I suggested that the first part of the verse means simply that the temptations you and I face are what all humans face. They’re "par for the course." We don’t experience super-human temptations. It’s not as if some people must deal with temptations from, let’s say, the angelic realm.

When we reach the latter part of the verse, it gets a little trickier. Some could read the next part to suggest that God is the source of our temptations. But James 1:13, 14 deals a knockout blow to that idea: "When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed."

The idea of God tempting us doesn’t make God look good. So it’s a relief to know that He doesn’t do so. But what does He do?

As I mentioned last week, some suggest that God plays the role of an executive. They think that all temptations, whether inspired by the devil or springing spontaneously from our own minds, come to His desk before they reach our consciousness. He looks at them, weighs all the considerations, then lets them pass on through or intercepts them.

Knowing us as He does down to very hairs of our head, He knows our breaking point. And He ensures that no temptation gets through that we couldn’t handle if we just had a mind to.

If, for example, I easily fall prey to flirting with beautiful women, He would make sure that only a 7 or below (on a scale of 1 to 10) ever comes into contact with me. And if I must do business with a 10, He would see to it that the rain had made her mascara run or that clumps of spinach were stuck between her teeth. But one way or another, she’d have been reduced to at least a 7.

However, the far more common human temptation may not involve beautiful women or handsome men. It may have to do with the temptation to succumb to discouragement, despondency,

depression and doubt when our personal world is falling apart. And if God is indeed using some sort of temptation filter to ensure that we’ll never reach breaking point, why is so much garbage flowing our way? And coming so non-stop, it seems.

I’ve often heard people make comments such as, "I wish God didn’t think I was so strong so that He wouldn’t allow such heavy burdens to be placed on me." And others cry out, "What’s He’s trying to teach me? I’m willing to do whatever He wants. But I don’t know what He wants."

Since I’m out of space, I’m going to succumb to the temptation to continue this discussion yet another week.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

I’ve suggested that the first part of the verse means simply that the temptations you and I face are what all humans face. But when we reach the latter part of the verse, it gets a little trickier. Does God play the role of an executive, assessing all upcoming temptations but only letting those temptations reach us that we should be able to handle? I don’t think so.

When trying to appropriately interpret such passages, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral may be useful. And what exactly is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral? John Wesley said that in searching for answers to our spiritual questions, we should seek input from four sources: scripture, tradition, experience and reason.

Since the word "tradition" is so negatively charged for Adventists, let me suggest that Wesley is talking here about history. We need to consider how those who’ve gone before us have viewed the issue. While we don’t have to agree with them, there’s likewise no merit in already-discovered explanation that works quite adequately.

When we compare texts of scripture, and especially when we bring in reason and experience, it seems unlikely that God plays the heavenly executive role so often assumed.

For example, I’ve interacted with people who’ve experienced tragedy after tragedy after tragedy. I think it unlikely that God has actually made an executive decision to let them suffer as they have just because He has determined that they’re strong enough to survive it.

The reality is, I’ve seen people who’ve come unglued by what they’ve experienced. We need look no further for proof than the post-traumatic stress that has wreaked havoc with many a battlefield participant. Does God tailor-make such experiences to ensure that the recipient isn’t subjected to more than his or her capacity to withstand, thus ensuring that there’s no excuse for having come unglued?

So what does the text mean? I think it means merely that, generically, power is there for dealing with every temptation. The Holy Spirit is there for everyone. Although we don’t fully understand their role, angelic forces are there to help us in our struggle. Help is always available, and we need to avail ourselves of it.

But I don’t think the passage means that God is, in the final analysis, the one making the decision concerning whether or not a temptation will come our way. We live in a world where temptation—both to engage in evil and to simply give up—are rampant. God wants us to know that He’s there for us just as much in our time of greatest need as when everything is moving along perfectly.

He never abandons us. He never forsakes us. He’s always there. He cares. And he works perpetually to make something beautiful even of the broken pieces when we do succumb. At least, that’s my take on the topic.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear Snyder v. Phelps, a case dealing with anti-gay protests at the funerals of American soldiers, is stirring up debate over whether the privacy rights of grieving families trumps the free speech rights of demonstrators.

The case arose after members of the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church picketed the Maryland funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in combat in Iraq on March 3, 2006. As part of their protests, church members held up signs during Snyder’s funeral which stated, among other things, "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," "Fag Troops," "Priests Rape Boys," and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

Understandably grief-stricken and outraged over Westboro’s theatrics, Snyder’s father, Albert, filed suit against Westboro Baptist Church and was awarded more than $10 million in damages. That amount was later thrown out by a federal appeals court, which ruled that Westboro’s signs could not reasonably be understood to be referring directly to Snyder and his son, who was not gay. As distasteful as Phelps’ rhetoric might be, stated the court, it constituted protected speech that focused on issues of national debate.

As morally repugnant and unpatriotic as Westboro’s protests might be, they have nonetheless managed to garner a great deal of publicity—something Phelps, who started the Topeka, Kansas-based church in 1955, clearly loves. Consisting mainly of Phelps and his extended family, Westboro Baptist Church became infamous in 1991 for its "God Hates Fags" message, which is also the name of its website.

However, Westboro not only condemns those who are openly homosexual but also those who do not speak out against homosexuality. For example, accusing Chief Justice William Rehnquist of not protecting the United States against homosexuality, they picketed his September 2005 funeral with signs reading "Judge in Hell."

Their actions are deplorable, particularly their protests at military funerals. However, whether such tasteless protests are illegal and outside the protection of the First Amendment is another matter altogether—and one that has given rise to a national furor.

Forty-one states have now passed laws limiting demonstrations at funerals. On a national level, federal legislation essentially bars free speech demonstrations within certain distances of cemeteries.

Still, it must be remembered that James Madison, who authored the First Amendment, noted that the purpose of the Amendment was to protect the minority against the majority. And as Madison knew very well, the minority is often made up of extremists who have nothing better to do than foster hate through speech—albeit constitutionally protected speech.

Simply put, tolerance toward the speech of people like Phelps shows that freedom still survives in America. Robust free speech—even of the extreme variety—in the open marketplace of ideas is one of the few hopes we have as citizens, and it is something we must protect. As the great French dissident and writer Voltaire once observed, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Having recently discovered the origin of the word "decimate" while reading a book on language, I found it interesting that the newscaster had chosen that particular term. You see, most words beginning with "deci" (which comes from "decem," the Latin word for 10) have something to do with the number 10. "Decimate" is no exception.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word "decimate" made its debut about four hundred years ago. It referred to "the practice of punishing mutinous military units by capital execution of one in every 10, by lot." More recently—for, let’s say, the past 340 years, plus or minus—the word has come to mean "destroy a large portion of." Whether used in its original context or as it has been used more recently, the word carries rather negative connotations.

Still, the newscaster’s use of the word got me to thinking. In the decimal system, the prefix "deci" means to divide by 10. The prefix "deca," which comes from the Greek word for 10, means to multiply by 10. The word sometimes used for the Ten Commandments is "Decalogue," which comes from not only the Greek word for 10 but also the Greek word for "word." In other words—this is getting wordy, isn’t it?—the term "Decalogue" literally means "ten words."

But back to my line of thought. Since the "deci" prefix always carries the idea of a reduction in quantity or quality, and the "deca" prefix carries the idea of an expansion in quantity or quality, why couldn’t we construct a new scientifically created word to describe what happens when one begins to experience the "abundant" life that Jesus talked about in John 10:10? And what word could be better for that purpose than "decamate"?

The Christian life would decamate a person (i.e. make his or her life 10 times better!), while an earthquake in Haiti literally did "decimate" Port-au-Prince (reducing it to one tenth of what it had been).

Not to put you on the spot or anything, but don’t you think I’ve really provided a deep spiritual insight through the creation of this new word? I do. Except for one thing. Good though it is that I’ve emphasized how much better life is when we accept God’s perspective and seek to live the abundant life Jesus came to give, the truth is that what I’ve just shared with you is rank heresy.

In Mark 10: 29-31, Jesus says that no one has given up anything for Christ but what he or she will receive something that’s at least 100 times better! In the here and now! And on top of that comes eternal life!

Clearly, I need to spend more time with my Latin and Greek if the new words I create are going to come anywhere near providing an adequate description of what God has in store for us.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor