Fine Prints: September, 2006

It Seemed Important at the Time September 2

Thank God for Heretics  September 9 

Thank God for Traditionalists  September 16  

Thank God for Moderates--Especially! September 23

The Cringe--Again September 30    

It Seemed Important at the Time

While traveling through New England recently, Leonie and I stopped at a used-book store in Montpelier, Vermont, where she bought a copy of Gloria Vanderbilt’s autobiography It Seemed Important at the Time.

The title caught my attention. I thought back on all the things I’ve done that seemed important at the time—but that now I’m not so sure about. Or, more precisely, that I’m absolutely sure about! Ironically, my spiritual regrets aren’t as much about things I’ve left undone as about things I’ve overdone. The list is long.

My biggest mistake—and I’ve made many—was to assume that whatever was high on my scale of spiritual priorities should be equally high on everyone else’s. It never seemed to occur to me that my priorities might be wrong. Or that the Holy Spirit might not convict all of us of the same thing at the same time or with the same intensity.

Nuanced understandings weren’t my strong suit.

If I decided that chocolate cake was evil, I judged everyone else on how they related to chocolate cake. If I thought snacking was bad, then so were all the people who snacked. If I thought proper Sabbath observance precluded total immersion in water (for pleasure, at least), then anyone immersed beyond the mid-calf was clearly guilty of seeking their own pleasure during the sacred hours.

Like many church members—and an even higher percentage of pastors and church administrators—I too often concerned myself with the wellbeing of the organization rather than with needs of the individual when the two seemed to come into conflict. I now believe that God loves people more than He loves institutions. And I’m certain that He expects the same priority of us.

I reflect with horror upon my refusal (as a young pastor) to dedicate the baby of a nominal church member because she had conceived the child while co-habiting with her boyfriend and was still living with him in an unmarried state. I don’t believe I did what Jesus would have done. But it seemed important at the time to take a stand.

On too many occasions I applied rules that might have been good in and of themselves (though not always)—but that didn’t give proper consideration to human need, human frailty and human feelings. I knew the rules well. But I often lost sight of the big picture. I probably would have had a stone in my hand ready to throw at the woman caught in adultery, had I lived in Jesus’ time.

The longer I think about it, the longer the list grows. Judgmentalism, pharisaism, legalism—these were my stock and trade. I knew I wasn’t perfect—but I was definitely on track toward perfection. All I needed was a little more time. And I was near enough to perfect that I could routinely ignore my own spiritual shortfalls and focus instead on the shortfalls of others.

My problem is currently in partial remission—but still a long, long way from cured. My weakness now is how I treat those who are judgmental, pharisaical and legalistic like I used to be! They need to see the light as I now see it!

In retrospect, I may wish I hadn’t been so candid about myself when writing this Fine Print. But it seemed important at the time.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

Thank God for Heretics

OK, OK, I know I’m treading on dangerous ground. I mean, heretics aren’t appreciated by the mother organization. Never have been. Never will be. But without them, we’d be in big trouble.

So what makes a heretic?

A heretic is anyone who has the audacity to question the orthodoxy of the day, whatever that orthodoxy may be. Of course, today’s heresy becomes tomorrow’s orthodoxy. All it takes is for sufficient numbers to subscribe to the new idea. And people disdained as heretics for having presented the new idea are often later venerated as reformers.

Heresy is the attitude demonstrated by John Wycliffe, who wanted common people to have the scriptures in their own language—even though the church leaders of the day thought it was a dangerous idea. And the church leaders were right. It was dangerous. People who have direct access to information will think for themselves. And people who think for themselves are hard to control.

Heresy is the attitude shown by Martin Luther, who became convinced that salvation was a matter of grace, not a matter of how perfectly one meets certain behavioral expectations. The moment grace enters the picture, negative motivators such as hellfire no longer wield the same power. Nor do indulgences sell as well.

Heresy is the attitude exemplified by John Wesley, who saw a need for reformation within the Church of England. When the church chose not to welcome his calls for reform, Wesley started a new movement, and Methodism was born.

With the benefit of historical perspective, many of us now laud Wycliffe, Luther and Wesley. We think they were right—at least, as far as they went. But they weren’t lauded at the time. In fact, they were lucky to have survived. Heretics of olden times often lost their heads—literally.

In general, we’re more comfortable with heretics of the past than with those who rub shoulders with us every day. The ones who lived long ago don’t force us to do any rethinking. The ones we encounter regularly drag us out of our comfort zones. We wish they’d just go away.

Sometimes such feelings are justified. Although many initial "heresies" have ultimately been established as truth, other heresies have been just that—heresy. Falsehood. That’s why the Bible says we should "prove all things and hold fast that which is good."

To complicate things, even some falsehoods have been catalysts for great spiritual progress. For example, a man named William Miller decided he could calculate the date of Christ’s second coming—even though the Bible says that "no man knows the day nor the hour." Miller was wrong. But he was right in his intense desire to see Christ return. His mistake got a lot of people interested in the second coming. And the Seventh-day Adventist Church was born as a result.

Progress is made only when people aren’t happy with the status quo. If we feel that we’re spiritually "rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing," we’re not likely to seek better explanations and understandings. Fortunately for the church, in most eras there have been a few heretics who feel we don’t have it together. As a result, whole new systems of thought have emerged.

So I say, Thank God for heretics.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

Thank God for Traditionalists

Last week I said in my Fine Print that we should "thank God for heretics." But while we’re in the thanking mode, let’s express appreciation for another genre: traditionalists.

I recognize that this may come as a shock, granted that last week I was so laudatory toward rogues and iconoclasts. But the fact is, we need traditionalists. Without them, we’re apt to run off the rails. We’re apt to forget our roots and abandon our heritage. We’re apt to tear down fences that were initially constructed for very sound reasons. And those reasons may be just as valid today as they were when the fences were built.

Both church and society need a group of people who revere the "good old days." Who believe that the founding fathers and mothers thought things through well. Who believe that the norms of yesteryear were in many respects better than the norms—or lack thereof—that we encounter today.

The traditionalists are right—in part, at least.

The balanced life involves both change and continuity. Heretics clamor for change—often radical change. Traditionalists believe in preserving and conserving. Both approaches have their merits and their limitations. But it takes both—engaged in a kind of tug-of-war—to keep us balanced. So while I may have leanings one way or the other, I need to recognize the legitimacy of both types.

Appreciating people who are a pain in the neck and a thorn in the flesh isn’t the easiest of assignments. Life’s movers and shakers—the agents of change—get more than a little frustrated by the caution and hesitance of the traditionalists. In turn, the traditionalists feel threatened by those who seemingly clamor for everything that’s tried and true to be either discarded or so reconstructed as to render it all but unrecognizable.

But such tension is actually necessary for optimum corporate health.

The willingness of the heretic to readily discard the conclusions of the past can easily degenerate into a denigration of all that has gone before. It’s easy to assume that decency automatically equates with superiority. As a result, many advocates of change assume that the founding fathers and mothers weren’t all that bright. When, in reality, the pioneers of thought in both the church and nation actually did some excellent thinking and moved us many strides forward.

Remember, the founding fathers and mothers—however stuffy we may perceive them from today’s perspective—were the heretics of their day! They were the ones who broke with tradition.

The flipside of disdain for the past is disdain for the present. Traditionalists easily succumb to that pitfall. They may think that all the past leaders were luminaries and that today’s leaders are all lightweights. Old is synonymous with quality; recent equates with inferiority. They, too, forget that the founding fathers and mothers were heretics in their day and considered way off the mark by the traditionalists back then.

If all we had were heretics, we’d be in trouble. And if all we had were traditionalists, we’d be in equally big trouble. So thank God for both. And, especially, thank God for moderates—who are a little heretical and a little traditional all in one tidy package.

We’ll talk about them next week.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

Thank God for Moderates--Especially!

For the past two weeks I’ve been writing about heretics and traditionalists. I’ve described the inevitable tug-of-war that goes on between the advocates of new methods and new perspectives and those who want to preserve the old ways of doing and thinking. Further, I’ve lauded the tension between the two groups as necessary and good.

But I’ll admit it, there is a problem. The atmosphere can get a little heated in the ebb and flow of the tug-of-war. Neither the heretics nor the traditionalists hold their views lightly. Which is why I’m so drawn to a third group—the moderates.

Moderates recognize the need for progress and change. But they also understand the dangers. Moderates aren’t shielded from the tug-of-war. But for them it’s first and foremost an internal struggle. It takes place in the mind more than in the public arena.

Moderates think about the implications of both schools of thought and try to find a workable middle road. Moderates can engage both extremes in meaningful and civil dialogue because they understand both perspectives. Moderates are the peacemakers of this world—though they risk being labeled “compromisers,” “spineless,” “quislings” and a few other choice epithets. Heretics and traditionalists are equally vicious in their barbs against middle-of-the-roaders.

Moderates aren’t categorically black or white in their thinking. They acknowledge life’s shades of gray. They understand nuance. They value give-and-take. They want dialogue for its own sake and not just for the sake of convincing the opposition.

Traditionalists want tried-and-true answers. Heretics want totally new answers. But moderates are more willing to admit that there may not be answers. At least not simple, easy ones.

Of course, moderates may seem a little anemic compared to their more intense counterparts at both ends of the spectrum. But you can be around moderates without your blood pressure rising. And that can’t always be said for the other two camps. You’re not as likely to try to duck out of sight when you see a moderate approaching as when you see a more extreme partisan headed your way.

Moderates eschew strident language. They’re uncomfortable with such expressions as “everybody,” “nobody,” “always,” “never,” “100 percent,” “unquestionably,” “absolutely,” “crystal clear,” “self-evident” and a lot of other terms that leave precious little wiggle room. Instead, they prefer statements that are appropriately qualified. Statements that would make a journalist feel comfortable—at least the old-fashioned kind, back when journalists actually subscribed to the notion of objectivity.

Moderates sense that there may be more to the picture than meets the eye. They don’t like rushing to judgment. They tend to be tactful in addressing differences of opinion or when calling someone to account.

I meant it when I said I think heretics are necessary. I meant it when I said that traditionalists are necessary, too. And I’m happy for both extremes to exist in the congregation. But if there’s a chance that we might have a few too many of one kind or the other, I’d rather have a disproportionate number of moderates to deal with than too many heretics or traditionalists.

As I said in the title of this Fine Print, “Thank God for Moderates—Especially!”

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

The Cringe--Again 

In previous “Fine Prints,” Pastor Jim has talked about “the cringe”—that feeling you get when someone says something totally inappropriate. Or something totally jarring because it’s so at cross purposes with everything you believe. I too experience “the cringe.”

Last week I received a phone call from a long-time friend. In our conversation she mentioned that her husband had just been rebaptized. I immediately felt “the cringe.” Don’t get me wrong. I’m not condemning those who’ve been rebaptized. However, I find it hard to justify the need for it.

Baptism—the act of dunking someone in water—has no power to save. Baptism is a public expression of an internal desire to accept Jesus as personal Savior. Baptism can be real, or it can be fake. No other human knows the heart and intentions of the person who desires to be baptized. Only God knows the heart; He sees our intentions.

On the other hand, baptism is serious business. When people are baptized, they’re publicly declaring that they’re accepting God’s saving grace—grace that’s able to save to the “uttermost,” as the King James Bible describes it. Furthermore, immediately following baptism (we may disagree about the exact timing), the believer is adopted into God’s family.

And remember, adoption is permanent.

A few years ago, a close friend of mine adopted two boys. He loves those boys. But both boys have learning difficulties. Both have been suspended from school. Both have been to the principal’s office countless times. Nevertheless, my friend still loves his sons. He is their father. He would never dream of nullifying the adoption.

Similarly, God is our loving Father. What could ever compel a loving father to dissolve an adoption? Bad behavior? Embarrassment? Rebelliousness? It’s hard to imagine any behavior that would make a truly loving father want to separate from his children. If that’s true of human fathers, how much more must it be true of our Heavenly Father.

It seems to me that Adventists typically have viewed three non-criminal sins as worthy of “excommunication”—certain health practices, Sabbath breaking and adultery. This priority poses two immediate problems. First, it elevates these sins above all others. Second, it could be perceived as equating membership with salvation—thus the perceived need for rebaptism.

When we commit sin, we should feel guilt. We should experience the sting of having disappointed our Heavenly Father. We should have a sense of remorse and repentance. We should seek forgiveness. But to assume that we must be rebaptized is to undermine the very foundation of our salvation—God’s love and grace, which led to our adoption in the first place.

The church may choose to revoke a member’s privilege to be part of the spiritual fellowship. But the church doesn’t have the right to revoke one’s Heavenly adoption. And there’s nothing in the Bible to suggest that God disowns His adopted children just because they behave badly. Our bad behavior hurts Him and us, but His love remains.

Through His unconditional love, we enjoy a level of acceptance that the world simply can’t comprehend. No character in Bible times was ever required to be rebaptized because of bad behavior. So let’s not belittle God’s power to save today by demanding rebaptism.

Owen Vazquez, Associate/Youth Pastor