God, in His long-suffering love for all humanity, should see that after 140 years the Seventh-day Adventist church as an institution was no longer fulfilling the purpose for which He had established it and should turn from it, could we blame Him? We hope, we pray, that this will not happen. But the Jews were God’s chosen people, and that choice was meant to last forever. Yet, when they failed to fulfill His purpose, God was forced to reject them as His special messengers. We misunderstand God if we believe He will let the whole world continue indefinitely with its pain and sadness and death simply because one group of people prove unfaithful to their trust.

Surely this should be a warning to us. At the last great day, some of us may discover that we have been growing as tares, while all along we thought we were wheat. Just because we are members of the Seventh-day Adventist church in good and regular standing does not mean we have a reserved seat in God’s kingdom. Not all those who say "Lord, Lord" are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

But all of this just brings us back to the basic question. We know that we are living in the end time. Yet reaching every person with the gospel seems impossible, and to assume that we can be better Christians than any person who lived before us, or that God cannot reject the Seventh-day Adventist church, is unwarranted pride. What does He require? What will it take for us to get things over with and be received into God’s kingdom, where we belong?

First and most important—we can trust God. He has given us a "sure word of prophecy" that Jesus will return. His Word does not say: "You must make it happen." It says: "I will come again." The One whose mercy is everlasting, the One who is faithful although all men should prove faithless, will not let us down. God will bring to pass all that He has promised—in His own good time.

Secondly, we can remember that God expects no more of us than He has expected of His followers in all generations. We are to love Him with all our hearts and minds and souls, and love our neighbors as ourselves. We are to do the duties around us and carry a burden for the salvation of others. And then we are to leave the worrying to God. He will work in us both to "will and to do of His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13). He has made Himself responsible for the results of our honest efforts.

We need not be embarrassed by our insistent proclamation of Christ’s soon coming. We are in good company—Paul, John, and Peter preached it almost 2,000 years ago. And for many people, the end will come today, or tomorrow, or next week. For the rest of us, it will come soon enough at the very time God has planned.

What we do need to remember in our proclamations is that being able to predict just when Jesus will come is not the most important thing. The times and seasons are in God’s hands. What is more important is that we—like these saints of old—not waver in our trust; that we, like them, continue to look for a city whose builder and maker is God, though we see it only by faith.

The faithful servant is not the one who periodically gears himself up for superhuman efforts, and then lapses into depression when little happens. Nor is he the one who constantly berates himself that if he would just do a little more, that would end it all. The faithful servant—and the one who is always prepared—is the one who daily does the work assigned him, trusting in his Lord’s promise to return. He is the one who will hasten that day. And whenever it comes, he will be waiting and ready.

A longer version of this essay first appeared in Pilgrimage of Hope, ed. Roy Branson (Takoma Park, Maryland: AAF, 1986), which can be purchased from Adventist Forum.

When he wrote this essay, Tom Dybdahl was an editor at Rodale Press, in Pennsylvania, and a frequent contributor to Spectrum.

Words Matter: The California Supreme Court on “Straight Marriages” and “Gay Domestic Partnerships”

David Larson — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 03:26:33 -0700

To my way of thinking the true significance of the ruling of the California Supreme Court on Thursday, May 15, in re Marriage Cases is not that it legitimates homosexual relationships that are akin to heterosexual marriages. It is that in our laws we Californians must use the same term(s) for both because our legal requirements already guarantee them substantially the same thing.

Our statutes cannot continue calling heterosexual unions “marriages” and homosexual ones “domestic partnerships” when these terms are virtually the only legal difference between the two kinds of unions. The Court holds that the grand virtual compromise—“marriage” for straights and equally beneficial “domestic partnerships” for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender persons—is too altogether too compromising.

This is ironic. The “inner logic” of the line of reasoning that so many of us championed ended up requiring us to accept the very outcomes we were trying to avoid in the first place! How did this happen?

Part of the answer is that we Californians distinguished in our laws between heterosexual “marriages” and homosexual “domestic partnerships” in order to correct some obvious inequities while maintaining some important traditions. In order to be fair, we tried to make their legal guarantees as similar as possible. We were so successful in doing this that our Supreme Court has now informed us that in our laws we must no longer distinguish between them. We thought we had found a path through the impasse. We had; however, it turns out that precisely because we had we actually hadn’t!

In the concluding words of Chief Justice George, “limiting the designation of marriage to a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional [in California] and must be stricken from the statute” in question. “The remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”

Californians who still want to distinguish between heterosexual “marriages” and homosexual “domestic partnerships” now seem to have two options. On the one hand, they can try to get this ruling overturned on appeal. On the other, in November of this year, they can try by popular ballot to implement an amendment to California’s constitution that would restrict the word “marriage” in our laws and other public policies to heterosexual unions.

If there are citizens who try to appeal it, their claim is likely to be that California’s Supreme Court overreached and made a decision that it should have left to the legislative and executive branches of government. This puts the proper role of the courts in such matters front and center, and this is likely to be an intensely debated issue as we move into the election season.

All three of the justices who spelled out their own views in addition to what Chief Justice George wrote addressed this matter. Justice Kennard could not have been clearer. He wrote that “Whether an unconstitutional denial of a fundamental right has occurred is not a matter to be decided by the executive or legislative branch, or by popular vote, but is instead an issue of constitutional law for resolution by the judicial branch of state government.” [Emphasis supplied.]

Justice Baxter, with Justice Chin concurring, was equally clear in the opposite direction. “I cannot join the majority’s holding that the California Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry,” he wrote. “In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.” [Emphasis supplied.]

Justice Corrigan wrote that “Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages. But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must dissent.” [Emphasis supplied.]

I hope that re Marriage Cases does not prompt the intensity and length of discord that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court ruling about abortion, has. In that case a small number of men imposed their views on the whole nation with predictable results. Over the past thirty-five years we have made much progress on the end-of-life issues but hardly any on the beginning-of-life ones. Although I support its provisions, I think that the severe and lasting tumult Roe v. Wade prompted is partly to blame.

If it were up to me, we would use the same term for both heterosexual and homosexual unions but it would be “domestic partnership” rather than “marriage.” This would put both on an equal footing in legal word and deed; however, it would also open the door to other types of unions that it is in society’s interest to recognize and honor. These would have nothing to do with sex, either heterosexual or homosexual, and everything to do with mutual support, lasting commitment, and stability.

Here are some cases in which forming domestic partnerships with all the usual benefits and honor would be in everyone’s interest: two widows; a single man and his severely handicapped sister; two men who are “mates” in the Australian sense [not sexually interactive] ; two women who have the same kind of relationship; or just good friends of either sex who plan to spend the rest of their lives together. We should foster healthy domestic partnerships of all these kinds and more.

It cannot be stated too often: we should honey comb the whole of society with domestic partnerships that benefit those in them and others too. How strange it would be if we decriminalized fornication, adultery, and similar activities only to penalize in our laws homosexual men and women who form lasting and mutually supportive relationships!

Many of us were taught that “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” The Supreme Court of the Golden State disagrees and rightly so. Words matter!

David Larson teaches in the School of Religion at Loma Linda University.

The High Priestly Ministry of Jesus

Ivan Blazen — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:27:33 -0700

Among New Testament writings the priestly work of Christ is most fully developed in Hebrews.1 In this book Jesus is exclusively referred to as a high priest. This is explicitly said nine times (2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11); is implicit two times (7:28; 8:31); and for the six times he is called a priest (5:6; 7:16, 17, 20, 21), contextual associations show clearly that the term refers to his high priestly ministry. This means that his heavenly ministry is related to the Day of Atonement, for it was on this day that high priestly activity was concentrated.

The high priestly ministry of Jesus comes to the fore at the very beginning of Hebrews. After describing the Son as the ultimate revelation of God and the Creator and Sustainer of all things (1:1-2), it declares that when the Son “had provided purification for sins,” he sat down at God’s right hand (1:3). This purification or cleansing for sins, later interpreted as the removal of sins (9:26), reminds one of the effects of the Day of Atonement ritual in Israel, where the same word for cleansing in the Greek version—the only version cited by Hebrews—is used: “For on this day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord.” That Christ sits after making the purification (also 10:12 and 12:2) indicates that his self-offering has already effected the eternal salvation (5:9; 9:12) which his continuing ministry in heaven applies to believers as they come to the throne of grace to receive God’s mercy (4:16).

Hebrews 4:14-16, 6:19-20 and chapters 7-10 continue the picture of Christ’s high priestly activity for which 1:3 is the first snapshot. These passages make abundantly clear that the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus takes away sins, sanctifies and perfects the consciences of believers, brings them to the very throne of God, and grants them complete assurance of salvation.

The question that arises is why these themes of Christ’s high priestly ministry and the glorious realities it effects find such a prominent place in this particular book of the Bible. The answer lies close by and is very practical. According to 10:32-34, the original addressees of the book are asked to recall the time when they became Christians and had a hard struggle with suffering as a result. They were publicly exposed to abuse and persecution. Some had their possessions plundered; others were thrown into prison.

Now, at the time when Hebrews was written, they were facing difficult straights and possible death again. This can be inferred from the emphasis in Hebrews 11 on all those Hebrew worthies, starting with Moses, who suffered persecution, torture, and death, and in Hebrews 12 on Jesus who “endured the cross, disregarding its shame” (12:2). The readers are asked to “consider him who endured such hostility against himself from sinners, so that you may not grow weary or lose heart” 12:3). In their struggle they had not yet come to the point of martyrdom (12:4), but it seems clear that this was an imminent likelihood.

So the situation of the readers was severe. The way of Jesus was arduous and fearsome. In such circumstances it would be easy for disappointment to set in, attendance at church services to wane (10:25), questions about Christian teaching to arise (5:11-14), and a root of bitterness to spring up and endanger their discipleship to Christ (12:15). Abandoning their confidence and shrinking back (10:35, 39), i.e., apostasy, was a distinct possibility.

The picture of Christ as high priest serves a two-fold pastoral function in Hebrews. It speaks both to the issue of the readers’ suffering and to that of the apostasy which that suffering might engender.

As to the issue of suffering, Hebrews teaches that what qualified Christ to be our high priest is that he shared in our humanity. He who identifies with us as his brothers and sisters (2:12) had to be made like us and be tested in every way as we are so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest, able to help those who are being tested (2:17-18; 4:15). Because we know this, we can approach God’s throne boldly to find grace to help us in our difficulties (4:16). As the readers of Hebrews and we ourselves face discouragement, suffering, and death, they and we should remember that Jesus himself offered supplication to God with loud cries and tears and was heard because of his reverent submission to God. Even as God’s Son he learned obedience and was perfected from what he suffered (5:7-9). Sufferers are exhorted to identify with his death and be willing to endure the abuse he endured (13:13). “Hang in with your suffering but victorious high priest” is the message.

As to apostasy, Hebrews draws the picture of Christ’s high priestly achievements so as to dissuade its readers, in a situation of extremity, from leaving their Christian identity and community and shrinking back from their confidence in the sacrifice and heavenly ministry of Christ. By rejecting him, they forfeit the cleansing of their sins, access to the grace and presence of God, the reality of spiritual rest, and the promise of a heavenly homeland. In other words, Hebrews presents the greatness of salvation through Christ in order to reveal the enormity, and unnecessary tragedy, of its loss, mentioned strikingly in 2:1-3; 6:3-6; and 10:26-31.

Hebrews contains a momentous take-home message for Adventists about fear. Let us not fear the coming time of trouble, for our high priest, Jesus, has been through it all and will take us through it all. And let us not fear for our salvation in the judgment, but only fear rejecting a salvation and cleansing long ago available in Christ and being left, therefore, with only a “fearful prospect of judgment” (10:27). Surely, we cannot go wrong by believing Hebrews when it affirms that in his death and high priestly ministry Christ has fully and finally opened the door to God’s saving presence “within the veil” where Christ, our forerunner, has entered on our behalf (6:19-20)2 and where “he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, for he always lives to make intercession for them” (7:25).

1 The New Revised Standard Version is used for quotations throughout this lesson.

2 The expression “within the veil” occurs a number of times in Leviticus 16 for the entrance of the high priest into the Holy of Holies, the place of God’s presence, on the Day of Atonement (16:2, 12, 15).

Ivan Blazen is professor of biblical interpretation and theology at Loma Linda University.

Not “Sola” But “Prima Scriptura”

David Larson — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:33:14 -0700

If we take the words literally, the doctrine of “sola scriptura” is problematic. The Latin word “sola” means “only,” “scriptura” means “scripture,” and so together they mean “only scripture.” In some circles this expression has come to mean that we Christians should consider nothing but the Old and New Testaments when determining what to believe and how to behave. This is not helpful. Neither is it what the Protestant Reformers who promoted this doctrine in sixteenth century Europe had in mind.

For people like Martin Luther and John Calvin “sola scriptura” had a focused meaning. This was that the Roman Catholic teaching that the ultimate authorities for Christians are scripture and tradition is mistaken. Christians have only one supreme authority and it is scripture, they held. For them the doctrine of “sola scriptura” was more like a single bullet that sped toward a specific target than the spraying projectiles of a shotgun it has sometimes now become.

But even this is not exact enough. As it developed over the centuries, Roman Catholicism did not teach that we have two ultimate authorities but only one and that the Church of Rome was it. The idea was that scripture is not something different than tradition but a part of it.

Even today we ask whether scripture created the church or the church created it. Roman Catholicism’s answer was clear and firm: the church created scripture. It held that, as the tradition that includes scripture progresses, it is justified in determining its ongoing meanings and applications.

For us to feel the full force of the Roman Catholic teaching to which the Protestants objected, we ought to think of “scripture as tradition” rather than “scripture and tradition.” With respect to other areas of inquiry today, we might speak of “scripture as philosophy,” “scripture as science,” “scripture as art” and so forth. Putting things this way makes it impossible for scripture to challenge philosophy, science, art, or any other discipline from its own conceptual base. The Reformers objected to this and so should we.

As evidenced by the effective use the Reformers made of the writings of others, for them “sola scriptura” did not mean that we should consider and give weight to nothing else. They were among the best educated people of their day! This is why it seems clearer in our time to convey their meaning by using the expression prima scriptura. The unique role of scripture resides in its overriding priority, not in its supposed exclusiveness.

Martin Luther’s answer to Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire during his “heresy” trial before the Diet of Worms is instructive. “Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of Scripture or by clear reason, I cannot and will not recant,” he declared to the stunned assembly. “It is neither safe nor honorable to violate one’s conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. So help me God.”

Luther’s words amounted to a theological earthquake that opened deep and wide cracks in the belief that the Church of Rome has final authority, even over scripture, and Western culture has never been the same. It is noteworthy that in his defense Luther appealed to scripture or clear reason despite the many negative—and sometimes intemperate—things he said about human reason on some other occasions.

An exclusivist understanding of the role of scripture is not helpful for a number of reasons. One of these is that none of us can read scripture without being influenced by the circumstances in which we live. Another is that without studying other forms of contemporary knowledge, as well as the whole of scripture, it can be difficult to know how to apply what it says. Still further, the doctrine of “sola scriptura” makes it difficult for denominations to make effective use of the views of their pioneers, be they John Hus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cramner, Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf, John Wesley, or Ellen White. A fourth problem is that this doctrine makes it less likely that Christians will learn from religions other than their own. A fifth is that viewing scripture this way can needlessly make Christians appear dogmatic and obscurant.

Applying scripture to our lives is related to but different from reconstructing as accurately as possible what its various passages first meant, something that non-Christian historians and linguists can do equally well. For them the Bible is a cultural classic; however, for those of us who are Christians it is the primary religious canon too.

Some of the ancient Israelites apparently thought that it was a good idea to stone those who break the Sabbath. Most of them probably took it for granted that slavery was morally acceptable. Some of the first Christians seem to have believed that they could drink poison and handle snakes without being harmed. None of us believes these things today because we have learned much in the interlude.

We should let the ancients say what they did without necessarily feeling that we must agree in every detail. If we insist that we must always concur, we might read our own convictions into the ancient texts so as to avoid any uncomfortable difference. Doing this might solve our problems; however, it does so at the risk of distorting the Biblical materials. It is better to let them say what they did and for us to say what we must, always insisting that these maintain a constant and mutually beneficial dialogue with the overarching themes of scripture primary.

Although there are many good answers to questions about why scripture should be primary, one worth emphasizing at this point is that its role is constitutive. Although many people lived in North America at the time, there was no United States until a number of them formulated and ratified a constitution. They wrote the document, but then it was not them but the document that created—constituted—the nation!

Likewise, ordinary men and women who were used by God to accomplish extraordinary things created the documents that we now have in the Old and New Testaments. These people did not create—constitute—the church. The documents they wrote, which came to have lives of their own, did. The parallel isn’t exact, but it is instructive.

David Larson teaches in the School of Religion at Loma Linda University.

The Power of His Resurrection*

Richard Rice — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:03:27 -0700

Our most fundamental fear is the fear of death. Best-selling author Stephen King appeared on a morning news show years ago, promoting one of the books for which he is known—a thick volume on some blood-curdling theme. At one point, the interviewer interrupted her stream of inquiries about his latest effort to ask a more fundamental question. “Why do you write this stuff?” she said. “What keeps you going from one horror story to another?” “Because in 200 years,” King replied, “we’ll all be dead.”I don’t read King’s work—real life is scary enough for me—but he is right about death. The primal fear, the ultimate fear, the root of all our fears, is the fear of death.

Death is a specter that haunts human life in every age and every place. The oldest buildings in the world, the colossal pyramids of Giza, are monuments to its power. Ancient Egyptians were preoccupied with death. As soon as a pharaoh ascended the throne, he started planning his tomb. And the elaborate paintings and exquisite artifacts that filled the royal burial chambers were designed to assist their occupants as they journeyed in the afterlife.

I’ll never forget my first visit to the National Archeological Museum in Athens. It is filled with magnificent examples of classical art, but the funerary monuments made the most lasting impression. The sad profiles of those ancient mourners, etched with timeless grief, illustrate perfectly the Apostle Paul’s reference to those who grieve and have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13).

Until the advent of modern medicine, death was something everybody knew about first-hand. There wasn’t a family of any size who hadn’t lost a child and often a parent as well. Children were so vulnerable that some cultures didn’t regard them as members of society until they were several years old. Today, things are drastically different. It is not unusual for children to reach adulthood without having lost a single close relative. We may hear about death, and read about death, but for many of us it’s a vague possibility, but not a present reality.

Or is it? The truth is that death is all around us. In the last few weeks alone, natural disasters have claimed thousands, tens of thousands, in Myanmar and China. In the United States 43,000 people die in traffic accidents each year. In Africa the number of AIDS victims reaches into the millions. And all this on the heels of the twentieth century, “the century of death,” as many call it, in which up to 120 million people died at the hands of their fellow humans.

In spite of its gruesome visage, some people try to paint a positive picture of death. Death comes to all of us, they purr, but there is no reason to fear it. The end of our existence is as natural as the beginning, and we should approach it with complete peace of mind. According to a poem in Forest Lawn, “Death is only an old door set in a garden wall. On quiet hinges it gives at dusk, when the thrushes call. There is nothing to trouble any heart, nothing to hurt at all. Death is only an old door set in a garden wall.” In a similar vein, though on a higher poetic level, William Cullen Bryant invites the dying to “lie down to pleasant dreams.”

In stark contrast to this “sentimental acquiescence,” others view death with something like “desperate defiance.” This life may be all we have, but we should hang onto it tenaciously. Resist death to the bitter end—that’s the approach of William Ernest Henley and Dylan Thomas. “Beyond this place of wrath and tears looms but the horror of the shade,” exclaimed Henley, “And yet the menace of the years finds and shall find me unafraid.” “Do not go gentle into that good night,” cried Thomas. “Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

None of these attitudes or their variations, ancient or modern, expresses the Christian response to humankind’s deepest fear. The Christian perspective on death is more complicated. On the one hand, there is nothing sentimental in the way Christian faith views death. It looks death squarely in the face and sees exactly what it is. Death is a destroyer, an intruder, an enemy. It was not meant to be, and it is horrifying. On the other hand, Christian faith looks past death. Death is powerful, but it is not supremely powerful. There is something, or some-one, who is more powerful, and he has gained the victory over it. So, death is not only defeasible, death has been defeated: its power is broken, and its reign will end. So, even though death is still a part of things in this world, it is on its way out. The last word on human existence belongs, not to death, but to life.

The opening chapters of the Bible link death with the entrance of sin into the world. “And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die’” (Gen 2:16-17).1 As these words suggest, death was not an arbitrary penalty that God imposed; it was a natural consequence of sin. Centuries later, the Apostle Paul made a similar connection between death and sin. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

If death is a consequence of sin, and sin doesn’t belong, then death doesn’t belong either. It was not part of God’s original plan for humanity. According to the Bible, then, death is not our destiny. We are susceptible to death; we are mortal. But we are not meant for death; we were meant to live forever.2 And according to Christian faith, that is exactly what will happen. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

The Christ’s resurrection is central to Christian faith for a number of reasons. First of all, Jesus’ resurrection demonstrates that life after death is a reality. To quote Paul again, “For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died.” “For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:13, 14, 16). Paul works out this connection more fully in 1 Corinthians 15, the Bible’s most extensive discussion of the resurrection. “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain” (1 Cor. 15:13-14). To paraphrase, if Christ came to life from the dead we have everything to hope for, and if he didn’t, we have nothing to hope for. Everything depends on the resurrection of Jesus.

Second, the resurrection of Jesus conclusively establishes his identity as the Messiah, the one in whom and through whom God accomplishes the work of salvation. As Paul puts it in the opening of his longest letter, Jesus was “descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 1:3-4). In the first Christian sermon, the Apostle Peter makes the same point. “This man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power” (Acts 2:22-24).

Third, the power of Jesus’ resurrection is available to us now. Although life after death does not begin until the return of Christ, the resurrection life begins as soon as we experience the saving power of Christ. For the Apostle Paul again, our solidarity with Christ in death and resurrection begins with baptism. Our old life comes to an end, and a new life begins. “When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses . . .” (Col. 2:12-13). “So if you have been raised with Christ,” Paul continues, “seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth, for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (3:1-4).

The resurrection of Christ thus provides us a basis for living with confidence now. When Christ came to life from the dead, he broke the power of death for all of us. Even though death is still a fearful enemy, it has suffered a mortal blow, and its reign will soon come to an end. As John Donne wrote, “Death, thou shalt die.”

The notion that death is a “conquered enemy” justifies the complex feelings we have in its presence. On the one hand, it honors our revulsion at death. In spite of everything that people have said in recent years to de-mystify death and treat it as a perfectly normal, natural process with nothing for us to fear, our hearts know better. Death is horrible. It is the antithesis of life. It brings physical, mental, social, and spiritual existence to an end. It violates everything that God wants for us. It is an intruder and an enemy. Stephen King is right. Death is the ultimate fear.

On the other hand, death does not have the last word. We can face it with confidence and hope, because Jesus fought it and defeated it. He died on the cross and rose from the tomb and in doing so he broke death’s power. So, the great enemy has been conquered. Jesus’ resurrection gives us the hope of life everlasting, and it gives us the power to live victoriously here and now. We can experience its death-conquering, life-transforming effects day by day as we await the day when death will be expelled from God’s good world once and for all.

Notes and References

*Adapted from “An Enemy Defeated: Death and Resurrection,” Ministry: International Journal for Pastors (September, 2004).

1. The Hebrew expression behind these words, literally “dying you shall die,” does not mean that death would instantly follow sin. It means that once sin occurred, death was inevitable. Sooner or later, life was certain to come to an end.

2. The expression “conditional immortality” is sometimes applied to this viewpoint. It expresses the conviction that eternal life was possible for human beings, not because they possessed “natural immortality,” that is, not because they were inherently immortal, but on the condition that they remain loyal to God, the Source of life.

Richard Rice is professor of theology, philosophy, and religion at Loma Linda University.