2013-04.AdventistToday

8/19/2019 2013-04.AdventistToday

1/32

The “Naked Pope” Notes on aMomentous Treaty

Popes, Prophecies, andthe Point of Eschatology

TodayAdventistF A L L 2 0 1 3 • W W W . A T O D A Y. O R G

WOULD FORMERADVENTIST CHURCH PLANTER

RON GLADDEN EVER RETURN TO THE ADVENTIST

CHURCH?


2/32

D E P A R T M E N T

2 A D V E N T I S T T O D A Y • F A L L 2 0 1 3

Adventist Today brings contemporary issues of importance to Adventist Church members and is a member of The Associated Church Press. Following basicprinciples of ethics and canons of journalism, this publication strives for fairness, candor and good taste. Unsolicited submissions are encouraged. Paymentis competitive. Send an email to [email protected]. Voice: (503) 826-8600 Email: [email protected] Website: www.atoday.org or mail to: Adventist Today, POBox 1135, Sandy, OR 97055-1135.

As an independent press, Adventist Today relies on donations to meet its operating expenses. To make a donation, go to www.atoday.org or mail AdventistToday, PO Box 1135, Sandy, OR 97055-1135. Thanks for supporting Adventist Today with your regular tax-deductible donations.

Adventist Today (ISSN 1079-5499) is published quarterly by Adventist Today Foundation, 50800 SE Baty Rd, Sandy, OR 97055. Annual subscriptions $29.50($50/2 years) for individuals. $40 for institutions. (Payment by check or credit card.) Add $10 for address outside North America. Periodical postage paid atSandy, Oregon and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Adventist Today, P.O. Box 1135, Sandy, OR 97055-1135. Copyright © 2013by Adventist Today Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering open dialogue in the Adventist community.

I N S I D E V O L . 2 1 N O . 4

6 Popes, Prophecies, and the Pointof Eschatology by David A. Pendleton

10 A House Not Made With Hands by David W.. Brattston

14 The “Naked Pope” Drawn byNapoleon’s Artist by Koot Van Wyk

16 Notes on a Momentous Treaty by ibor onhaizer

20 A Brief History of AdventistThought on Women inLeadership (1844-1995) by James Wibberding

24 Longing for Freedom by Gregory L. Hoenes

D E P A R T M E N T S

3 Editorial by J. David Newman

23 Crossword

Protestant Reformation by Caleb Rasmussen

28 Alden Thompson He Was Wrong—But It Still Worked

30 Remnants

31 Adventist Man It’s Those Confounded Jesuits Again

AdventistToEditorJ. David Newman

Copy EditorDebra J. Hicks

Contributing EditorsJames WaltersJohn McLarty

Assistant EditorJeff Boyd

Art DirectorChris Komisar

Online EditorsFeatures: Debbonaire KovacsNews: (vacancy)Opinion: E. Gary RainesPoetry and the Arts: (vacancy)Reviews: Edwin A. SchwisowWeb Coordinator: Heather Gutman

Executive DirectorMonte Sahlin

Executive Secretary of DevelopmentEdwin A. Schwisow

F O U N D A T I O N B O A R DNate Schilt (chair), James Walters (vice chair), Sahlin (secretary), Ryan Bell, Keith Colburn, ChDaley, Larry Downing, Mike Elias, Trisha FamisaJack Hoehn, Edmund Jones, Mailen Kootsey, CMitchell, Jim Nelson, Warren Nelson, Chris ObeGene Platt, E. Gary Raines, Paul Richardson, DaSavino, J. Gordon Short, James Stirling, EldonStratton, Ervin Taylor, David Van Putten, John

S E N I O R L I F E T I M E A D V I S O R S

($25,000+) Beth and Elwin Dunn, Patricia and Douglas EwiKathi and Richard Guth, Judy and John JacobsAl Koppel, Joan Ogden, Lori and Thaine Price, and Gordon Rick, J. Gordon Short, Marilynn anErvin Taylor, Nancy and John Vogt, Priscilla anJames Walters

L I F E T I M E A D V I S O R S ($10,000+) Jane and Stewart Bainum, Susan and Hernan BKelli and Robert Black, , Pat and Ron Cople, Kaand James Dexter, Rosemary and Merlyn DuerSandra and Sam Geli, Patricia Hare, Mariellyn aEdwin Hill, Carmen and Clive Holland, Erika andJohnson, Carmen and Yung Lau, David T. PersoPatricia Phillips, R-Marina and E. Gary Raines, Rausch, Stewart Shankel, James Stirling,Betty Webster

U N D E R W R I T I N G A D V I S O R S

($2,500+ DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS)

Dan Engeberg , John Hoehn

G E N E R A L A D V I S O R S

($500+/YEAR PLAN)

Almon J. Balkins, Diana and Ken Bauer, Ginny aBurley, Beverly and Sid Christiansen, Ruth Chrand Glenn Henriksen, Rod Colburn, Debra & AnEngdahl, Ed Fry, Annette and Gary Frykman, Ka& DeWitt Goulbourne, Dolores and Robert HassJackie and Jim Henneberg, Barb and Kenneth Felix Lorenz, Jr, Donna and Leroy Lowrie, LyndMarter, Howard Pires, Edwin Racine, Tracy andReynolds, Ruth and Beryl Rivers, Gary Russell, and Nate Schilt, Barbara and Eldon Stratton, RTandy, Alden Thompson, Barbara and Rodney WJackie and Hal Williams

features

C O V E R S T O R Y

4 “Would You EverConsider ComingBack?”by Ron Gladden


3/32

3W W W . A T O D A Y . O R G

E D I T O R I A L

I like to ask people whether it is easier to get intoheaven or into the Adventist Church. When they don’trespond, I say, “Tere is only one condition or enteringheaven, but there are 28 conditions or entering theAdventist Church.”

When the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silashow he could be saved, they replied, “Believe in the

Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and yourhousehold” (Acts 16:31, NIV). It was that simple.Tere was no list o doctrines he and his amily hadto commit to. He did not have to take extensive Biblestudies. All he had to do was to believe, to trust inJesus, and he was assured o eternal lie.

But to enter the Adventist Church, it takes morethan just to believe in Jesus. At one time we had toaccept 22 doctrines (prior to 1980), then 27 (voted atthe 1980 General Conerence Session), and now 28(an additional doctrine was voted at the 2005 GeneralConerence Session).

In the early years o our denomination, we did notrequire people to sign on to those doctrines, but wedid state certain principles or those who wanted toknow what Adventists believed. We were very anti-creeds. In 1861 J.N. Loughborough wrote: “Te firststep o apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us whatwe shall believe. Te second is to make that creed atest o ellowship. Te third is to try members by thatcreed. Te ourth to denounce as heretics those whodo not believe that creed. And fifh, to commencepersecution against such.”1

In New estament times, the early church leaders

in Jerusalem agreed on just our behaviors required othe Gentiles to become part o the Judaeo-Christiancommunity (Acts 15:28-29). At the same time, Paulmade it clear that entrance to heaven requires just onething: grace (Eph. 2:8-10).

On the other hand, in some ways it is easier to getinto the Adventist Church than to get into heaven.You can say that you accept all 28 doctrines andnever be converted. But to get into heaven, you mustbe sincere in repenting o your past lie and trusting

wholly in Jesus or your salvation. God reads themind and knows our real motives.

When the people in the crowd asked the apostlePeter what they needed to do to be saved, heanswered: “Repent and be baptized, every one o you,in the name o Jesus Christ or the orgiveness o yoursins. And you will receive the gif o the Holy Spirit”

(Acts 2:38, NIV ). Repentance means that you desirea whole new way o lie. Jesus told Nicodemus thatit meant being born again: “Very truly I tell you, noone can see the kingdom o God unless they are bornagain” (John 3:3, NIV). Entrance to heaven is a divineact. Entrance into the church is a human act.

Being Adventist does not get you into heaven. Onlythose who have a living connection with the God othe universe will make it.

Some o the most startling words in the Bible comerom the mouth o Jesus: “Not everyone who says tome, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom o heaven,

but only the one who does the will o my Father whois in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord,Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in yourname drive out demons and in your name perormmany miracles?’ Ten I will tell them plainly, ‘I neverknew you. Away rom me, you evildoers!’” (Matt.7:21-23, NIV).

And what does it mean to do God’s will? AgainJesus answers that question. Some Jews asked him,“What must we do to do the works God requires?”(John 6:28, NIV). Jesus explained what kind o worksGod requires or entrance to heaven: “Te work o

God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” (John6:29, NIV).

You may see yoursel as a conservative, evangelical,liberal, or progressive Adventist, but none o thoselabels is salvific. Tere is only one way to heaven, andthat is to place your complete trust and allegiance inJesus Christ.1“Doings o the Battle Creek Conerence, Oct. 5 & 6, 1861,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald , Vol. 18, No. 19, Oct. 8, 1861,p. 148.

Is Getting Into Heaven Easier Than Getting Into the Adventist Church?By J. David Newman

Entrance to

heaven is a

divine act.

Entrance into

the church is

a human act.


4/32


5/32

5W W W . A T O D A Y . C O M

cork in the ocean rom the priority o thelocal church.

Tere was a time when everyone wasclear that God’s design to reach a city is a

healthy, unselfish, growing church. Localleaders were trusted to make ministry-altering decisions. (Tose were the days,my riend. We thought they’d never end.)Not any longer. oday, the local churchis viewed as the collection point or amassive transer o wealth rom the placewhere soul winning actually happens tothe “higher” levels o church structure.Tere is no baptistry or pulpit indenomination offices, yet the local churchscrapes by on the crumbs that are lef.

Why are pastors paid less thanadministrators? When our goal is to helpyoung people spiritually, why don’t weprovide highly skilled and thoroughlytrained youth leaders or every church,instead o investing hundreds othousands o dollars on staffing andmaintaining a conerence youth campthat affects young people or one weekeach year? When we want to reach ar-rom-God people in a city, why don’twe pull out all the stops (a little pump

organ lingo) to create a healthy, unselfish,growing church that builds bridgesand relationships and that shares andlives the truth, instead o bringing in anevangelist to preach to strangers (underthe assumption that what people lackmost is inormation)? Because we thinkinstitutionally. We underestimate thepower and design o the local church.

And then there is the issue o control.For way too many administrators, controlis more important than obedience to the

Gospel Commission (which, o course,is the real G.C.). Union and divisionofficers shout loudly about souls romconstituency-session podiums, but theirdeeper concern is compliance. Likeghosts at a séance, a simmering paranoiahaunts every conversation, committeemeeting, and discussion. (How else doyou explain why a conerence committeeis not allowed to meet without aunion officer in the room? And union

committees never convene unless adivision rep is present? And a GeneralConerence administrator must be parto every division committee meeting?) O

course, many administrators care aboutthe mission, but they are swallowed upby a system that assumes leaders at the“lower” levels cannot be trusted to decidethe final destination o the charitabledollar or whom to hire.

Second, the world we live in isincreasingly post-denominational.Denominations were ormed to provideour services: keep everyone togetherdoctrinally, train pastors, hire and assignpastors, and send missionaries. Each o

those can easily be done today by a localchurch.I you want to go deep in theology, I

recommend the seminary at Andrews. Iyou want to learn how to create and leada healthy, unselfish, growing church, youdon’t abandon the harvest or a coupleo years and sit at the eet o people whohave never done it. You read books,attend conerences at prevailing churches,and engage in webinars led by peoplewho are doing it even as we speak. You

build the plane while you fly it. You leanon a coach who is light years ahead oyou. And when it comes to missions,local churches all over the planet arechanging entire communities throughtheir Matthew 25 initiatives.

Fewer leaders find value indenominations that don’t ocus like alaser on resourcing local congregationswith the prayer that they achieve theirmaximum redemptive potential.

Tird, God’s movement in the world

is broader than just one denominationallabel. Allow me to be rank. (I’ve beenholding back until now, but I can’t anylonger.) I am disappointed at the attitudeo so many Adventists toward otherbrothers and sisters in Christ. I believe itis somewhere north o absurd to believethat it’s sae to learn rom Uriah Smithbecause he was Adventist, but dangerousto read John Ortberg or to invite .D.Jakes to speak at Oakwood University

because neither is Adventist. Only a mindas narrow as Roy Rogers’ tie could jumpto such a conclusion.

When Jesus is our reason—not just or

the season, but or everything we do—and when the good news o Jesus’ death,resurrection, and return is paramount,I am proud o the Adventist theologicalniche. I learned it at my mother’s knee,and I am not tempted to sweep it aside.But when God raises up a Christianleader who inspires thousands to ollowJesus, why would we even try to keep himaway rom the saints? Why are Adventistsstill arguing over these issues at pastors’meetings and in church publications

when all too many o their own churchesare a heartbeat away rom a coma?

No More LabelI love being a Christian first—withouta label. It’s like a breath o resh air afera deep-sea scuba dive to be part o thebroader church with a capital “C.” orespect and pray or and learn humblyand enthusiastically rom today’s spiritualpioneers, regardless o what tribe theydo or do not represent, should be a

no-brainer. Te reedom o not havingto explain a label is wonderul. A hugebarrier is gone. And the result is morepeople in heaven.

So, would I ever consider goingback to the denomination? I thehighest priority—not just in words,but in structure and in DNA—wereto create healthy, unselfish, growingchurches that accomplish the GreatCommission, I would go back on ahigh-speed train. But ollowing God’s

call to serve independently o a parentaldenomination has resulted in a higherlevel o joy and more ruit or thekingdom than ever beore. “Where theSpirit o the Lord is,” the Apostle Paulwrote, “there is reedom” (2 Cor. 3:17,NIV). I am irretrievably addicted.

Ron Gladden is the founder anddirectional leader of Mission Catalyst.


6/32


F E A T U R E

“Habemus Papam! ” was the announcement rom the

balcony o the Apostolic Palace to the cheering throngs

below. It was March 13, 2013, and or days crowds hadgathered at the Vatican in anticipation o the news that

“We Have a Pope! ”1 In just a ew minutes, they would learn

the name o the new pope and know whether an ancient

end-time prophecy was ulfilled. Te air was electric with

expectation. But let’s not get ahead o our story.

Popes,Prophecies,and thePointof

Eschatology BY DAVID A. PENDLETON


7/32

7W W W . A T O D A Y . C O M

It all began on Feb. 10, 2013, an otherwiseordinary day in Rome, when then-PopeBenedict XVI disclosed that due to his“advanced age” and his declining healthhe would resign rom the papacy. Withinweeks, he would become the first popein centuries to voluntarily relinquish thereins o power.

Te 85-year-old pontiff gave no reasonto doubt his purported motivation, butthis didn’t stop the media rom wildlyspeculating about what really prompted

the resignation: a terminal illness,“Vatileaks” and the thef o secret paperso the pope, blackmail, euding actionsamong the Vatican’s curia, urtherrevelations about priestly misconduct,and panic-stricken prophecies about thepopes.

Only time will tell whether there isany truth in these tales o intrigue andparanoia. One is reminded that HenryKissinger intimated that a paranoidbelie was not necessarily alse. “Even

a paranoid has some real enemies,”he observed, alluding obliquely to hisinscrutable ormer boss, PresidentRichard Nixon.

And just as pervasive and prevalentas the whisperings regarding the pope’sresignation were the musings o thoseseeking to situate these events in an all-encompassing scheme—to athom theGrand Narrative and to comprehendthe present in the vast sweep o history.In days o rapid change and dislocation,

there is comort in the belie that todaywas prophetically anticipated.

“Prophecy of the Popes”A little-known 12th-century prophecywas, or a time, much discussed in themedia. It claimed that the election o thenext pope might signal an imminent endo the world. While scholars and studentso eschatology (the study o end-time

events) were highly skeptical o theso-called “Prophecy o the Popes,” madeby 12-century Irish cleric St. Malachy,there was no end to the conjecture that thenext pope had been oretold as the finalpope in Earth’s history.

Various personal details concerningthe now-ormer Pope Benedict XVI werecited as proo that his was the next-to-the-last pontificate and that his successorwould preside over the last days. Malachywas supposed to have oretold that

persecution would increase immediatelypreceding the end:“In the extreme persecution o the Holy

Roman Church, there will sit ... Peter theRoman, who will pasture his sheep inmany tribulations: and when these thingsare finished, the city o seven hills willbe destroyed, and the terrible judge will judge his people. Te End.”

Te uncertainty o the above text wasnot helped by the use o the Englishlanguage’s inherently ambiguous

preposition “o.” Was the “extremepersecution” to be caused by the Churchor suffered by the Church? Reerenceto a leader “who will pasture hissheep in many tribulations” suggeststhe interpretation o the Church asthe recipient, not the instigator, opersecution.

Like novelist Dan Brown’s Te Da VinciCode, Malachy’s supposed prophecy wasmore problematic upon closer inspection.News reports indicated that there was no

original manuscript o the prediction,though this is true o many ancientdocuments. We depend on subsequentlycreated copies to determine the contentso the original. Te Bible likewise iscomposed o ancient documents, theostensible autographs o which have beenlong lost.

As with the inamous Donation ofConstantine, most consider the “Prophecy

o the Popes” a later orgery attributedto an earlier Malachy. And as Newestament scholar Bart Ehrman hasobserved in his book Forged , writingin someone else’s name may have beenwell-intentioned and widely practiced inancient times, but it nevertheless was anattempt to deceive.

Some have dismissed the propheciesas harmless (and childish) tales outo school; others have called them the“Prophecies o Malarkey” or, to use a

phrase rom Jeremy Bentham, “nonsenseon stilts.”2 What is interesting to note,however, is that this cryptic, ancient, andobscure text might not have received asmuch notice but or our curiosity aboutclairvoyants, susceptibility to attention-grabbing headlines, and the power o theInternet.

Jonah Goldberg’s Te yranny ofClichés provides a wise word o caution inthis Internet Age: “It is olly to think youknow all you need to know about lie as

long as you have a computer with a goodWi-Fi connection” (p. 36). Te curseo the computer is that too many toogullibly believe too much o what theysee on computer screens. Te ubiquitouslaptop and iPad have become the newinallible oracles o our own time.

Malachi Martin’s The Keys

of This Blood Te “Prophecies o the Popes” shares theervor and excitement o thriller fiction.

And sure enough, the erstwhile unlikelyprospect o a pope’s resignation rom officewas the topic o a novel by ormer Jesuitpriest Malachi Martin.

But beore the novel, Martin hadpublished in 1990 a nonfiction bestseller,Keys of Tis Blood: Te Struggle for WorldDominion Between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev and the CapitalistWest . It began ominously: “On October


8/32


F E A T U R E

14, 1978, a new era began or the RomanCatholic Church and its nearly one billion

adherents around the world. And with it,the curtains were raised on the first act othe global competition that would end athousand years o history as completely asi a nuclear war had been ought. A dramathat would leave no regions or nationsor individuals as they had been beore. Adrama that is now well under way and isalready determining the very way o liethat in every place every nation will liveor generations to come.”

No doubt Martin’s ardor or conspiracy

theories and sweeping generalitiesis matched only by his ondness ormelodramatic—but nonethelessgrammatically incomplete—sentences.In Te Keys of Tis Blood, he exploredhis ascination with efforts to returnCatholicism to a more pre-Vatican IIstance vis-à-vis the larger contemporaryworld. Martin defly told the story o theSlavic Pope John Paul II, who with “histhree doctorates, in philosophy, theologyand phenomenology,” his 10 published

books, and his academic deportmentnevertheless bested some o the world’smost gifed politicians. Te Polish popecontributed to the liberation o hisnative homeland, the deeat o SovietCommunism, and the end o the ColdWar.

Martin evoked cloak-and-daggerscenarios and sacerdotal scheming. Hetickled the ancy o readers titillated bytalk o one-world governments.

Fiction Anticipating Real LifeBut it wasn’t enough or Martin to writehistory. Drawn to the literary licenseuniquely afforded by the genre ofiction, his Windswept House: A VaticanNovel appeared six years later. Perhapsmotivated by what Aristotle had arguedin his Poetics—that literature is truer thanhistory—Martin intuited that the mediumo fiction could tell a story that otherwise

might be constrained by acts.Considering its 1996 copyright, the

novel seems uncannily prescient. Tefictional premise o Windswept House isthat there is more beneath the surace oevents than meets the eye. Internationalbankers, European politicians, and high-level Catholic clerics plan to induce apapal resignation to make way or a popeamenable to manipulation, committedto establishing a temporal Utopia, andavorably disposed to a single worldgovernment. It’s a tale o the creationo clandestine transnational syndicates,

puppet masters secretly pulling the stringso presidents and prime ministers, and“unthinkable realities and policies oextremes” (p. 349). Its cast o charactersconsists o politicians, a pope, pope-makers, lawyers, “dark-robed” clerics,and unassuming believers who play various roles, unbeknownst to them, inimplementing or thwarting the “best-laidplans.”

In Martin’s imagined Vatican, spiritualleaders exercise temporal power, wield

inordinate influence over geopoliticalevents, and wed right and might orthe good o humankind. Tere, thecognoscenti operate comortably andfluently in the “lexicon o conspiracy”(p. 150). Priests and politicians contrivea master plan or the uture o the world.Church and state conspire. “Connections,”insists one o Martin’s fictional characters,“ofen tell more about a man’s useulnessthan his own record” (p. 55).

“Whatever weight our American

brothers lack theologically and in cultureand tradition is more than adequatelymade up by their financial clout,” counselsone o Martin’s Cardinal Richelieu-likecharacters (p. 61).

Another wistully preers to think oRome as he had seen it in his “early days,back ... when time spent in Rome hadn’tendangered your aith” (p. 159).

Yet another character opines that “the

Roman Catholic tradition is surely ourbest ally in the final phase o globalizing

our civilization” (p. 269).Afer the fictional pope’s hand is orcedto announce the effective date o hiseventual resignation, Martin has a charactercomplain that “it was downright inuriatingto scan the magazines and journals withtheir speculation about the Holy Father’sresignation” (p. 480). Nearer the end o thenovel, we read o “rumors that His Holinesshad suffered a severe setback in his health.... Waves o emotion—surprise and ear,exaltation and regret, puzzlement and

satisaction—wracked the world’s almostone billion Roman Catholics and theirsympathizers” (p. 616).

Indeed, Martin’s novel, like all ablywrought fiction, bears the verisimilitudeo act.

From Fiction to Fixed FuturesI determining mundane acts on this Earthis arduous, then establishing acts regardingheaven is even harder.

Few congregations today sing the third

verse o the classic Anglican Churchhymn “All Tings Bright and Beautiul.”Many are uncomortable with attributingto God the assignment (consignment)o individuals to predetermined socialrankings, economic classes, or eternalates. But there was a time when theAnglican aithul could be heard to intonethe portentous words:

Te rich man in his castle,Te poor man at his gate,God made them high and lowly,

And ordered their estate.Many now are uneasy, uncomortable,

and even a little embarrassed to singo a God who has ixed some to bealuent, others to be destitute. So, too,many are ill at ease with a God whohas orchestrated all o the choices oindividuals throughout history—or atleast has perect knowledge o a uturehe is powerless to change.


9/32


In Beowulf , the ancient classic o Anglo-Saxon literature, we read that “Fate will be

ulfilled.” oday people speak o ate onlymetaphorically. Most decline to believethat every detail o every choice o everyday is determined ahead o time (fixedand/or viewed by God rom all eternity).Our conception o reedom is in tensionwith the view that all can be seen inadvance and that there is nothing we cando in the present to change what God hasalready oreseen.

It is one thing to suggest that “historyrhymes,” as did Mark wain, or to

propose that “what’s past is prologue,”as did William Shakespeare. But it isquite another thing to propose that Godoreordained in detail everything yet tobe or that God has seen with specificityeverything yet to come to pass. It is onething to believe in Scripture; it is anotherthing to believe Scripture specifies allthe details about the events immediatelypreceding the second coming o Christ.

Seventh-day Adventist theologianRichard Rice is noted or the subtlety

and penetration o his thought andwritings. He has published persuasively, iprovocatively, on the openness o God—aGod who creates a cosmos with a uturethat is not there to be seen in all o itselaborate detail. God knows all o the various possibilities and permutations theuture may take but leaves it to humanbeings to determine precisely which othe possible paths are realized. As Ricesees it, the uture is collaboratively knittedby a loving Creator interacting with the

ree decisions o his creatures. Whilean exhaustive theological discussion isbeyond the scope o this essay, it bearsnoting that Christians have long wrestledwith reconciling perect reedom withperect oreknowledge.

Neither Peter Nor RomanOn March 13, 2013, the conclave elected anew pope to serve the more than 1 billion

Catholics worldwide. He was not romRome, and his name was not Peter. Instead,

he was Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio oBuenos Aires, and his chosen name wasFrancis. So the 12th-century prophecy oMalachy was not ulfilled.

Tat leaves believers with anopportunity to catch their breath andbring some perspective to recent events.

Perhaps a lesson is that no person knowsprecisely when Christ is going to return.“But o that day and hour knoweth noman, no, not the angels o heaven, butmy Father only” (Matt. 24:36, KJV; see

also Mark 13:32). Elsewhere in Scripture,Christ’s return is said to be characterizedby surprise; Christ will come unexpectedly,like a thie in the night (1 Tess. 5:2; Rev.16:15). As with labor pains, a mother-to-beknows that the arrival o her child is nearwithout knowing in advance the precisemoment o birth.

Maybe what makes prophecy importantis not that it makes possible detailedend-o-the world timelines, but that itmotivates timely turning to God.

Philosopher George Santayanaunderstood that when it came to materialthings, happiness was ound in “notpossessing things nor being possessed bythem.”3 So too with eschatology: we studynot so we can handily recount the world’slast-day events, but so we always rememberthat God has the whole world in his hands.

Love at the Heart of ProphecySome have suggested that unless aprophecy can be counted upon to give

thorough knowledge o the uture, then“what good is it?” Tis brings to mind anillustration by G.K. Chesterton: were a manto shoot his grandmother at a range o 500yards, he could be called a good shot; buthe could not be called a good man.

he good in prophecy is ound morein the conduct that it prompts in us thanin prescribing conditions prevailing atthe Parousia.

Te signs o the times should notbe interpreted to give individuals such

an exhaustive account o the uture asto delay a turning to God. o wait orpassage o a National Sunday Law or theelection o a Pope Peter o Rome beoretaking God seriously would be to missthe point o prophecy entirely. Propheciesshould inspire preparation, not excuseprocrastination.

Scripture, including its apocalypticliterature, gives reassurance that God isin control and that God will triumph,however much humankind rattles sabers,

whips the winds o war, or ravages theplanet. God’s love has prevailed overSatan’s hatred, stomping the snakeunderoot and shutting the lion’s mouth.

Medieval Francis o Assisi prayedthat the Lord make him an instrument:“Where there is hatred, let me sow love.”Another Francis (de Sales) in the early17th century wrote a reatise on the Love ofGod, where he sang the praises o a Godwhose very being was characterized bylove—the only appropriate response to

which was to love God by loving others.And a 19th-century American womanlikewise was inspired to see love atthe heart o God and as the authenticsubject o all biblical teachings, includingprophecy. “God is love,” she wrote. Justas those words were the first and lastwords o Ellen G. White’s Conflict of the Ages series, so the heart o all prophecy,the beginning and end o all end-timescenarios, is the truth that God is love.

David A. Pendleton writes from Kailua,

Hawaii.1“Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio Is Pope Francis,” TeCatholic Herald , March 13, 2013.2Te “nonsense on stilts” expression comes rom“Anarchical Fallacies” published in Vol. 2 o TeWorks of Jeremy Bentham (Edinburgh: William ait,1843).3Te Letters of George Santayana, Book wo, 1910-1920, Vol. 5 (Cambridge, MA: MI Press, 2001),p. 181.


10/32


G Seventh-day Adventist congregations is that they spend it in away he has not told them to. In addition to a general obsessionwith money in Christian churches as a whole, there runs rampantan idolatry surrounding local houses o worship, on which manyAdventists lavish money that God wants put to other uses. o growmore in grace, they should devote their unds to institutions thathelp the truly needy, rather than erecting or maintaining expensivebuildings.

When Churches Meant BelieversTe authors o the New estament and other Christian literature

beore the middle o the third century would be shocked anddisgusted at present Christian attitudes toward money andbuildings. Erecting and maintaining a special building orChristian worship services was alien, i not repulsive, to Christ’sapostles and their early ollowers. In the earliest days o the aith,Christians met and even celebrated holy communion in the Jewishemple and in private homes (Acts 2:46; 5:42). All o the localchurches greeted in the epistles bearing the name o the apostlePaul (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; and Philemon 2) weregatherings o flesh-and-blood believers in private homes, not in

material edifices designated solely or public worship. Not one othe 109 instances where the word “church” is used in the Revised

Standard Version o the Bible reers to a physical structure.Te New estament epistles urther exclude the thought that

a Christian temple is a structure o wood, bricks, stones, orconcrete. As 1 Corinthians 3:16 plainly teaches, the believersthemselves are the temple o God’s Spirit. Chapter 6 verse 19is even plainer, saying that “your body is a temple o the Holy

Spirit,” while the context (verses 13 to 20) puts out o questionthat the Christian temple is anything other than flesh, blood, andspirit. In its description o the worldwide church, Ephesians 2:19-22 speaks o the Christian temple as being ounded on Christ,the apostles, and the prophets—with no mention o a stoneoundation or wooden superstructure. Both passages are notablein applying the word “temple” to flesh-and-blood Christians

rather than a material edifice. In this they agree with the ourgreetings to churches in homes (citations above). In 1 Peter 2:4-6the “stones” o which the church is built are not granite or otherphysical material, but are Christ and believers (i.e., people).

Around A.D. 190, Clement o Alexandria was dean othe world’s oremost Christian educational institution. Hepossessed an intimate knowledge o the Bible and also o Greekphilosophers and literature. He considered the best o philosophyto have copied its ideas rom the Hebrew Scriptures and,thereore, be o divine origin. Clement cited Isaiah 66:1 and Acts17:24ff, in addition to Plato and other philosophers, when writingagainst the very notion o using a temple or other physical

structure to worship God, speaking as i it was out o the questionor Christians (Stromata 5.11.74-76).

Even as late as the first hal o the third century, Christiansregarded the concept o distinctive religious buildings asthe mark o Jewish or pagan idolatry. Observe the ollowingquotations rom Clement’s student Origen, who became aseminary proessor, the ounder o systematic theology, the mostimportant ather o the early Greek church, and the greatestpreacher o his day. In Against Celsus 3.34, Origen wrote that oneo the distinctive traits o Christians was that we do not honor the

F E A T U R E

A HouseNB Y D A V I D W . T . B R A T T S T O N


11/32


12/32


Tat the command to assist the needy was repeated in so many

sources, o such early date, shows how important the commandwas regarded by Christian writers who knew not only the wordso Jesus’ teaching but also how they were practiced and appliedunder the supervision o the apostles and their first successors.Yet these same Christians never commended the erection oa cathedral or other palace o worship. Hermas in particularcounseled Christians to buy souls instead o lands and not toaccumulate lands and buildings. He made no exception or landon which to erect a chapel.

Particularly relevant to the present article are Te Acts ofTomas, an account o the missionary efforts o the apostleTomas in India. Compiled around A.D. 200, the second Act

narrates that he was not only a carpenter but also a masterarchitect and all-round construction contractor. As such, hewas retained by a king to build a magnificent palace. Te story

turns on two differences in meaning—one by Tomas, one bythe king—as to what this palace would be and the best use othe money the king intended to spend on it. His majesty wassurprised when told that Tomas could erect it at any time oyear and that it was not dependent on the seasons. Tis had onemeaning or Tomas but another or the king.

Te king did not supervise the project, but sent Tomas offto build it some distance rom his majesty’s residence. Te kingalso sent installment payments without seeing how they were

applied. Te apostle did indeed provide him with a sumptuousnew home, but not in the sense the king had thought or intended.Tomas spent his majesty’s money by giving it to the poor, thesick, orphans, and widows—without a physical building beinginvolved. According to Tomas, such use o the king’s money andthe type o people it benefited would provide his majesty—andus today—with a beautiul home and palace in heaven. When theking learned how his money had been spent on disadvantagedpeople instead o stone, bricks, mortar and superstructure,he became very angry and imprisoned Tomas. He was

unimpressed by the apostle’s explanation that the king could not

see the splendid palace in this lie but only afer death, in heaven.Severe punishment loomed or Tomas until the king’s brotherhad a near-death experience in which he viewed the wonderulplace waiting in heaven or those who spend their money on thepoor and afflicted instead o on material buildings. When thebrother recovered, he reported his vision to the king, and theyboth saw the proper use o money and converted to Christianity.

Tis ancient account, dating rom only a century afer the lastapostle, illustrates the attitude o the primitive church and its firstsuccessors toward how Christians should spend their money.Indeed, they all considered helping the poverty-stricken as a toppriority—not as an aferthought to be attended to only afer a

sumptuous palace o worship was provided.Christ himsel spoke some apropos words or Christians in

this regard: we are not to accumulate treasures on Earth but to

store up treasures in heaven (Matt. 6:20) by eeding the hungry,providing clothes to the needy, and welcoming strangers (Matt.25:34-46). Matthew 7:21-23 describes a blessing given at theLast Judgment or doing what God has specifically commanded;all other mighty works and activities done in his name—nomatter how great or well-intentioned—count or nothing in thekingdom o heaven. God has specifically commanded us to assistorphans, widows, and other poor, but he never told us to buildeven a small chapel, let alone spend money on a huge cathedral.

In summary, Christians should spend their own and theirchurch’s money on what God said he wants. Instead o lavishingit on a house o worship, “let us do good to all, especially to thosewho are o the household o aith” (Gal. 6:10, NKJV). “For weknow that i the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have abuilding rom God, a house not made with hands, eternal in theheavens” (2 Cor. 5:1, NRSV).

Dr. David W.. Brattston is a freelance Christian writer living inLunenburg, Nova Scotia, Canada.

F E A T U R E

Te primitive church … considered helpingthe poverty-stricken as a top priority—not asan aferthought to be attended to only afer a

sumptuous palace o worship was provided.


13/32

A Great Christmas Gift

REDbooks: Our Search for Ellen White

•That she was inspired at the biblical prophetic

level?

•That her counsels are inerrant?

•That those who do not believe in her will be lost?

•That she was an instrument used by God in the

arena of her talents?

•All of the above? •None of the above?

Adventist Today highly recommends Redbooks: Our Search for Ellen White

as a special dramatic overview (75 minutes) of Ellen White and her gift

to Adventism—with emphasis on her positive contributions. It’s a great

discussion piece for Sabbath afternoons, and its depth will lead to many

viewings with family and friends. Ably written and acted by students and

faculty of Pacic Union College, the production looks at the historical El -

len White and at what her gift represents to personalities young and oldwithin Adventism.

The original production has been staged in a number of large Adventist

congregations, with excellent audience response. This professional-quality

DVD program, shot with multiple cameras, is must-viewing for long-time

Adventists and their children, as well as recent converts.

It presents the woman Ellen White as a historical Adventist gure increas-

ingly embroiled in controversy and negative inference—yet a woman of

humble self-assessment, dedicated to God.

Many young Adventists are asking,

“What Does it Mean to ‘Believe’ in Ellen White?”

Call Toll Free to Order: 1 800 236 3641; 503 826 8600 Or go online: www.atoday.org

“Viewing this program made meproud to be an Adventist—thatwe can produce a program of thisquality, and look at ourselves withsuch honesty. REDbooks helpedme come to terms with Ellen

White—it’s a very good feeling forme, as a practicing Adventist,”writes one reviewer, a professionalAdventist writer.

Viewers say

Adventist Today has a limited quantity of these DVDs avail-able to readers as a special, limited-time offer.

Originally $20 — Now $12 each-Through December 31

A former schoolteacher in Adven-tist schools writes, “ REDbooks is a refreshing look at the ques-tions and doubts that have beenraised concerning Ellen White andher messages. I enjoyed it very

much.”


14/32


F E A T U R E

L , became the year o the drop in power orthe Holy Roman Empire. History affirmsthe shocks o that year and later. Scholarscould see—in the arrest o Pope Pius VI byFrench General Louis-Alexandre Berthier,by Napoleon Bonaparte’s order—a “deadlywound” given to the power o the Vatican.For a long time aferward, Catholicismwas not what it was beore that date.

Pope Pius VI himsel said in a letteron Nov. 10, 1798, that “between all the

other wounds o the Church are these whomainly day and night afflict us and hold inanguish our spirit.”1

Shocked by the humiliation thatFrance—under Napoleon and hismilitary—inflicted upon papal power, theVatican, and the Catholic Church, PopePius continued in his letter: “they are notonly separated rom us, but showing onthe orehead the character o the beastthey ought against the lamb and theylead against the Church a pitiless war.”2

Bemoaning the events o 1798 that hadwreaked havoc on the Church, he wrotein the same letter about “how much painwe were afflicting you or the most serioustribulations with which you were hit andhow much burning we strove ourselves inorder to console you.”3

Pope Pius VI was not happy. Amidcomplaints that the Roman CatholicChurch’s assets were being squandered,

he wrote: “we have been hunted rom theRoman Center and orced to emigrate inoreign lands; locked up in this filth o theCertosini, we cannot prevent many evilswith apostolic authority neither to protestagainst, yes, a serious ear that rom muchimpiety and human violence evils stillmore serious or the Church can all deriverom Religion.”4

Locked up in a jail in France,uncomortable and uneasy, the pope’spower was stripped rom him so that

he could not “prevent many evils” andcould not “protest against” them either.Catholic monasteries were being takenaway and assigned to other tasks, whichPope Pius considered proane. Lands wereconfiscated rom the Catholic Church,and the French ruling power was impiousand unruly. Te Church’s authority wasdiminished to nothing and its disciplineoverturned, so that its leaders could nolonger enorce any rules or decisions. Itwas no longer easy times or the Catholic

Church and or the pope. It was 1798.

Papacy Suffers a “Deadly Wound”Some people say that the ProtestantReormation dealt a great blow to theCatholic Church, and this is certainly true.But compared with the 1798 demotionmentioned above by Pope Pius VI, theearlier Reormation was only a precursorto the “deadly wound” (Rev. 13:3, KJV).

B Y K O O T V A N W Y K

THE “NAKED POPE”Drawn by Napoleon’s Artist


15/32


In the 16th century, the Roman Catholicscould still martyr the Reormers (and theydid). Tey could bring them to courts orecclesiastical justice. Tey could stop theProtestants’ preaching and teaching (andthey did).

As urther evidence o the crippledcondition o the Roman Catholic Churchin 1798, I offer a little-known sketch o thenaked pope that was drawn by Napoleon

Bonaparte’s official painter, Jacques–Louis David. Pope Pius VI died in exile in

France and was ollowed by Pope Pius VII,the one in the sketch, who was elected in1800.

Te nude study is part o a sketchbookthe artist used to prepare or a paintingcommissioned by Napoleon in 1804.Te official title o the finished work isConsecration of the Emperor Napoleon Iand Coronation of the Empress Josephinein the Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Parison 2 December 1804.5 Several sketchbooksamples were published in a biography o

Jacques–Louis David written by Luc deNanteuil in 1985.Both art critics and proessors at art

schools will tell you that artists routinelydrew their figures naked in sketchbooksand then clothed them or the final image.In a number o examples rom David’ssketchbook or this project, people weredrawn in the nude.

Te striking point is that in David’s

sketchbooks or his painting o thecoronation scene, not all o the figureswere first drawn naked. It appears thatnude studies were not made or VIPs.Tere is no naked picture o Napoleon,and it is said that he did not sit or David.Te artist had to ollow him in publicspeeches and sketch him there. In David’ssketch o Napoleon crowning himselrather than his wie, Josephine, Napoleonis ully clothed and the pope is seated

behind him. Tat sketch is currently in theLouvre in Paris. Studies o the EmpressJosephine in 1804 show her in whatappears to be nightgowns.

David’s nude study o Pope Pius VIIshows him alone and sitting on a chair,looking somewhat skinny. His look ispathetic, with shoulders slightly orward.Te studies o the muscles are veryrealistic, but that doesn’t necessarilymean that the pope posed naked—eitherwillingly or orced by Napoleon’s guards.

In act, whether or not the popemodeled or David’s nude study ohim is immaterial. For an officiallycommissioned artist to make such asketch o a key Vatican figure would beunthinkable today—as, in all probability, itwould have been unthinkable beore 1798.

“Tis is very unusual,” commentedAmerican artist and proessor ManMorrow, “and it’s surprising that the artistwould be allowed to show the pope inthis way.” Morrow, who was ormerly a

proessor at Catholic University in SouthKorea, said, “He would not have dared dothat in that era [beore 1798], expecting toget away with it.”

World Order Changed in 1798History illustrates that during this timethe Western world order changed rom aholy constitution, oriented toward a singlereligion, to a secular constitution oriented

mainly to civil affairs. Te shif in power—rom the dominance o Holy RomanEmpire beore 1798 to a new world orderin the West with a secular ocus afer thatdate—meant only one thing: the jail lefthe pope powerless; “wounded,” to use hiswords; and finally “naked,” to use David’spicture o 1805.6

Koot van Wyk is a visiting professor atKyungpook National University, SangjuCampus, in South Korea. He is also a

conjoint lecturer for Avondale College inCooranbong, Australia.

1Letter o Pope Pius VI dated Nov. 10, 1798, withthe title Constantiam vestram. See http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius06/index.htm to view hisletters in the original Italian. Te translated portionreads: “tuttavia ra tutte le altre erite della Chiesasono queste che principalmente giorno e notte Ciangustiamo e tengono in angoscia l’animo Nostro.”Te word ferite in Latin means “strike, hit, slay, kill.”2ibid. See http://digilander.iol.it/magistero/p6consta.htm to view this letter in the originalItalian: “non solo si separarono da Noi, maostentando sulla ronte il carattere della bestiacombatterono contro l’Agnello e condussero controla Chiesa una guerra spietata.”3ibid. See http://digilander.iol.it/magistero/p6consta.htm to view this letter in the originalItalian: “da quanto dolore ossimo angustiatiper le gravissime tribolazioni dalle quali eravatecolpiti e quanto ardentemente ci adoperassimo perconsolarvi.”4See http://digilander.libero.it/magistero/p6cumnos.htm to view in Italian the letter titled Cum nossuperiori, written by Pope Pius VI on Nov. 13,1798: “e siamo tenuti a diendere e a proteggere i violati diritti del sacerdozio, siamo stati cacciatidalla Sede Romana e costretti ad emigrare in terrestraniere; rinchiusi in questo cenobio dei Certosini,non possiamo impedire tanti mali con l’autoritàapostolica né protestare contro una sì graverepressione dei diritti sia umani che divini, ed anzi

temiamo che da tanta empietà e violenza umanapossano derivare mali ancor più gravi per la Chiesae per tutta la Religione.”5See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te_Coronation_o_Napoleon.6de Nanteuil indicates that Jacques-Louis David’soriginal Naked Pope sketch is in the Fogg ArtMuseum, Harvard University, Cambridge (p. 40).He writes that while David ound the pope to be a“good man, a true evangelic” (p. 37), the pope hadmisgivings about David and said he was concernedthat the painter “would make short work o a poorpapier-mãché Pope” (p. 136).

IT APPEARS THAT NUDE STUDIES

WERE NOT MADE FOR VIPs.

THERE IS NO NAKED PICTURE OF

NAPOLEON, AND IT IS SAID THAT HE

DID NOT SIT FOR DAVID.


16/32


F E A T U R E

M , cardinal o the Roman Catholic Churchsigned a treaty with the Fascist regime led

by Benito Mussolini. Tis treaty was oconclusive importance to the church, beingable to revive the secular power that it hadlost several decades earlier. But how couldRome advance thus ar?

A History of Ideological ConflictTe effect o the French Revolution on thecourse o world history is indisputable.Likewise, this Fascist revolution also madea proound influence on Christianity in the

modern age, and its influence has persistedup to the present day—albeit to a lesser andlesser extent with each passing decade.

Te 2,000-year history o the Christianchurch has ofen induced various schismsor conflicts, such as inward or outwardideological clashes or even armed attacks.However, what happened at the end o the18th century can be said to have surpassedeverything else that had happenedbeore, since as we all know, the Jacobindictatorship turned France into the firstatheist state in human history. O course,the atheist spirit had been latently presentin the recesses o human thinking romantiquity up to the Age o Enlightenment.It had even made a very prooundeffect on the development o modernsciences,1 but it had never beore beeninstitutionalized in such a clear-cut orm.2

Te Revolution exerted the most severeblow on medieval Catholicism or, tobe more exact, on the secular and theresulting spiritual power o the CatholicChurch, dating rom the Middle Ages.It evidently lef the thousand-year-old

NOTES ON A MOMENTOUS

TREATYB Y T I B O R T O N H A I Z E R


17/32


political power o the church in ruins in1798. In this year, the revolutionary troopsinvaded the “Eternal City,” sent the popeinto exile, and proclaimed the republic.Afer the revolution was over and the HolyAlliance was ormed, the church was lefto breathe more reely or awhile, althoughthe earlier sequence o events was well-nigh repeated in 1830. However, thesequence o events taking place in 1848-1849 lef the church with ar less luck, asthe Papal State was abolished again.

Scarcely had the “order” been restoredwhen the Franco-Prussian War broke outin 1870. As a result o its outcome, thelosing French troops were compelled toleave Rome. Te king o Italy demandedthe pope to resign in exchange orcompensation. However, Pius IX declaredthat he preerred martyrdom over yieldingto violence and that he would proclaimhimsel a captive and confine himselto Vatican Palace. At the same time, heexcommunicated all o the enemies o thepapacy rom the church.

Te Italian royal troops invaded

Rome on Sept. 20, 1870, and occupiedthe remaining parts o the ormer PapalState. Te annexation o the territory toItaly was decided by a reerendum. Teso-called Guarantee Law passed by theItalian Parliament finally declared theabolition o the pope’s secular power. Atthe same time, it recognized him as heado the church, guaranteed his inviolability,and permitted him to establish diplomaticrelationships at his will. Te palaces oVatican, Laterano, and Castel Gandolowere designated as the seat o the popeand the Roman Curia, and a fixed yearlycompensation was granted by the Italianstate. Te pope had no jurisdictionwhatsoever outside the above-mentionedbuildings. Rome became the capital o thekingdom and the seat o the king.

Pius IX rejected this law and declaredhimsel a lielong prisoner o the Vatican.Te “deadly wound” received in 1798 wasthereore undergoing urther “necrosis”until 1871, and the secular power o thepapacy seemed to be abolished or good.3

And indeed, it can be said that the

papacy was subsisting in some sort o a vacuum during the ollowing decades,leading a largely vegetative existence.It required more than 50 years or thechurch to find another potential secularally by resorting to its time-provenmethods. Te new opportunity came atthe beginning o the 1920s, when reshpolitical winds were beginning to blow inItaly.

Opportunity KnocksTe extent to which Pius XI understoodthe times is fittingly illustrated by the

issuing o his encyclical letter beginningwith “Ubi Arcano Dei” on Dec. 23, 1922.Tis document argued that i the state—inthis case, the Italian state—should grantthe Church complete reedom or there-Christianization o society, the Churchwould in exchange support the state inmaintaining and consolidating the socialorder.4

Tis initiative was not only listened tobut also was met with sympathy by therepresentatives o the new political system.


18/32

A D V E N T I S T T O D A Y • F A L L 2 0 1 318

F E A T U R E

Mussolini realized that it did not requiremuch to win the avor o the papacy andthat, in turn, a deal would be more thanbeneficial or the political system. Tetime, in short, was ripe or a reconciliationwith the Vatican.

Hoping to win the avor o Catholicbelievers by a ew concessions, Mussolinimade the Parliament pass a number o actsin avor o the papacy. Religious educationbecame compulsory as early as 1923,and this was ollowed by the abolition oMasonic Lodges. Soon crucifixes wererestored in all o the country’s schoolsand courtrooms. Te allowances o thepriests were increased, and the studentso Catholic seminaries were exempt rommilitary service. o win the trust o Pius XI,Mussolini even considered the establishmento Catholicism as a state religion.

Promises, however, be they even themost sonorous and encouraging, didnot have much value unless put into awritten orm. Te necessity o solvingthe so-called Roman Question becamean absolute priority by the mid-1920s.Te negotiations were practically startedin the summer o 1926, but it took threemore years beore a final agreement wasreached. Te involved parties met no lessthan 110 times, and the negotiations tookas much as 8-10 hours per occasion,5 which also shows the utmost importanceo the issue. (Note that rom January 1929onward, the negotiations were led byMussolini himsel.)

Finally, the deal was signed on Feb.11, 1929, by Cardinal Pietro Gasparrion behal o the Vatican and by PrimeMinister Benito Mussolini on behal o theItalian state. At the moment o signing, itseemed that the so-called Lateran reatywould settle the delicate situation to thesatisaction o both parties and, as itwere, provide a guarantee or realizingthe promises made earlier. Proo or thisstatement is that “this treaty is even today

the basis o the relationship o the Vaticanand the Italian state, although it wassomewhat modified in the eighties withregard to certain points.”6

A New DealSix years afer the treaty was signed, astandard-setting Catholic publicationgave the ollowing description o the newsituation: “Te Lateran treaty (concluded in1929 between the Italian state and the HolySee) is not merely an Italian affair, but has

been the greatest milestone in internationallaw development since the world war. Notonly did the deal made between the HolySee and the Italian state put an end to theRoman Question internally, but this issuealso ceased to be a burning wound onthe body o the world church. And withregard to international law, the Holy Seeundoubtedly took the place that has beenits due.”7

It is interesting to note that decadeslater, Catholic church historian Konrád

Szántó used a similar expression todescribe the situation beore the treaty.Tis expression is almost identical to theBiblical one: the “deadly wound.” Szántówrites: “Until the deal o Pius in 1929, theRoman Question remained a bleedingwound on the body o the Italian state.”8

But let us examine the treaty itsel.When talking about the Lateran reaty, weshould use the plural, as more documentswere signed at the same time. Te firstdocument is the treaty itsel. Tis, among

others, states that the pope’s person isinviolable, and that Vatican State is (again)a sovereign secular power. Te pope hasthe right to send ambassadors to othercountries, as well as receive them romthese. Te head o the Church retained theright to maintain independent diplomaticrelations even in case o a potentialmilitary conflict. It was in 1943 that thisact became o immense value.9 Tis, ocourse, was to a large extent due to the

increased authority o the papacy. As KarlHeussi notes, “Rome suffered much lessrom the ravages o war than did otherItalian cities, as a proo o the authorityenjoyed by the pope in the world.”10 Inexchange, the pope recognized Italy withRome as capital, as well as the dynasty oSavoy.

Under the jurisdiction o the Vaticancame three palaces that are outside theterritory o the state, the same beingtrue or other church property (such asoffices or educational institutions). Atthe same time, the treaty also regulatedthe legal status o Vatican citizens, settledthe matter o judicature and, mostimportantly, provided or unconditionalreedom in electing the pope. It can besaid with certainty that these provisionsrestored the Papal State on an area o 0.5km2—in other words, the papacy was oncemore established as a secular power.

Te other Lateran document settledfinancial matters. It prescribed a one-time compensation rom the Italian stateor all the losses suffered by the church,partly because o the ormation o theItalian state and partly because o thelater nationalizations. Te compensationconsisted o two parts. One o them wasnonreundable, while the other was along-term, low-interest credit. Morespecifically, the Italian state took uponitsel an obligation to pay 750 millionItalian lire or the Vatican. At the sametime, it also transerred a state loanconsolidated at 5 percent—an amount o 1billion lire.

Te third treaty was, in act, theConcordat between the two parties,which essentially put an end to the long,drawn-out Roman Question. It stipulatedsome 44 articles, which regulated therelationship between church and state withan incredibly minute attention to detail.One o the most important points wasthat Catholicism was again declared to be


19/32


20/32


S- A gender and church leadership throughout their history. Followingis a brie survey o major thought developments in this area.

God’s MessengerTe year was 1844. Te Second Great Awakening was in disarray.Te widely anticipated Advent had not come as expected.Conused believers were desperate or answers.

From amidst the turmoil, a young Ellen Harmon (laterEllen White) emerged with the hopeul message that Godhad not orsaken them. As her message resonated withdespondent believers, the invitations to share it multiplied. She

quickly became the most amous preacher among the post-disappointment Adventists.

A woman o such prominence was not unheard o but wasstill unusual in 1844, especially in church leadership.1 AlthoughProtestantism had rejected the Catholic priesthood, it hadretained gender exclusion among its clergy. In broader society,women were only beginning to earn rights to own property, and

they were still three-quarters o a century rom securing the rightto vote. All in all, their social standing was little better than thato Southern slaves.

Promoting Female LeadershipWithin this cultural setting, Ellen’s ministry met with staunchopposition. As a result, Adventist pioneers spent the next severaldecades deending the legitimacy o women in church leadership,reaching a crescendo around 1881. Te ollowing examplesrepresent the general tone o their efforts.2

In 1861, Uriah Smith published what he called “a triumphant vindication o the right o the sisters to take part in the publicworship o God”3 and commented that, while Joel’s predictiono daughters prophesying (Joel 2:28-29) “must embrace publicspeaking o some kind, this we think is but hal o its meaning.”4

In 1879, John Andrews and James White penned articles toendorse the broader ministry o women.

Andrews addressed texts commonly employed to delegitimizewomen in leadership (especially 1 Cor. 14:34-36 and 1im. 2:12) and catalogued biblical examples o women whoministered outside o presumed boundaries.5 wo weeks earlier,John Waggoner had published a similar deense o women in

leadership, with the significantly nuanced view that, in Paul’sthinking, women were not generally called to “occupy theposition o a pastor or a ruling elder.”6 However, he termed thislimit “restrictive but not prohibitory,”7 given the biblical exampleso women who did serve administrative roles. Andrews offered asimilarly qualified acknowledgment o Paul’s restrictive language.Speaking o 1 im. 2:12, he wrote: “We understand this text to

give Paul’s general rule with regard to women as public teachers.But there are some exceptions to this general rule to be drawneven rom Paul’s writings, and rom other scriptures.”8

Four months later, James White also deended emale leadersin systematic ashion. He did not express the qualifiers thatAndrews and Waggoner did. He concluded: “Te Christianage was ushered in with glory. Both men and women enjoyedthe inspiration o the hallowed hour, and were teachers o thepeople. ... And the dispensation which was ushered in with glory,honored with the labors o holy women, will close with the same

F E A T U R E

A B H of A

on W in L(-)B Y J A M E S W I B B E R D I N G


21/32


honors.”9

He then quoted Acts 2:17. White had been writingdeenses o emale leadership since 1857.10

Also in 1879, Ellen White orceully expressed the sameopenness, also without limiters: “It was Mary that first preacheda risen Jesus,” she wrote. “I there were twenty women where nowthere is one, who would make this holy mission their cherishedwork, we should see many more converted to the truth. Terefining, sofening influence o Christian women is needed in thegreat work o preaching the truth.”11 Ellen White would continueto pen endorsements o women in ministry or the rest o herlie, even commenting that “It is the accompaniment o the HolySpirit o God that prepares workers, both men and women, to

become pastors to the flock o God.”12

Adventist pioneers did not express significant interest inlimiting the roles o women in the church. Teir passion was inexpanding opportunities or women. Although their views werenot the same as progressive views o this century, they continuallydeveloped their case or openness.

Troughout 1879, Adventist leaders reuted restrictivearguments being made rom 1 Cor. 11:8-10, 1 Cor. 14:34-35, and1 im. 2:12 as they made their case or openness rom Joel 2:28-29, Gal. 3:28, and the numerous biblical examples o leadingwomen. A recurrent argument was that God could equip andempower whomever he wished to, so the church should accept

his leading when they saw it.

Credentialing Female Ministerswo years afer this flurry o articles avoring women in leadership,the General Conerence responded enthusiastically. Tey votedmeasures to strengthen Battle Creek College to better ulfill its“purpose o fitting young men and women or useulness either inthe ministry or in fields o missionary labor.”13

A motion to ordain women also came to the floor. It read,“Resolved , Tat emales possessing the necessary qualificationsto fill that position, may, with perect propriety, be set apart byordination to the work o the Christian ministry.”14

Te resolution was reerred to the General ConerenceCommittee. Opinions vary on whether it was reerred thereor implementation or urther study. Te latter seems mostlikely.15 However, the significance o this motion does not rest inwhether or not it was adopted, but in its existence. It came to thefloor at a time when Christianity was not very open to womenin leadership, but it was the natural result o decades spentadvocating it.

In the spirit o the 1881 resolution, at the start o the next two-year credentialing period (1883), the church issued Ellen White

an ordination credential.16

It stated that she was an “ordainedminister” o the Seventh-day Adventist church.17 She continuedto receive ordination credentials until her death in 1915.18 Tispractice demonstrates that Adventist leaders, including EllenWhite, were willing to categorize her as an ordained minister.

In the same spirit, the church employed several other womenas ull-time pastors.19 According to the Adventist Yearbooksrom 1884, when ministerial listings first appeared, to 1915,when Ellen White died, 28 women held ministerial licenses.20 O these women, only Ellen White held ordination credentials.Nonetheless, the number o women unctioning as pastors isimpressive or the time.

Fundamentalism and FeminismTis countercultural posture changed quickly with Ellen White’sdeath in 1915 and the rise o undamentalism over the next decade.Fundamentalism ound its cause and ollowing in response toliberal trends in theology that swept in rom Europe. Te clashbetween liberalism and undamentalism polarized AmericanChristianity, leaving no middle ground.21

Adventism seemed aced with a choice between the rigidtraditionalism o the undamentalists and the inspiration-rejecting wiles o the liberals. Adventists chose undamentalism.Although it helped preserve some aspects o Adventism—like

the authority o Scripture and the value o God’s law—it alsoradically changed the church, nudging it back toward its pre-1888legalism,22 bending it toward stiff support or verbal inspiration oScripture,23 and pushing women out o ministry.

It was hal a century beore the renewed American eministmovement helped make women in ministry an open questionagain. Secular trends raised the question, and the churchanswered with theological study.

General Conference NeutralityTe General Conerence conducted a ull investigation o thesubject in 1973, which involved the top biblical scholars o the

time. Tese scholars concluded that there is “no significanttheological objection to the ordination o women to Churchministries” and recommended a pilot program or includingwomen in pastoral and evangelistic roles “where the ‘climate’ inthe field would appear receptive.”24 Tey also recommended that“qualifications or church offices which require ordination ... belisted without reerence to sex.”25

Te General Conerence did not substantially act on thisreport, nor on a series o subsequent GC studies that also avoredwomen in ordained ministry. Although the ordination o emale


22/32

elders and deaconesses has since been approved,26 and provisionhas been made or women to train and serve as pastors, theGeneral Conerence has not established policy or or againstordaining them.27

Since the General Conerence never voted the 1881 resolutionand did not ormally side with the theological position o the

pioneers or the 1973 study, it maintained neutrality in reerenceto both policy and theology.

At the 1990 and 1995 General Conerence Sessions,efforts were made to change that neutrality to a position oendorsement. Both attempts ailed to receive adequate support.Te popular view has been that these ailures resulted in aprohibition o ordaining emale pastors.28 Others observe thatrestrictive interpretations do not harmonize with proceduresor policy creation or the General Conference Working Policy . Atpresent, the Working Policy contains no gender requirement orordination, leaving it neutral on the question.

Were Adventist Pioneers Gender Restrictive?Some writers and lecturers have portrayed Adventist historydifferently than this paper does. Tey have led a successulcampaign to popularize a restrictive reading o the 1990 Session vote and a portrayal o Adventist pioneer views as restrictive.Examination o historical documents does not support theseinterpretations.

Te early Advent Movement had gender inclusion stampedinto its DNA when Ellen Harmon (White) suraced as a spiritualleader. In her deense, and counter to the culture o their times,her ellow pioneers argued that Scripture endorsed women inchurch leadership. Although trends in culture pushed Adventism

toward pastoral gender exclusion and then back toward inclusion,a definitive position remains elusive.

Teologically, we have the early Adventist arguments in avoro emale leaders, a century o divisive conversation, and severalGeneral Conerence studies that sided with the pioneers. Whatwe don’t have is a voted theological position on the matter.

Prior to and ollowing the 1881 resolution, the Seventh-dayAdventist Church was also policy neutral on women in pastoralministry but nurtured a precedent o permission. FollowingEllen White’s death and the imprint o undamentalism, the

denomination remained policy neutral but nurtured a precedento restriction.

In North America, cultural trends have precipitated a clashbetween these divergent precedents, in the volatile context o

theological ambiguity. Tis theological ambiguity and the underlyingclash between the dynamic early Advent Movement and the more

static undamentalist movement are central reasons why theAdventist debate over women in church leadership remains soheated. Te pathos o the Adventist brand is at issue.

James Wibberding is a pastor in Boise, Idaho, where he also servesas state senate chaplain and adjunct professor to the Doctor of Ministry program at Andrews University. He has worked at variouschurch levels to advocate for the equal standing of women inleadership.

1Although some women had gained prominence by leading church-endorsedsocial causes, and opportunities to pray and testiy in worship services hadincreased, Christianity in general remained ar rom allowing emale pastors.2For a thorough treatment o the early Adventist periodical record regarding

women in leadership, see “‘Your Daughters Shall Prophesy’: James White, UriahSmith, and the ‘riumphant Vindication o the Right o the Sisters’ to Preach,”by Beverly Beem and Ginger-Hanks Harwood (http://session.adventistaith.orgassets/393508).3Uriah Smith, “Women As Preachers and Lecturers,” Advent Review andSabbath Herald , Vol. 18, No. 9, July 30, 1861, p. 65.4ibid.5John N. Andrews, “May Women Speak in Meeting?” Te Advent Review andSabbath Herald , Jan. 2, 1879, p. 4.6John Waggoner, “Woman’s Place in the Gospel,” Signs of the imes, Dec. 19,1878, p. 380.7ibid.8ibid.9James White, “Women in the Church,” Te Advent Review and Sabbath Herald ,Vol. 53, No. 22, May 29, 1879, p. 172.10James White, “Paul Says So,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald , Vol. 10, No.19, Sept. 10, 1857, p. 152.11

Ellen G. White, “Address and Appeal, Setting Forth the Importance oMissionary Work,” Te Advent Review and Sabbath Herald , Vol. 53, No. 1, Jan.2, 1879, p. 1.12Ellen White, “Canvassers as Gospel Evangelists,” Te Advent Review andSabbath Herald , Jan. 15, 1901, p. 33.13Signs of the imes, Dec. 22, 1881.14“General Conerence,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald , Vol. 58, No. 25,Dec. 20, 1881, p. 392.15Most other motions recorded rom this GC Session are designated as“adopted,” while this one is not.16Since 1871 she had received ministerial credentials, but the 1883 document,as well as subsequent documents, designated her as “ordained.” Much has beenmade o some tampering with the word “ordained” on the 1885 certificate.


F E A T U R E

Te early Advent Movement had gender inclusion stamped into its DNA

when Ellen Harmon (White) surfaced as a spiritual leader. In her defense,

and counter to the culture of their times, her fellow pioneers argued that

Scripture endorsed women in church leadership.

Continued on page 30


23/32

C R O S S W O R D


ACROSS

1 Utterly convinced

5 Thor portrayer Hemsworth

10 Broken bit

15 Muse of history

16 It might make you blush

17 Item tossed at Highland games

18 Sharp 3ABN viewing option

19 Whence descended the New Jerusalem,

in an early Ellen White vision

20 Egg producer

21 *See title ... or a possible postlapsarian

garment for Adam?

23 Joint part

24 Jesus considered them well-dressed25 It’s not free of charge

27 Together, musically (2 words)

28 Change for the better

29 *See title … or cause Cradle Rollers

to sin?

32 In medias ___

33 What the tongue can never be, according

to James

35 Follower of Des

36 *See title … or a place for campmeeting

leaders?

39 One not known for generous offerings

42 Measureless

43 SDA school in Riverside, California: Abbr.

46 *See title … or fodder for a dramatic

testimony?

49 Iridescent gems

51 Shallowest Great Lake

52 Partake of a potluck

53 Important feature of clean animals

54 Approval signals on Sabbath morning

56 *See title … or a directional sign in a

church?

59 Three-card ___ (gambling game)

60 Distress call (2 words)

61 Miss, in the Inter-American Division: Abbr.

62 Nine: Prefix63 Dinah, to Esau

64 Meter or liter

65 “I will tell of all your wonderful ___”

(Psalm 9:1)

66 High points

67 Word interpreted by Daniel

DOWN

1 Pacific Union College figure

2 Paul and Silas’s sort of religion, according

to a song (2 words)

3 Small characters in children’s novels by

John Peterson

4 Began with vigor (2 words)

5 They’re sown and reaped

6 Israeli circle dance

7 Archaeological site

8 Epiphany sound (3 words)

9 Security system part

10 One who might throw a 17-Across

11 “Go ahead!” (3 words)

12 Desert13 Send another way

14 Skin ailment

22 Reason for a delay (2 words)

26 Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, e.g.

29 Adventist Health first responder: Abbr.

30 Classical prefix

31 Seaplane structure

34 In complete unity (2 words)

36 Like Kellogg’s Corn Flakes®

37 Campers, for short

38 Bit of body art, in slang

39 Beat soundly

40 Mind-altering substance prevalent in

youth Sabbath school?

41 First Christian martyr, in France

43 One of the Andrews Sisters

44 Came just in time for the sermon,

perhaps (2 words)

45 FL or NY, e.g. (Abbr. + word)

47 Film about the Statue of Liberty?

48 Kind of energy

50 Play ___ (feign death)

53 Can’t stand

55 Red and Black, e.g.

57 Not us

58 Bridal shower?

Tis is an American-style

themed crossword, constructed

like those seen in newspapers.

Te starred clues or the longtheme answers use a bit o

wordplay, the nature o which

is lef or the solver to discover,

to produce a plausible but

odd phrase that is then clued

to relate to Adventist culture.

Many other words and clues

may appeal to the unique

cultural knowledge o Adventist

oday readership. Te solution

and an explanation o the

starred clues can be ound on

page 30.

Caleb Rasmussen teaches atChico Oaks Adventist School inCalifornia.

Protestant Reformation


24/32


F E A T U R E


25/32


While watchingmy now 19-year-old son grow up, itoccurred to me thathis uture happiness

and reedom depended in great part uponchoices—both ours and his.

I needn’t single him out. Tis is trueor his mother and me too, though we’re

much urther down lie’s path. Lie experience has made mekeenly aware o how our relationship to responsibility and choiceshackles and encumbers us. Te reedoms that we have greatestpersonal control over are deeply affected (i not determined) bythe choices we make in lie, starting very young. As obvious as allthis may seem, I rarely hear these ideas discussed.

My operating assumptions in this brie essay are as ollows:• An integrated person, able to address lie rom the

perspective o wholeness and wellness, is substantially reer thanone who is not integrated. By “integrated,” I mean one whosesoul1 has done the uniying work o bringing together body,mind, and spirit.2

• A person who is not under the law (or ear o authority)experiences greater reedom than one who is.3

• Distinguishing between choices that affect body, mind,spirit, or soul is o little value when we were created to live as anintegrated whole. Choices affecting the part have corollary effectson our whole person (1 Cor. 6:12-20, NRSV).

• A significant part o what it means to be saved over time(sanctified) is God’s work in us o restoration to wholeness. Iwould suggest that human reedom, in the ullest sense, can beours only when we are whole.

• Te reedom Christ created us with and redeemed us

or cannot be separated rom the power o the choices we’reresponsible or. By responsibly engaging our power o choicethrough intentional moral choices that orm character, bynourishing the integrative power o the soul, and by enduringthe discipline o the body, we engage the real reedom Christ hasbought. Tis is no less the gif o God in Christ!

I you think some o this reads like it might have been takenrom a Dallas for Dummies book 4, you’re right! I know o nogreater contemporary advocate than Dallas Willard or thenecessity o a spiritual journey that embraces discipline inthe same way it embraces grace. Te theological corrective ishopeully obvious.

Christians, Adventists included, tend to be polarized intwo different directions.5 Te first group is too attached to thesignificance o their choices and the powers o sin, moving themto a moralistic behaviorism that has little to do with the ministryo Christ and much more to do with religiosity—a Pharisaicalapproach to spirituality.6 Te second group can be prone tomisapprehend the nature o grace they have been covered by,assuming an automatic transormation o person and characterapart rom discipline, responsibility, and the daily denialsinvolved in godly choice. Te corrective balances the necessitieso discipline and grace, responsibility and reedom, consequenceand choice, justice and the law.

I would also offer this unhappy thought or your consideration:we are not “ree” in a host o ways. None o us is immuneto culture, genetics, or environmental influences. Culturalexpectations and norms—no matter how immoral or ungodly—influence us to the extent we’re immersed in patterns that reflectculture. Debates on whether or not an objective universal moralcode exists outside o human society aside, I tend toward the view that what constitutes morality or the expression o a moral

LONGING FOR FREEDOMBy Gregory L. Hoenes


26/32


27/32


I would that youth, young adults, and adults alike mightembrace the idea that we’re ree to the extent we’re willing tosel-limit our reedom. We limit our choices to that which willnot enslave or compromise our options in the world in ways thatmitigate the values we would claim as Christians on lie’s journey.

And there are a host o other things where responsible choicereally matters.17 Who will we be as a net result o the reedoms weengage?

• Will we choose aith or doubt? Optimism or pessimism orcynicism?

• Will we choose to be persistent, or will we give up whendifficulties present themselves?

• Will we be bold in our choices, or will we live in timidity?• Will we choose to love, despite the pains and losses, or will

we hold back in reserve?• Will we sacrifice and delay reward in order to achieve, or will

we seek to satisy ourselves here and now?• Will we be diligent, or will we give in to all o the prevailing

distractions? What kind o lie will we choose?• What attitudes will we adopt? Will we choose to be happy?• Will we affirm lie, or will we ocus on the obstacles and

tragedies that make lie unbearable at times?• Will we seek joy and meaning, or will we give in to nihilism,affirming nothing but the meaninglessness that so many havetragically embraced?

• Will we believe to the point o our own healing? Or will weconstantly ask the question, “I you can ... ?”18

• Will we worship, or will we ignore the “God rom whom allblessings flow”?19

• Will we participate in the body lie o church, or will weeschew the disciplines o shared community and grace?

Each o these polarities is within the realm o real choice.Te outcomes o each polarity are enormously and prooundlydifferent—qualitatively, quantitatively, and in meaning. So whatwill you choose? I long to see us all truly ree!

Gregory L. Hoenes, M.A., is senior pastor of Santa Clarita SDAChurch in Santa Clarita, California.

1I am using “soul,” as Jesus did, to describe a part o the whole sel. I borrowedDallas Willard’s definition o soul—as the part o being that unifies ouremotions, will, body and intellect, making us whole beings—shared at theKnowing Christ Conerence, Feb. 21-23, 2013, Santa Barbara, Caliornia.2Luke 10:27, NRSV, recounts the summary o the law in multidimensionalterms. In 1 Tess. 5:23, Paul speaks o “spirit, soul and body” in context oholiness and blamelessness. Present in the text is a ull sermon on choices thatlead to real reedom.3Tere are two essential points to be made here. First, Romans 6 offers a classicsermon on our status under grace, not law. Paul amously notes that “you,having been set ree rom sin, have become slaves o righteousness” (verse 18,NRSV). Te second point is made in Rom. 13:1-5, which indicates that right-doing leaves us with reedom rom ear under the law.4Tis is a humorous reerence to a nonexistent book, which is commonly usedby Dallas Willard’s riends and students because the content o the bookswritten on the subject o personal transormation is so dense. I most recentlyheard John Ortberg use this term at the Knowing Christ Conerence, Feb. 21-23,2013, Santa Barbara, Caliornia.5Randy Roberts reerenced this well-known religious and political polarity inhis sermon “Teir Faith . . . and Yours,” preached at the Loma Linda UniversityChurch, April 27, 2013 (available at www.lluc.org).6Alex Bryan observed this same thing in his sermon titled “Te Tird Way,”delivered at Te ONE Project, Chicago, Illinois, Feb. 10, 2013 (available athttp://the1project.org/media.html). He uses the terms “Roman” and “Pharisee”to describe the polarities.7According to projections ound on NerdWallet.com, the average Americanhousehold had $15,204 in credit card debt in 2012.8Our national debt figure changes by the second. Various debt “clocks” andofficial sources show the United States approaching 17 trillion dollars in debt.9According to CNBC’s All-American Economic Survey, “Apples Are Growing inAmerican Homes,” March 28, 2012, ha l (55 million) o the households in theUnited States own an Apple product, and the average is 1.6 such devices!10A classic example o this can be ound in Season Four, Episode 17, which firstaired March 26, 1998, according to Friends.Wiki.com. 11CNN Politics reported on Jan. 7, 2009, that the “adult entertainment industry”was asking or $5 billion in economic bailout unds (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/07/porn-industry-seeks-ederal-bailout/).12Te Los Angeles Porn Actors Required to Wear Condoms Act, Measure“B,” was approved on Nov. 6, 2012, making news in Los Angeles County andbeyond.13“Super Size Me,” a 2004 documentary on this topic by Morgan Spurlock, isnow a classic.14New York imes Health Guide, uesday, April 20, 2013.15A quick survey o material available on the Internet yields different lists oaddictions, with differing orders, no two o which agree. I am not citing anyparticular one but have made up my own list.16Tis would fit best with H. Richard Neibuhr’s fifh model, “Christ theransormer o Culture” in his book, Christ and Culture, first published in 1951.17I am indebted to my thoughtul riend Peter Tornburgh or his suggestionsin this section.18aken rom the story in Mark 9 o the man with a son possessed by a spirit,who asks o Jesus in verse 22, “i you are able to do anything, have pity on usand help us.” Jesus’ declarative in verse 23, “I you are able!—All things can bedone or the one who believes” is what this particular question addresses interms o our aith.19Quoted rom Te Common Doxology , by Tomas Ken, 1674.

ace the idea that we’re free

ur choices to that which will

hat mitigate the values we


28/32

He Was Wrong—But It Still Worked

By Alden Tompson


A L D E N T H O M P S O N

Te trigger or this piece was the suddenend o the ast-track plan to merge PacificPress and Review and Herald, Adventism�

2013-04.AdventistToday

Documents

Transcript of 2013-04.AdventistToday