Burden of Proof: Why Most American Evangelicals Reject Long-Earth Evolution

On May 14, noted philanthropist and neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is scheduled to give the commencement address at Emory University and receive an honorary degree.  But there is a problem. In recent weeks, some Emory faculty and students have expressed concerns that the University invited Dr. Carson because he is a critic of evolutionary theory and advocate of creationism. Faculty and staff have written that Dr. Carson’s “great achievements in medicine allow him to be viewed as someone who ‘understands science.’” This background, they say, poses a direct threat to science that “rests squarely on the shoulders of evolution.”

The anti-Carson letter describes how there is “overwhelming” evidence of “ape-human transitional fossils” and how this evolution process has advanced an ability to develop animal models for disease and that even “the work of Dr. Carson himself is based on scientific advances fostered by an understanding of evolution.” The letter then argues that “the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”

In 2010, Gallup released a poll that found that 40% of Americans believe in strict creationism, the idea that humans were created by God in their present form within the past 10,000 years.  Thirty-eight percent believe that God guided the process of human evolution from lower life forms over millions of years , and only 16% believe that humans evolved without divine intervention. Sixty percent of those who attend church weekly believe that we were created less than 10,000 years ago. Gallup notes that the numbers have remained generally stable for the past 28 years.

That the number of adherents of creationism remains so strong, even though Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species” has been around since 1859 and has been taught in most public schools since the 1960s, is a testament to the persistent strength of American religious belief and faith over contradictory concepts. 

Earlier this week, Forbes magazine staff writer Alex Knapp wrote an essay entitled, “Why Some Christians Reject Evolution,” arguing that many Christians reject evolutionary theory because it conflicts with the Protestant view of the doctrines of original sin and salvation.

Original sin is the idea that God created an absolutely perfect “good” world and a single sin against God committed by one person marred the purity of creation and implicated all of humanity in the act. The Christian gospel teaches that the pre-existing penalty for act of separation from God was eternal death. Being that humanity could not save itself from this penalty, Jesus Christ, a member of the Holy Trinity, personally came to earth, lived a pure life, died, and was resurrected, reconciling fallen humanity to God, thus closing the sin-caused gap between humans and God. Human beings who accept this death as substitution for their own prospective penalty will be given eternal life in a new earth.

Perhaps the only way to explain how evolved human beings would end up with a soul is expressed in the hybrid evolution-creation concept advanced by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani generis (1950).  Pius XII writes, “For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that the bodies of humans were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided separately-created souls which were infused into humans. These souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments. 

In contrast, American evangelicals tend to view Adam and Eve as actual living people, who were literally created by God as clay forms into which God breathed the breath of life.  There was no death before the fall of humanity.  The time frames are important because they rely on the Biblical chronologies Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-28 to prove that Jesus was in the prophetically-designated ancestral line of David, and draw the genealogical line all the way back to Adam, the first created human being.

Many evangelicals reject the hybrid view of creation and evolution because it would necessarily require them to regard creation, as discussed in the books of Genesis and of a new earth in Revelation, as allegory and submit the pervasive teachings of the Bible referencing Creation and other supernatural activity to the realm of mythology or cultural contextualism. Acceptance of “scientific” views of evolution would then, by necessity, require a major reconfiguration of matters of faith – and that is something that most adherents to strict creationism are unwilling to do.

Knapp, whose own religious beliefs are not indicated, notes that while some churches have found ways to incorporate the idea of change over time into their belief systems, “for many Christians, evolution isn’t a minor fact of science that can be resolved into the mythos of their faith. It is, rather, a fundamental attack on their faith and many things that they believe.”

There have been a number of heated arguments on the campuses of a diverse array of religious universities regarding how issues of origins should be taught. Some have tried to walk the middle line of teaching “intelligent design” as an alternative to creationism and evolution. Critics of those teaching intelligent design point out that trying to split the issue down the middle does no favors to either side and in the end is nothing but a weakened form of creationism, and an explanation that is of no value to secular science.

Within the larger context of American Protestant Christianity the debate continues without resolution. Among Christians, creationists are often asked to consider various forms of evidence of a long-history of the earth, but those advocating for a long-earth have largely ignored discussion of the genealogies of the New Testament and the concepts of original sin and salvation. Christian evolutionists have failed to provide a verse-by-verse rebuttal to the Biblical Creation narrative or to acknowledge the extent to which acceptance of creation would impact theology.

Instead theistic evolutionists operate on the supposition that Creationists will eventually bifurcate their religious beliefs from scientific understanding, because incompatibilities must be resolved in favor of science. This places faith directly in conflict with science and any resultant battle on these issues will take centuries if true academic freedom is to be granted, but can resolve faster if the voices of religious dissent are silenced and those who have openly criticized evolution are denied a seat at the academic table.

The attempt to “purify” academia by silencing the voices of critics such as Dr. Carson would be the first step toward a secular Dark Ages. So far, it appears that despite the controversy, Emory University’s commencement ceremony will go forward as planned.

###

In response to the controversy at Emory, as of this writing nearly 2,000 people have signed a Petition to reaffirm “Dr. Ben Carson’s Welcome and Defend His Right to Express His Views.”  Click here to view the Petition. 

Smelling an Old Man’s Feet: Reflections on Footwashing, the Ordinance of Humility

By Martin Surridge -

As a pastor’s kid growing up in the Adventist church, every thirteenth Sabbath was a special day. I was not actually interested in communion itself, given that I did not participate before my baptism, and I had heard my father tell the story of the Lord’s Supper so frequently that my brother and I would often recite, “Let us now eat together!” while snacking at home. Instead, I was excited about the fifteen minute break just before the sermon, when adults would wash each others feet.

I remember loving that part of the service, often called the ordinance of humility, because it meant I could have fun with my friends in the sanctuary, while my parents and others went off to the beige side rooms to play with hand towels and shallow water tubs. While there was always a general warning to be quiet and remain reverent during this time, we rarely listened. Talking loudly during church often led me into trouble—my dad once stopped a sermon half way through and told me to get up and sit on the other side of the sanctuary.

Now that I’m older, that quarter hour remains my favorite part of church but for a different reason. Today, I join the other grownups in the Sabbath School rooms and participate. As I grew up, and once I started at PUC, I really enjoyed and appreciated the symbolic significance of foot-washing—an act of humility and service based on Christ’s own example.

During Sabbaths at the college church in Angwin or the Elmshaven Church in St. Helena, I would partner with a friend or classmate, but no matter how well I knew them, it was always pretty uncomfortable. Unless you work as a podiatrist or a pedicurist, there is nothing else like foot-washing, no other moment in life when we stoop down to clean another person’s toes and heels, so often the dirtiest part of the body. Most of my closest friends at PUC were basketball players, including my roommate, who spent half the week expelling liters of sweat from their pruny feet into their socks and sneakers.

After I graduated from PUC, and there wasn’t always a close friend with whom to participate, foot-washing became a spiritual adventure. Foot-washing with a stranger was incredibly awkward, or at least it was at first. There are few comfortable conversation topics to engage in while peeling back the dress sock off an elderly man’s foot and handling his callused toes. It’s not appropriate to discuss sports, since we’re in church and everyone around us is humming hymns and praying. We usually chat about the weather or talk about our mutual acquaintance in the fourth pew. While the state of some feet and certain odors might not be too pleasant, some are downright ugly; the ritual itself is incredibly beautiful. I am reminded of both Christ washing our sins away and the spiritual importance of serving the elderly and helping others. It makes me sad when I see how many people skip out on this opportunity because of feelings of embarrassment. I won’t argue that the process isn’t uncomfortable; however, there is incredible value in such discomfort. The words of Christ—turning the other cheek, loving our enemies, rejecting the ways of the world—are not supposed to be an easy set of  instructions.

Years later, my roommate from PUC would be the first person whose feet I washed after the sudden death of my father, a man who had washed my own feet several times, and the emotions of that moment nearly brought me to tears. So for a few embarrassing, quiet minutes every thirteenth Sabbath, surrounded by children’s Sabbath school felts, I awkwardly pick the lint from in-between someone’s toes, and I get to experience a bond with that person unlike anything I have experienced in church or anywhere else. By the end of it, I am proud and honored when the elderly gentleman, who was a stranger to me only minutes before, stands up, straightens his pressed suit pants, prays with me, shakes my hand, and calls me “Brother Martin.”

This article will appear as “My ViewPoint” in the Spring 2012 issue of Pacific Union College’s ViewPoint Magazine.

Why Do Gingrich and Obama Agree on the Supreme Court?

Last week, after three days of tough argument before the Supreme Court, the President created a stir when he said that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his national healthcare plan. Obama further questioned the legitimacy of “unelected” and “activist” judges.

Conservatives went crazy! How could the President criticize the authority of the Supreme Court?

On December 18, 2011, Republican candidate Newt Gingrich lost significant momentum when he told the nation on Face the Nation that judges, at least in some circumstances, should be called to account for their decisions that ignore the public will, either by being brought before Congress or in some cases by being removed from office. In fact, Gingrich had written a 54-page position paper on the topic, specifically pointing to the 1958 anti-segregation ruling in Cooper v. Aaron. In Cooper, the Supreme Court asserted that the Court’s opinion on the Constitution was more important than the interpretations of Congress or the Executive Branch.

Liberals went crazy! How could an aspiring President criticize the authority of the Supreme Court?

It is a running joke that any decision that the Supreme Court makes that one disagrees with is made by “activist,” “unelected” judges. If your side doesn’t win, blame the Court! And in the past few years, decisions have gone both ways as the Court, comprised of justices presently appointed over the course of 24 years ranging from Antonin Scalia, appointed in 1986 to Elena Kagan, appointed in 2010.

The reality is, if Newt Gingrich is right then Barack Obama is also right. Obama can simply read off Gingrich’s paper and make the same arguments. The sitting President, empowered by a sympathetic Congress can do whatever it wants and the Supreme Court can simply stand by and wring its hands. The Patriot Act can continue to exist without challenge as can ObamaCare.

Perhaps this is one thing that Gingrich and Obama can agree on – that the President and Congress has electable, kingly authority. In reality, the only way either one of them would be happy with the proposed arrangement is if their party is in control. Otherwise, the minority party would have no judicial recourse or appeal.

If anything, when politicians think in two- and four-year increments, the Court has perhaps become too political, with justices appointed who are expected to carry forward particular agendas rather than providing long-term Constitutional interpretations. Electing justices would only make things worse. There is a process for changing the Court, but as with changes to the Constitution itself, they take place slowly.

In times like this, we would do well to remember the words of Lord Acton, that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and seek to preserve the integrity and role of the Supreme Court.

###

Five Lessons on Loving Your Enemies

By Jason Hines – Because of situations in my own life I have been repeatedly returning to the concept of loving your enemies. I have wrestled with this issue publicly (I have preached a sermon on this subject twice) and at times in this space, but I have yet to share here my spiritual thoughts on the issue. The best place to begin is with the words of Christ. In Matthew 5:43-48 (NASB) Jesus says,

We talk about “haters” so much these days, and the picture of haters that always jumps to my mind are these people who you’re not really close to, or acquaintances who see all that you have and are just jealous. But the truth is that your real enemies are always close friends and family. When we look at the example of Jacob and Laban in Gen 31 we see an uncle and a nephew, a father-in-law and a son-in-law at odds with each other. In 1 Sam 24, we have a mentor and a mentee, as well as a father-in-law and a son-in- law at odds with each other in Saul and David. The animosity between Jesus and Judas is told to us in Matt 26. Of course this is Jesus with one of the 12 people he shared his ministry with. How quick we are to forsake the love we once had switch to hate.

---

The U.S. Supreme Court made the Right Decision When It Upheld the Ministerial Exception

Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC on January 11, 2012, there has been a lot of discussion regarding whether the court did the right thing when it upheld the ministerial exception and denied jurisdiction in a case involving the termination of a ministerial employee. For reasons outlined below, I believe the Court made the right, albeit difficult, decision.

This was the case of the parochial school teacher who in addition to teaching on secular subjects also performed religious functions, Cheryl Perich, who was fired for threatening to file a lawsuit under the Americans with Disaiblities Act when she was not given her job back after returning from medical leave.  The religious employer argued that it was against its religious beliefs for a minister to sue the church, and that these things had to be handled within the church structure.

The issue presented before the Court was whether the anti-retaliation prohibition of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) could be constitutionally applied to a religious association’s retaliatory firing of a parochial school teacher who taught secular subjects and also performed religious functions and was designated a commissioned minister.

The Supreme Court found that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar ministers from bringing lawsuits against their churches in which the ministers claim violation of employment discrimination laws. In this case, the Court found that Perich was a minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, and therefore the First Amendment required dismissal of her employment discrimination suit against her religious employer.

The ministerial exception gives religious institutions certain rights to control employment matters without interference from the secular courts. It does not, as the Court decision points out, affect criminal, tort, or contract law. So churches cannot use it to shield themselves from liability for criminal acts, negligent behavior leading to accidents, or breach of contract.  But it does protect churches from being hauled into court for religious decisions that have been made.

Some have tried to advance the theory that Perich had not fully pursued the administrative remedies available to her in the parochial system, but that would not have changed the outcome which hinged on the threshold issue of whether the ministerial exception applied to her. If the exception applied, the Court lacked jurisdiction.

Another misconception is that the Hosanna-Tabor decision somehow establishes the ministerial exception and adds something new. In reality, Congress specifically built an exception for religious organizations into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII was enacted by Congress to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (42 U.S. C. §§ 2000e-2(a)). Under the statutory exception, religious employers could prefer members of their own faith in making their hiring decisions.

The actual ministerial exception was born in 1972, when, in McClure v. Salvation Army, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to hear a female minister’s gender discrimination claim. The court found that applying the provisions of Title VII to the employment relationship existing between a church and its ministers would therefore “cause the State to intrude upon matters of church administration and government” which would “result in an encroachment by the State into an area of religious freedom.”

The way it works is that courts in most Circuits rely upon a role-based or “primary duties test” to determine whether an employee is a minister within the exception, and whether or he she can bring suit under Title VII. Several circuits have adopted an approach that religious institutions should be able to choose who will perform certain spiritual functions. The first approach focuses on the employment relationship, while the second focuses on the right of churches to exercise their beliefs more freely.

Perich was, in many ways, the perfect “poster child” to challenge the ministerial exception. The case clearly involved a non-religious issue and for all the world, it looked like the church was looking for a way to fire her in a way that would be against public policy as applied to secular organizations and still avoid being hauled into court for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In fact, the EEOC, the ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (“AU”) rallied to Perich’s side. In its brief, AU argued that the ministerial exception did not entitle religious entities to discriminate or retaliate for reasons unrelated to religion, and that courts should determine whether an asserted religious justification for an action is pretextual.

In short, a church would therefore need to pass a two-prong test – first, it would have to demonstrate that its discriminatory rule was related to its religious beliefs; second, it would need to demonstrate that its action was not “pretextual.”

The AU brief gave some examples of what it meant to litigate on issues of discrimination that were not particularly related to a church’s doctrine. For instance, a Catholic Church could not be forced to hire a female priest, but an otherwise egalitarian church would not be permitted to fire a Sunday-school teacher when the pastor had a purely personal belief that “women should not work outside the home.”  The examples continued for several pages, permitting organizations to make discriminatory doctrinal rulings but not permitting local churches from acting in contrast to non-discriminatory denominational policies or practice.

Applying an Employment Division v. Smith style argument, AU argued that generally applicable employment laws should apply to churches unless there is a need to safeguard a constitutional right. Why they would appeal to this analysis is particularly curious. The Smith decision created a major problem for free exercise of religion by subjecting religious minorities to the rule of the majority even if it goes against the minority’s religious beliefs. (One can hope that the Court, in the near future, might see the wisdom of applying the Hosanna-Tabor analysis to individual religious liberty rights and re-establishing the Free Exercise Clause that was compromised in Smith.)

The AU brief is helpful in that it provides a concrete example of the depth to which the government and courts would need evaluate in order to determine whether church employment decisions were permissible or not.

Under the approach proposed by AU, church decisions would be open to scrutiny as to whether they were doctrinal or not, and the investigators would then need to go into the minds of the decision makers to see whether such decisions were made in good faith and not merely to achieve a favorable outcome for the institution.

As people often say, bad cases often make bad law and the Supreme Court had just such an opportunity to throw away the ministerial exception in this highly sympathetic case and effectively destroy the wall of separation of church and state by allowing the state entry into the inner workings of the church. Fortunately the Court saw the bigger issues involved and made the right decision.

However by ruling the way it did, the Supreme Court protected the right of a religious organization to select its clergy without government interference and avoided placing church doctrine under government interpretation. Civil magistrates will not be in a position where they are forced to determine which religious view, that of the clergy member or the church, is correct.

Church leaders are free to choose ministers who they believe will carry their message forward.

While most religious organizations sincerely strive to provide fair and equitable treatment to all employees, this does not mean that some religious organizations will not abuse the “ministerial exception” to make poor personnel decisions that could lead to costly litigation if they were secular organizations. But organizational decision makes should realize that they will ultimately answer to a Higher Power even if these cases may not be pursued in the civil courts.

—-

For more information on the ministerial exception and its history, I would recommend the Charleston Law Review article by Todd Cole, “The Ministerial Exception:  Resolving the Conflict between Title VII and the First Amendment.” The article is available online at http://www.charlestonlawreview.org/archive/vol4num4/Cole.pdf

 

 

The Problem I Have With Conspiracy Theories

By Steve Allred – At one time in my life I was a big believer in conspiracy theories. I believed that churches had been infiltrated by a secret order from another denomination and that some of the members of this order were masquerading as leaders in my church. As a teenager, I devoured comic books published by Chick Publications that fed my conspiracy theory. I spent a lot of time and mental energy imagining how evil these people were and how I would go about “outing” them and exposing their evil machinations before all the world.

I’ve learned a few things since my teenage days of obsession with conspiracy theories. First, I’ve learned that some of what I believed back then could be true. But secondly, I’ve come to the conclusion that it probably makes very little practical difference in my life or in the life of anyone else whether these conspiracy theories are actually true.

Most grand conspiracy theories are based on a great deal of speculation.

A lot of the information that these theories are based on is conjecture and only circumstantial evidence. One thing is certain, these theories are not based on the Bible, for the Bible says nothing about the Jesuits or the Illuminati and nothing about them controlling the world.

In fact, the Bible specifically tells us to avoid myths and questions that engender strife (i.e., questions about speculative issues). Paul writes, “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.” (Titus 3:9, emphasis mine). “…Nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.” (1 Timothy 1:4). Almost every grand-scale conspiracy theory fits what these verses are talking about.

But let’s say that we could prove without a doubt that the world is controlled by the Illuminati. As a Christian, what practical difference would that make in my life or your life? Would we go into hiding? Try to assassinate those evil leaders? Do our best to expose their evil plans?

Or would we keep doing what we’re supposed to be doing anyway – loving our enemies like Jesus tells us to do, praying for evil doers and spreading the gospel?

Ultimately, grand conspiracy theories lead to an unhealthy fascination with things that are less than certain and direct our attention away from loving our enemies as Jesus told us to do.

Conspiracy theories give evil people too much credit and attribute too much power to them.

Think about it: conspiracy theories give a lot of credit to evil men, teaching that evil men – most of them 33rd degree Freemasons or members of the Illuminati – are controlling the world. Really? Is that what the Bible teaches? Not exactly.

In fact, the Bible teaches that God is the one who controls the affairs of the governments of this world; He is the one who determines who will rule the world – not a bunch of evil men.

Notice what the Bible says:

“And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding…” Daniel 2:21.

“For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.” Psalm 75:6-7.

So the Bible says that God, not any group of evil men, is responsible for who comes to power in our world. To give evil men the credit goes directly against what the Bible teaches.

Additionally, focusing on the supposed power of a bunch of 33rd degree Masons somewhere ultimately leads us to exalt these evil men to a demigod status with power akin to that of God himself.

Conspiracy theories about the government and church leadership cause us to distrust God-appointed authorities.

Granted, some leaders are unquestionably evil. A good example is the Emperor Nero who lived during Paul’s time. Yet, do we see Paul railing on Nero’s evilness? Hardly. In fact, we hear nothing from Paul that could be construed as disrespect toward Nero. Paul had bigger fish to fry, namely the salvation of people’s souls. What Nero did was largely irrelevant to the grander scheme of things and Paul knew that.

In Romans 13 the Bible calls the civil authorities “ministers of God” appointed by Him to keep the peace. Paul also commands that Christians should respect and “honor” the authorities to the extent that we can do so without disobeying God (see Romans 13:1-7 and Acts 5:29).

Conspiracy theories teach the opposite. Instead of respecting civil authorities, conspiracy theories teach that these men should be, at the least, distrusted and that they are not the “ministers of God” but are rather the ministers of Satan. Those embracing these theories would do well to heed the example of David when his men encouraged him to take the life of King Saul in the cave (see 1 Samuel 24:10). There, instead of taking the life of the evil king who was pursuing him, David refused to lay a hand upon the “Lord’s anointed” and instead showed respect to this evil man and spared his life.

By embracing conspiracy theories Christians are led to engage in slander and bear false witness against their neighbor.

As noted above, some leaders are undeniably evil and others are open and avowed enemies of God and his people. To state these objective facts about such an individual is not slanderous. However, to speculate and say that a certain government leader is a member of the Illuminati when there is less than certain proof that such is the case is to bear false witness against that person and to slander them.

Bearing false witness against our neighbor is sin (Exodus 20:16). Furthermore, the Bible tells us to speak about things that will build each other up (“edify”) and stop speaking about the things that tear others down. “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” Eph. 4:29-32.

Notice how serious of a sin in God’s sight is the sin of evil speaking – Paul tells us that we can grieve the Holy Spirit by engaging in it!

Focusing on conspiracy theories takes our eyes off of Jesus and will cause us to be deceived at the end of time.

The Bible teaches a principle of natural law: by beholding we become changed (see 2 Cor. 3:18). If we look at something long enough, if we think about an idea intently enough, that thing, person or idea begins to have an effect on us. (Think about those stories of cops tasked with infiltrating a criminal organization only to become “dirty” themselves. That which was surrounding them began to affect them). If we feast long enough on conspiracy theories and the evils they encompass there is a danger that we will become enamored with evil and take our focus off of Jesus.

Instead, we ought to be focusing on Jesus. “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us” (1 John 3:1). ”Behold” (focus on; think about) the love of God, John says, not the bad actions of evil people in this world.

Notice what Ellen White had to say about focusing on what she calls the seductive arts of Satan:

“Give the people present truth. Talk the truth. Fill their minds with truth. Build up the strongholds of truth. And do not bring Satan’s theories to minds that should not hear in regard to them. What the people need is not a representation of the seductive arts of Satan, but a presentation of the truth as it is in Jesus. Remember that the devil can be served by a repetition of his lies. The less we handle these objectionable subjects, the purer, cleaner, and less tainted will be our minds and our principles….” Evangelism, p. 624, emphasis mine.

Finally, Ellen White notes, “Resolve never, never to repeat error, but always to teach the truth. Fill hearts and minds with the solemn, sacred truth for this time.” Evangelism, p. 623.

The end-time movement to enforce worship is a democratic movement, not top secret behind-the-scenes maneuvering by a few politicians.

Ultimately, there is one grand conspiracy theory that is true. That conspiracy theory is that Satan, the master deceiver and enemy of all that is good, is conspiring with and using sinful men to overthrow God and His people. The last book of the Bible details Satan’s titanic struggle with Christ to overthrow God’s government in the universe. That struggle will culminate in the Battle of Armageddon – the last battle between Christ and Satan. Satan will ultimately lose the war.

The Bible gives us some clues as to who Satan will use and conspire with at the end of time. First, there is the Antichrist power, a human organization, also referred to as the “Beast” in Revelation 13. Then there is a second “Beast” in Revelation 13 – referring to a nation that the devil works through to control the world at the end of time. Through both of these powers Satan will seek to defeat God and His end-time people.

Surprisingly to some, the end time movements to enact and enforce laws leading to the biblical “Mark of the Beast” will not be stealth movements based on secret conspiracies. In fact, they will be very public and enacted by a democratic society and due to the popular demand of the citizens of that society. Notice that the second beast of Revelation 13 says “to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.” Revelation 13:14, emphasis mine. As Ellen White notes, this action denotes a grassroots-based, democratic movement that eventually leads to the enacting of laws that result in the Mark of the Beast. (“…Rulers and legislators, in order to secure public favor, will yield to the popular demand for a law enforcing Sunday observance.” The Great Controversy, p. 592.). According to Revelation, it’s the people who are pulling the strings at the end of time – not a few evil members of the Illuminati in a smoke-filled room somewhere.

Quite contrary to this, most conspiracy theories about the end of time teach that a few evil men are plotting to spring laws on the United States or the world and that one day we will suddenly wake up to a dictatorship that has been going on all along behind the scenes without our knowledge (kind of like the Matrix?).

The Bible tells us what we need to know and do to stand through the end of time. One thing we should not be doing is closely studying into conspiracy theories that are speculative and based on theories of men. Instead, we should put on the full spiritual armor of God so that we can stand against the ultimate conspirator – the devil himself.

Notice what Paul says we should be doing so that we can “stand” in the evil day: “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Eph. 6:10-17.

(I am indebted to a paper written by Pastor Lary Brown, president of the Sri Lanka Mission of Seventh-day Adventists, which inspired some of the thoughts expressed here).

(This article was originally published on Steve Allred’s blog in July 2011 at http://sacredconscience.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/the-problem-i-have-with-conspiracy-theories/)

—

Steve Allred is an associate pastor at the Sacramento Central Seventh-day Adventist Church and is finishing his law degree. He writes about liberty of conscience and social justice at www.sacredconscience.com

 

 

Paradoxical Christian? I’m a Bible-believing Christian Who Passionately Supports Church State Separation

By Steve Allred -

I have some friends who tell me that I don’t make sense when it comes to my position on separation of church and state. You see, some would call me a “fundamentalist” Christian. For example, I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and try to live my life by its teachings. I believe that God created the world in seven, literal, twenty-four hour days and rested on the seventh day. I believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and that He is the divine Son of God. I also believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the biblical ideal and that any extra-martial sexual relationship is called sin in the Bible. Ultimately, I believe that the lifestyle that God describes in the Bible is the best and happiest way for me to live.

But here’s the rub: I also believe in keeping church and state separate. Some of my friends can’t understand why. To them, it’s a contradiction of my other beliefs. “If you believe that the Bible teaches that extra-marital sex is wrong, why don’t you believe that it should be outlawed in America?” they ask.

Because not every teaching of the Bible should necessarily be the law of the land. And because even though I may believe that living by God’s principles is the best way to live I shouldn’t want to force that lifestyle on others around me.

True, there was a time when laws of the Bible were the law of the land. In the Old Testament, the laws of God were enforced on the nation of Israel. But that was in a time when God ruled directly through kings and prophets in what we call a theocracy. By the time Jesus arrived, however, He made it clear that the theocracy was over: “My kingdom is not of this world.”, He said, “if it were, my servants would fight… but now my kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:36).

How much clearer could He be? He did make it even clearer, however, when He told us that Caesar’s (the secular government) realm and God’s (the church) realm on earth were explicitly separate: “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21-22). In other words, God doesn’t need Caesar’s help to do His work.

And so, while I’m a fundamentalist, I’m also a separatist. I believe that church and state ought to be separate, because Jesus told us so, in so many words.

But why?

Way back in the Garden of Eden God gave us a clue. In a perfect world, where God ruled and where there was no sin, God gave us a choice – the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why the tree? Because God is love; love cannot exist without freedom to not love, therefore God must allow choice.

But just because God doesn’t want His religion forced on society doesn’t mean that there is no place for promoting morality and faith in the public marketplace. Far from it. In fact, the whole purpose of the church’s existence is to be the light of the world, the body of Christ, the salt of the earth. (Which is one reason I wholeheartedly support freedom of speech right along with separation of church and state. Yay for the First Amendment!). We are to be the voice calling out to individuals to experience a new way of life by accepting the principles of the kingdom of God. The church is the voice in the world upholding the Ten Commandments in our teachings and living them out in our own lives. We are the voice in society that teaches the truth boldly and unapologetically. And when the church fails in its job to promote obedience to God’s law in society, society begins to fall apart and the inevitable result is the reign of secularism and immorality (see, for example, The Great Controversy, p. 585-586). What should the church do then? We should repent for failing to do our divinely ordained job and pray for a revival within our midst so that we can be the light of the world once again.

Sadly, our response throughout history has been just the opposite. Instead of repenting and seeking God when society is experiencing moral decay, the church has turned to the secular government to enforce its dogmas and to “revive” society. But can laws legislating morality and religion really bring about revival? No. History tells us that laws never have brought about revival, and they never will. Only the power of the Holy Spirit, working through the church can truly bring revival. And one thing is clear: the Spirit doesn’t need the government’s help to make the church the light of the world! (In fact, it seems that in places where the government is persecuting God’s church the church shines brighter than ever).

Unfortunately, even though some Christians understand the church’s role, they still think that it is the government’s job to also be the moral conscience of society. Or they believe that the government should be just another “arm” of the church. But they’ve got it wrong. It’s the church’s job – and the church’s alone – to be Christ’s body on this earth. And the church should do its job without whining that it needs the government’s help or that it needs to use the government to do its job. In fact, the less help the government gives the church, the more glory is given to God when society is actually changed one person at a time. Because ultimately spiritual and moral change come from within – not from outward conformity to certain laws. Only God – not legislation – can transform the heart.

As I talk with my friends, I realize that my explanations still leave some unanswered questions: what kind of relationship should the church have with the government – any at all? When should the government step in and enforce “morals” on society – should it ever? The answers to these and other related questions are complex and anything but “hard and fast” and are for another discussion. Ultimately, though, we as Christians can thank God that He has made one thing exceedingly clear: our commission is to “preach the gospel to every creature.” One other thing He made clear is that the gospel of the kingdom is not to be preached by His servants fighting with the sword (earthly government) but rather, as the old Hymn “Lead on, O King Eternal” says, it is “with deeds of love and mercy” that the heavenly kingdom comes.

——————–

Steve Allred is an associate pastor at the Sacramento Central Seventh-day Adventist Church and law student at University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.  This article originally appeared at Pastor Allred’s blog and is reprinted here with the permission of the author.

Article18: Pakistan — Christian Flood Victims in Punjab Face Land Discrimination in Disaster Aftermath

By Martin Surridge – The bad news that comes out of Islamabad typically features either nuclear proliferation, harboring of terrorists, a military coup, or tension with India. Sadly for many of the citizens living within its borders, Pakistan is also one of the world’s most egregious violators of religious liberty.

This is Article18–RLTV’s weekly blog specifically dedicated to religious liberty issues in other countries around the world. Each week, we focus on a different nation, and the struggles facing one of its religious communities. I feel bad calling this a weekly blog when my new posts are so infrequent and rarely uploaded every week, but starting this week it will be a regular feature every seven days or so. This time our focus is once again on Pakistan, where Christians across the country continue to be persecuted, violently attacked and even discriminated against in the midst of a humanitarian disaster zone.

Earlier this year, back in January, Article18 profiled Pakistan, focusing on how the fallout from Governor Taseer’s assassination disrupted efforts to eliminate discriminatory blasphemy laws. Since then little has improved for a nation still struggling to convince the world that it is not a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom designates Pakistan as one of fourteen “countries of particular concern” in regard to religious liberty violations. This is not the first time we have covered one of these fourteen violators and it surely won’t be the last. Each of the countries are either in Africa or Asia, but share little else in common and include a variety of religions and types of government.

Last year’s devastating floods in Pakistan were shocking to witness. The tragedy of the disaster was matched only by the tragedy of the response, from both Pakistan and the international community. It now appears that another crisis is occurring in the flood-affected Punjab region. Compass Direct News reports that “many Christians living in the southern belt of Pakistan’s Punjab Province who lost their houses in last year’s floods remain homeless despite a plan by the Punjab government to allocate land to residents in the area.” The housing problem is disproportionately affecting Christians and the provincial government, according to local resident Hameed Masih, “has not set a quota for granting of land to members of minority communities left homeless by the devastating floods.”

“Several people were allotted land last month, but so far no minority member has been given land,” Masih remarked. “Christians in this area are not rich people. They lost their houses and lands in the floods and should have been given a 5 percent quota in the scheme. Flood victims could have been easily accommodated, but the quota system has not been followed, and thus no minority member has been allotted land.”

In a fascinating report from the Baptist Press, that detailed the dramatic increase in religious tension around the world, Pakistan was one of ten countries identified as very high in hostilities involving religion. The other nine were Iraq, India, Afghanistan, Somalia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Israel and Egypt. There is hope among some that the Washington’s recently approved religious liberty envoy to the region could help improve relations in Pakistan’s interfaith community, but such results could take a very long time.      

At the very least there is a serious lack of communication or break down of procedure in Pakistan, but more likely it seems there is a problem in which Christians there continue to face discrimination not just in how they worship but in all aspects of their lives.

Article18 is a weekly blog written by Martin Surridge, Associate Editor of Religious Liberty TV. Article18 logo and other artwork created by Bradley Kenyon.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Don’t forget to check out other recent Article18 entries.

Article18: Norway — Personal Reflections on the Origin of a Tragedy

Article18: Uzbekistan — Recent Incidents of Violence Against Christians Alarm Religious Minorities

Article18: Cuba — Three Protestant Pastors Interrogated; Roman Catholic Church in Havana Helps Free 126 Prisoners of Conscience

Article18: Saudi Arabia — Prominent Saudi Cleric Hopes Women Who Violate Driving Ban Incur Wrath of God and Die

Article18: Mexico — Confirmed Presence of Major Islamic Terrorist Group Near U.S. Border; Former Killer Preaches to Violent Gangsters

Article18: Norway — Personal Reflections on the Origin of a Tragedy

By Martin Surridge – My personal experience with terrorism is not extensive but is actual nevertheless, and extends through several phases of my life. As a child I lived in East England, and North London and I remember the daily news updates of the troubles in Northern Ireland that would frequently extend into England. When I was ten years old, an IRA terrorist killed himself and injured eight others when his bomb detonated in a bus traveling in Aldwych, London.  This vehicle was decimated only twenty miles from our house in Watford and it was part of a public bus system our family used several times a year. It understandably left the residents of North London shaken, including my mother who was concerned for our safety as children when we traveled in the area. Other IRA attacks included a bombing less than an hour away from our town that killed two that same year and mortar attacks 30 mins away just three years earlier.

Exactly a decade later, almost to the day, I was traveling through Palestine with a friend from college. We were visiting Beit She’an, a Roman-era settlement, as well as Jericho and the banks of the Jordan River. As to be expected in the Holy Land, even when things are outwardly peaceful, a tension hangs in the air nearly everywhere you go. Military checkpoints had 18-year old female Israeli soldiers with sub-machine guns eye us suspiciously when we crossed into new territory. I had noticed helicopters hovering above our taxi while we were driving, but didn’t think anything of it. Then we were suddenly escorted to the side of the freeway by unmarked cars and quickly had more sub-machine guns aimed at our car by what appeared to be policemen, speaking rapidly to our driver while we sat mesmerized and terrified. As quickly as they came, they left, satisfied we posed no danger. Our driver told us they were looking for two suicide bombers in an identical van to ours on the same road at the same time. Our shock only increased when we read the newspaper the next day and saw that the suspects were in fact apprehended that day–same model of taxi-van, same freeway, same afternoon.

I have experienced the effects of terrorism in two countries, albeit not directly and fortunately not in any way that harmed me or my loved ones and for that I am thankful. One was the result of violent criminals who were White, staunchly Catholic, and Irish. The other was planned by Arab Muslims in the Middle East. For both, religion was an important motivation, but not the sole or even primary reason for their terrorism.

Like most terrorist acts, the motivation came out of a mix of socioeconomic and/or ethno-religious reasoning and such people rarely represent their community at large. If you have read this blog before, even just a couple entries, you know that we have profiled religiously motivated violence and terrorism in several countries and the aggressors are a colorful bunch–Hindus in India, communists in Cuba and China, Buddhist authorities in Thailand, as well as the aforementioned Muslims and Christians.

The horrific attack that occurred in Norway last week might be the worst terrorist attack to hit Europe in the post-9/11 era. The savage way that the acts were committed and the tragedy of so many youth being targeted makes the incident hard to comprehend. It was an alarming story for me to hear as I had camped in a similar location near Oslo some years ago, very close to where the killings took place. Many were quick to point out that the suspect is a Christian fundamentalist, an anti-Muslim terrorist, eager to erase Norway’s non-indigenous populations. There have been those on the right who are quick to ignore or brush this fact away and those on the left who see this as a way to further demonize religion, Christianity in particular.

Too many people in the news quickly blamed Muslims for the attack, speaking without any credible information in the hours before we knew the attacker’s name or motivation, leading to a CNN article on why we can’t blame the Muslims in such a situation without knowing all the information. The fact of the matter is that the demon of terrorism is one that will practice whatever religion it must to satisfy its craving for violence. Terrorism knows no religion that it can’t corrupt. Violence can find a home in any religion, any belief system, be it Muslim, Christian, or Sikh and it is not partial to any one in particular, despite the ramblings in the media. I have even had several good discussions with RLTV contributor Joshua Crouch this year about how violence and terrorism find just as comfortable a home in the lack of a religious structure, as we have seen this year in Laos, China, North Korea, and Cuba.     

As candidates for president openly admit their refusal to appoint a Muslim in their hypothetical cabinet, let us remember that the world’s one billion Muslims should not be judged on the actions of criminals, just as Christians would not want to be judged by the actions of Anders Behring Breivik in Norway.

Khalid Latif in that same article gave his readers a suggested course of action, one we often forget about in this chaotic world, “Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Norway. May God make things easy for them and grant us all the strength and courage to stand up against those who preach intolerance and hatred, even if they look like us, align politically with us, or practice the same religion we practice.”

Article18 is a weekly blog written by Martin Surridge, Associate Editor of Religious Liberty TV. Article18 logo and other artwork created by Bradley Kenyon.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Don’t forget to check out other recent Article18 entries.

Article18: Uzbekistan — Recent Incidents of Violence Against Christians Alarm Religious Minorities

Article18: Cuba — Three Protestant Pastors Interrogated; Roman Catholic Church in Havana Helps Free 126 Prisoners of Conscience

Article18: Saudi Arabia — Prominent Saudi Cleric Hopes Women Who Violate Driving Ban Incur Wrath of God and Die

Article18: Mexico — Confirmed Presence of Major Islamic Terrorist Group Near U.S. Border; Former Killer Preaches to Violent Gangsters

Article18: Laos — Four Christian Women Raped and Executed by Laotian Military Along Vietnam Border

 

Buying Power: Human Trafficking and the Local Marketplace

 I’m not willing to pick cocoa beans or cotton for a dollar a day, so who is? Trafficked boys on the Ivory Coast and factory children in Asia whose fingers are small enough to work intricate and dangerous machines fill this gap.

 

Spending four dollars on a candy bar seems irrational. There are so many great tasting candy bars for 90 cents, why would I spend three more dollars for this Alter Eco specialty chocolate? In the end, they’re both equally bad for me and I won’t remember the difference tomorrow. Plus, I’ll be able to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks with the leftover change. Being a business major, I began wondering if these “socially conscious” products like Alter Eco chocolate, Threads for Thought clothing, and other specialty made products were all cutting edge ways for people to make money with the front of caring about the sustainability for the world and people. It seemed to me that it was a great marketing scheme, and that these people in the companies focused on promoting a cheaper product for a greater cost to consumers because they put the emphasis on the individuals making them. The government already has regulations, like labor laws, in place so maybe all this hype about building “sustainable communities” is just a fad or another way for small companies to make it against these transnational corporate giants.

To make things clear, I really am all about supporting the local coffee shop or book store instead of always flocking to big corporations; but when Amazon has the same product for less, it has been my impression that I would be a careless buyer to go somewhere else. This is a question that has been introduced to us with globalization. Growing up in a consumerist society, I’ve repeatedly been taught to find the best product with the lowest cost, it’s Business 101. Gobbling up my 90 cent chocolate, I started worrying about how many insects the FDA allowed per candy bar, realizing that maybe that was the downside to cheaper chocolate. My business professors teach that the bottom line is what matters the most, but I have grown up in a family immersed in mission work and advocating global consciousness. I have started wondering what is most important in order to simultaneously be successful and yet not cross my personal ethics. Is there a way to be both? Is money the only way to success? Surely there was a way to balance both sides instead of veering off in just one direction.

With these thoughts mulling through my head and chocolate lingering in my mouth, I walked into the Freedom Summit conference hear about all the forms modern day slavery takes, and how globalization has created prime breeding grounds for the vulnerability of the masses. The speakers included Condoleezza Rice—former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, Bradley Myles—CEO of Polaris Project, and David Batstone—a Professor of Ethics at USF and founder of Not for Sale Campaign. In the hardest days as Secretary of State under the Bush Administration, Condoleezza turned to the Founding Fathers biographies and came to the conclusion that with every large struggle, “what seemed impossible one day, seemed inevitable the next.” She introduced us to the idea that anti human trafficking is the social justice movement of our century and what is happening behind the backs of the general public is far worse than slavery in the past. There are more slaves today than in any other time in history, and we are all doing our part to help propel it forward.

Much of this shocked me—while not being completely ignorant to the struggles of people globally, I still had the rude awakening that every person is participating in this victimization process, where the marginalized people of society always become the victimized, from sex slavery to forced labor. As middle-class consumers, we want to support our families and ourselves while still having our 401ks and Baskin Robbins family night. The great disappointment to us is not having the fudge sauce on our two scoops because they ran out; but where does the chocolate Baskin Robbins buys come from? Consumerism doesn’t leave much room for humanity. It turns people into self-centered buying machines. Instead of being praised for finding the best deal, maybe we should be praised for being globally aware.

Nathan George, founder of Trade as One, switched from working at a lucrative software company to starting his fair trade company and discussed the business side of slavery. Common sense shows that resellers want the best price, and distributors want to make money, so somebody needs to make up for the gap at the bottom line. I’m not willing to pick cocoa beans or cotton for a dollar a day, so who is? Trafficked boys on the Ivory Coast and factory children in Asia whose fingers are small enough to work intricate and dangerous machines fill this gap. At the other end of the sheltered world, people want more chocolate and twenty t-shirts from Costco, therefore creating a demand for this work. All traffickers need to do is provide children to employers who solely care about money, and the cycle keeps going.

Most human traffickers tend to be ex drug traffickers who have realized that unlike cocaine, people are a resalable commodity. This creates a higher earning power for the trafficker and minimal risks because in developing countries, people cannot search after every child. With a high reward and low risks, it is a perfect business set up; that is, if you just look at numbers. The chocolate didn’t taste as sweet in my mouth as I heard about how I was eating slave-produced products and wearing a shirt made by 10 year old hands.

Realizing that my demand is directly correlated with the amount of their exploitation was not satisfying. Instead of being a savvy shopper by looking for the yellow smiley faces on weekly deals, maybe the valued knowledge actually comes in knowing the product’s supply chain. The advertising for a product tasting the best or being the cheapest shouldn’t trump what is happening on the underside of their business. I don’t see a change coming in my chocolate addiction, but the 30 minutes more of work to buy the slave-free chocolate won’t strain my body as much as theirs. This conference probed me to think about the validity of these brands that I was a skeptic of. One of the careful statements that Nathan George, founder of Trade as One, made during the conference was that we as consumers may be overwhelmed at the prices of actually buying socially responsible items, but the first step is to reduce what we consume in order to balance it out. Do I really need to have a candy bar and Starbucks? Aren’t both of those luxury items anyways? By living responsibly, I’m giving others a higher chance of simply living.

This is easier stated than done. With opportunities for “deals” surrounding us daily, it’s hard to not fall into a pattern that we, as free people, are used to. One of the biggest reminders and strongest points I repeat daily is that I have done nothing to secure the position I have in life of being in a free country, just like these modern day slaves have done nothing to have their entire lives indebted to us because of the harsh demands we put on them with our high consumerist behavior. These socially conscious products contain more than just a new age aura or a better selling point; they represent a desire for the priority of humanity instead of selfish search for profit. The balance that fits in my life is one that requires awareness of what I consume, learning to live on less, and realizing that I can be socially active this the model and with my voting power. What changes can you make in your life to leave room for others?

 

Kate Case, a Global Studies major at La Sierra University, is a campaign strategy intern for California Against Slavery, a non-profit, non-partisan human rights organization working to get an anti-human trafficking initiative on the 2012 ballot for California. Case is the founder of the blog, The Priority of Humanity (http://www.priorityofhumanity.com), which is a compilation of books, documentaries, and other resources related to human trafficking. The blog also has information on current and pending legislation on the issue. This fall, she will be interning with Seventh-day Adventist Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department in Washington, DC where her duties  will include research and advocacy.

Next Page »