Fine Prints: October, 2007

What's So Good About the Good News Part 2 October 6

Catholics and Adventists: Two Significant Differences  October 13

Safeguarding the Reservoir of Goodwill October 20  

Miracles, Physical Law and Onions October 27  

What's So Good About the Good News Part 2

In last week’s Fine Print I told the story of my wife Leonie’s heroic measures to return a left-behind new shirt to its owner––only to have the shirt abandoned a second time. I questioned the reason for the man’s actions, noting that all we know for sure is that "something the man had lost was returned to him, and he lost it again." Which brings me to today’s more directly theological Fine Print.

Back in the late 1980s I came across a book by a Christian writer named Neal Punt, titled What’s Good About the Good News? Punt had a different theological spin than I’d encountered before, and I found it intriguing. I’m still wrestling with his thesis––and I still find it intriguing. He argues for what he calls "biblical universalism" or "limited universalism." His argument goes like this:

Typically Christians have taught that Christ’s mission of mercy to this earth provides salvation only to those who believe and accept. Unaccepted, his sacrifice is essentially useless. Punt takes a different position, however. He maintains that there’s a strong case for saying that Christ’s death set the spiritual clock back to zero, as it were, for everyone. Note the following "universalist" texts (the emphases are mine; and Punt cites even more texts than are listed here).

John 1:9. "The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world."

John 12:32. "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Romans 5:18. "Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

Romans 11:32. "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

1 Corinthians 15:22. "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive."

1 Timothy 2:6. ". . . who gave himself as a ransom for all men."

Titus 2:11. "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

Hebrews 2:9. ". . . he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

1 John 2:2. "His is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

Punt raises interesting points. For example, when reading Romans 5:18 (quoted above), why do we assume that because of what Adam did, condemnation literally came on all men, yet the justification effected by Jesus brought life to all men only potentially? Why do the same words mean one thing in one part of the text and something quite different in another part? Punt says they don’t. All means all. Plain and simple.

Punt argues that because of Jesus, everyone is saved. And they remain saved until they reject the salvation to which Jesus has restored them––just as Adam was in a saved state until he turned his back on God.

In last week’s lost-shirt story, the man had it, he lost it, he had it again, and he lost it again. It was a great story. But you’ll have to decide whether it illustrates a deep truth or a deadly heresy

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor 

Catholics and Adventists: Two Significant Differences

Remember what Jesus said when asked which was the greatest commandment? He said there are two: Love God; and love others. Everything else hangs on those two principles.

I bring that up for purposes of illustration only. Now let’s change the subject.

When people ask me what’s the major difference between Roman Catholicism and Seventh-day Adventism, I say there are two main differences: about a billion adherents and about eighteen hundred years of existence.

And, no, I’m not being facetious. Those are the two main differences, from my perspective. The rest can to a great degree be explained by those two facts.

Now I recognize that my answer isn’t the usual Protestant response, let alone the usual Adventist response. We’d rather describe our theological disagreements: They do it the wrong way; we do it the right way. They promote falsehood; we embrace truth. They follow tradition; we follow the Bible.

But it may not be quite that simple.

While we talk as if denominational characteristics are purely a matter of spiritual fidelity, I suggest that sociological factors play a far greater role than most of us realize. One billion adherents and eighteen hundred years of existence aren’t inconsequential in shaping the face of an organization.

The reality is, power corrupts in ecclesiastical matters just as power corrupts in secular matters. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has been around so long and has become so big means that it must deal with issues that many smaller denominations rarely face.

For example, if citizens of a nation are overwhelmingly members of a given religion, how much should that religion seek to control the affairs of state and thus dictate to all citizens? Catholics have had to face that issue repeatedly. And they’ve too often responded heavy-handedly.

But have Protestant denominations established a clear track record of freedom in nations where they’ve enjoyed overwhelming majorities, especially in centuries past? (Let’s always make sure that we’re comparing apples with apples, as they say. Too often we compare them back then with us now. Or we compare the best examples of our organization with the worst of theirs.)

How much do Adventists create laws favorable to their own belief system when they constitute a strong majority in a municipality, for example? Frankly, there’s not much to create hope that we wouldn’t slip into many of the patterns of Catholicism if we had another eighteen hundred years to do it and an extra billion adherents to support us!

Also, as Adventists, we’ve been able to establish a fair bit of tradition in quite a short time—tradition that we hang on to rather tenaciously but for which we’d be hard-pressed to find strong biblical support. And corruption levels in our church are dramatically higher with our current 18 million adherents than when we had only a few hundred thousand.

These are all sociological phenomena.

These facts don’t excuse Catholicism for having in many respects drifted from the purity of the faith and for the levels of corruption that exist. But they should give us pause.

Is it possible that instead of self-righteously pointing the finger of blame at Catholicism, we should be more humbly saying, "There, but for about a billion adherents and about eighteen hundred years of existence, go we"?

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

Safeguarding the Reservoir of Goodwill

Not long ago I shared a few ideas in the Grades 9-12 Sabbath School about the role of goodwill in human relations. One of the Sabbath School leaders said the church’s adults should hear my presentation. So here goes.

I maintain that goodwill is the elixir that lubricates, nurtures and solidifies human relationships. To a great degree it’s what makes us or breaks us. An ample reservoir of goodwill—I’m talking about the goodwill of others toward me—means that some pretty bad mistakes I make will be overlooked.

Conversely, the absence of goodwill means that even if my performance is stellar it will have nowhere near the impact it should have. To a great degree, my personal/professional success or failure is determined by the goodwill of others toward me.

The paradox is that, for the most part, I’m the one who generates and maintains—or not—that goodwill. It depends on me.

Let’s imagine that we each have a personal reservoir for holding the goodwill. Let’s say the reservoir is a water jug. And let’s imagine that the water we put into the jug is the goodwill. It’s imperative to keep the reservoir brim-full. And, remember, I as an individual am both the catalyst for and the guardian of the goodwill, even though it actually comes from others.

The only problem is, the jug doesn’t have a lid. So the goodwill that gets poured in doesn’t stay there indefinitely. It evaporates. Meaning that more goodwill must be added all the time. It’s an ongoing exercise. It never stops.

But evaporation is only part of the challenge. Inevitably, no matter how careful I try to be, I’m going to do things that antagonize and alienate others, even if ever so slightly. That antagonizing and alienating creates hair-line cracks in the jug. And from those cracks ooze some of the water of goodwill. Thus more topping up becomes necessary.

Of course, not every faux pas is a mere peccadillo. Some mistakes are so big that they literally shoot holes in the jug, allowing the water of goodwill to gush out. This calls for major jug repair—quick-smart—in addition to more topping up.

And my action need not be a mistake or an accident. At times I may have to take a stance that isn’t popular, but I do it because I feel there’s a principle involved. Commendable though my standing for principle may be when viewed abstractly and philosophically, it can have major negative repercussions with my reservoir of goodwill. So I’m again back to damage control and topping up.

Whether I’m dealing with work situations, family, community or any other group or individual, goodwill is the means to success. And its absence all but guarantees failure.

Of course, this information is nothing new. The Bible says that a person who wants to have friends has to be friendly. It also says that the same measuring device I use in dishing it out to others will be used when others dish it back to me.

Or as a teacher of mine once said: Treat others well on your way up—because you’re sure to meet them again on your way down.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

Miracles, Physical Laws and Onions

I’m a firm believer that supernatural things happened in Bible times and still happen today. But I’m not so sure that those supernatural things were/are unnatural, as often seems to be assumed.

I’m not so sure that Jesus actually interrupted or suspended the laws of nature when He healed the sick, raised the dead and fed more than five thousand with a relative few crumbs. I think He simply may have been engaging nature at an altogether different level.

To so believe doesn’t rob God of anything. If He’s the Designer and Creator of the universe, it simply says that in His original design He prepared for a lot more eventualities than He’s typically been credited with.

The tremendous achievements of medical science, for example, simply tap into an in-built restorative mechanism that already exists. Doctors assist through surgery, drugs and a variety of health-enhancing regimens. But all their efforts would be useless were we not already "fearfully and wonderfully made."

In our world today there exists a long list of consistently behaving phenomena that we’ve labeled "the laws of nature." Every phenomenon on that list is considered "natural," however incredible it might be. Every phenomenon not on the list is considered "supernatural." But supernatural doesn’t mean unnatural. It merely means "beyond our current understanding of natural."

Ironically, despite the desire of most Christians to ensure that the Bible’s out-of-the-ordinary accomplishments retain their "miracle" label, we quite consistently ignore the miraculous in the ordinary.

I mean, grass grows through the interaction of water, nutrients and sunlight; a male-produced sperm unites with a female-produced ovum and a baby is born; our brains process vast amounts of data. Truly amazing, mind-boggling—miraculous—things are taking place around us at every moment.

One consistent, observable pattern of nature is "the law of gravity." This description of reality tells us that an object will not hover above the earth’s surface if nothing is holding it up. It will fall. Every time. Guaranteed.

Despite the immutable law of gravity, however, planes fly through the skies, and rockets reach the moon. Did the law of gravity have to be suspended for that to happen? No. It merely had to be superseded by a higher law.

Or, lest it seem that laws of nature are actually fighting for supremacy, it might be more accurate to say that gravity is a force that draws things toward earth with a strong but limited power. If a power stronger than gravity is pushing/pulling in the opposite direction, the stronger force will prevail.

The law of gravity doesn’t have to be suspended for planes and rockets to fly. The phenomenon of flight is totally natural. But it requires the invoking of laws of physics that until relatively recently weren’t understood.

To the average onlooker with a 17th- or 18th-century understanding of physical reality, such accomplishments would have been viewed as a miracle in the truest sense of the word. Unless some explanation was provided, such an onlooker would assume that some supernatural force was hurling huge metallic objects through the air.

But what do onions have to do with all of this? That will have to wait until next week.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor