The Birdcage

As we bumped across 3,000 miles of Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces of Canada over recent weeks, our family listened to the 'Your Story Hour' dramatization of the Advent Movement's beginnings. New Zealanders don't generally have much time for history, largely because we don't have much to speak of. Our idea of history is what we had for breakfast. It’s all about the future. But these audio CDs were fascinating. I had read much of the so-called 'Great Disappointment(s)' of 1843 and 1844 without internalizing what it really meant to have experienced the 'Great Disappointment'.

Imagine experiencing an intense sense of God's revelation of undiscovered Biblical truth, simultaneously with many others around the world. Clear. Simultaneous. Compelling. Imagine how much more devastating the 'Great Disappointment' was to the Advent believers in that it followed what unmistakably appeared to be God's leading.

I had not really taken the time to consider the depths of despair that the early Advent believers would have experienced. They had truly sacrificed everything. Twice. They dealt with unbelievable ridicule. Twice. Just hearing of the oppressive darkness and deep depression that the Advent believers experienced is hard to bear, so imagine what experiencing it would have been like. As the actors decide to not plant crops or to sell the farm, I want to shout back through time, "No, don't be rash. You'll regret it. I know how this story ends."

God knew how the story would end. He knew the early Advent stories before the foundation of the Earth. Assuming that God was leading men and women who loved Him to ignore His clear statements recorded in Matt 24 and Mark 13 that "... of that day and hour knoweth no man", why would God do that? Why would God provide so much evidence of His leading of a movement that resulted in seemingly insurmountable disappointment, adversity and suffering? Why would God choose to establish a movement based on clearly incorrect Biblical interpretation? Surely if He wished to see His champions of truth flourish in the market for ideas he would not have saddled them with such ridicule for apparently no reason. Why didn't he kick off the Advent movement through revelation of Biblical understandings that led to spectacularly fulfilled prophecy? Why didn't God reveal the future to His followers and thus lead them to widespread fame and influence, like Twain's Hank Morgan achieved in King Arthur's Court?

Why would God speak in Revelation 10 of a Divine revelation that would turn its recipient's stomach sour? Why would Daniel use words like "deeply troubled", "exhausted", "ill" and "appalled" to describe his experience after Divine revelation?

Could it be that God chose to establish the Advent movement, of which we are a part in some way or another, by leading people into experiences that he knew would include disappointment, adversity and suffering? If God led them through such intense darkness so that they would learn to sing, what is that song? And how was it perfected in disappointment and derision?

This gives us something to ponder as we consider examples where God led his people into circumstances in which they experienced disappointment, hopelessness and apparently insurmountable adversity. I look forward to insights borne of our shared experience of God's leading in our lives.

© Alister L Hunt PhD

The Crucibles That Come

This introduction to this study (pg 5) noted that: "Our lessons are not a theodicy, the justification of God in the face of evil."

Rather, their intended objective is "...to help us work through the inevitable suffering we all face here in a world where sin is as easy as breathing."

Yet, it is all but impossible to seriously study the role of pain, suffering and loss in the Christian life for many weeks without tripping over issues that challenge our concept of God's character.

One such challenge occurs in the study guide (pg 15).
"Many of us are surprised about suffering because we often have an oversimplified view of the Christian life. We know there are two sides—God, who is good; and Satan, who is bad. But often we then automatically put everything that feels good in the box with God and everything that feels bad in the box with Satan. But life is not so simple."

I like simple. I am a Christian at least partially because I recoil from the Eastern perceptions of a complex god, neither fully good, nor entirely bad. I can't pursue a relationship with God if I believe him to be just like me - neither fully good, nor entirely bad - but with the power of life and death.

We have a great study here, which makes it clear that some of the Christian life's 'other experiences' are at the very least allowed by God, or not removed by Him. Do you believe, as you read this email, that you have been given a thorn in the flesh? (2 Cor 12:7) What is your thorn in the flesh? Where did it come from, who caused it, and who "gave" it?

I will never forget visiting a doctoral colleague in the hospital, covered in burns that would take a lifetime of surgery, corsets, pain and disfigurement ... and muttering something ill-advised about "God sending us trials to refine us". This strong, resolute Christian man, who was willing to face death to save his child from the flames of their burning home, burst into uncontrollable sobs, and continued crying until I shuffled my way out of his hospital room. I wanted to cry with him, wracked with the pain of my own insensitivity; wracked with the pain of my inability to articulate God's role in suffering in a vaguely plausible, rational, comforting way.

My bedside sensitivity has improved somewhat over the years with greater glimpses of God's goodness and a greater understanding of my limited comprehension of what is truly transpiring in the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. But I have a lot yet to learn, not only from this week's study and discussion, but from the lessons to come. Perhaps we can all learn together and from each other?

© Alister L Hunt PhD

The Shepherd's Crucible

Thanks for the invitation to comment on the first lesson of this quarter’s Sabbath School lessons. I always read your comments and follow the discussions of your group with great interest!

As I see it Psalm 23 is one of those Bible texts that suffers from overexposure! It has been quoted so frequently and memorized so routinely that it is difficult to even hear what it has to say because we are overly familiar with it. The old saying might apply here that “familiarity breeds contempt.” But let me take a stab at it from what I hope might be a fresh point of view.

The fact that Yahweh is referred to as a “shepherd” is very interesting. I see this as a counter-cultural statement of Israel’s faith. In the surrounding cultures deities were often depicted as kings and warriors (an example of the inferior status of shepherds in imperialistic cultures like Egypt can be found in Exodus 46.34). And even in the Hebrew Scripture we find the same imperial images applied to God.

To call the God of Israel a shepherd was a profound and subversive act of the religious imagination. It represented a new way of conceiving of Israel’s relationship to God. I think it would be similar to the effect on our spiritual lives of beginning to refer to God as “our mother in heaven.” It would create an entirely different sense of our relationship to God and would alter the way that we experienced God in our lives.

In a modern context the image of shepherd is probably not so helpful for us because we have no real living connection with shepherds. But I think it is an example of how the Scripture communicates to people within the context of their own culture. Israel was after all, in its origins, simply a humble nomadic people. Maybe in our context we might say that the Lord is our “Dog Whisperer” (for those that don’t watch as much TV as I do that is a reference to a popular dog trainer show).

I also find the progression within the text quite fascinating. We move from “green pastures” and “quiet waters” (vs. 2) to the “valley of the shadow of death” (vs. 3) to a “table” in the presence of enemies” (vs. 5) to the “house of the Lord” (vs. 6). The dark part of life is sandwiched between two highly desirable parts. This reminds me of the words of Jesus in Revelation 1.18, “I am the living one; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!” Death is surrounded by affirmations of life with the emphasis on unending life. Often in the crucible of life’s miseries it is only memory and hope that can sustain our spirits!

Psalm 23 ultimately leads us from a comfortable place through pain and fear to the presence of God. Honestly, I wish it could be different and that the text would lead directly from the “green valleys” and “quiet waters” to the “house of the Lord.” But as Freud taught wishing does not make it so.

Let me encourage you to share your “valley” experiences with each other. I know it can be difficult to be vulnerable and real with each other but it is well worth it. My own valley right now is financial insecurity. I’m in the mortgage industry that has taken a real hit recently and as an independent contractor the work is hard to find. I’ve seen much greener pastures and I really long for the house of the Lord where there will always be plenty for everyone!

May God’s grace and peace rest on each of you!

© Paul Fisher

Hosea and Gomer: Forgiving the Unfaithful

It is interesting to look at Hosea 1 through 3 from a family relationship perspective, rather than as just allegorical of God's relationship with His 'adulterous' people. Specifically, how would (should?) we respond to the loss of trust in family relationships? In any relationships? If children are involved, how are they affected?

I fully expect my wife to extend no forgiveness if I were to be unfaithful to my marriage vows. Whether she would or not is another matter, but rationality would suggest that she withdraw her trust and that would be the end of marriage in any real sense. Any relationship requires fidelity at some level. From my time in Rwanda I recall a pastor who was unfaithful to his wife while serving in another country. When it became known, he apologized, asked for forgiveness, and was moved into administration. He then went on to commit an immense financial fraud, and to continue to be unfaithful to his wife. I made a mental note to myself to not extend any grace whatsoever to a person unfaithful to their marriage vows.

So, I confess that's my zero-forgiveness approach to infidelity. Its a bit like the Old Testament Jewish approach, save for the messiness of that stoning business.

Consider, for a moment, the slightly more flexible Islamic approach.

Imran b. Husain reported that a woman from Juhaina came to Muhammad and she had become pregnant because of adultery. She said: I am pregnant as a result of Zina. Muhammad said: "Go back, and come to me after the birth of the child". After giving birth, the woman came back to Muhammad, saying: "please purify me now". Next, Muhammad said, "Go and suckle your child, and come after the period of suckling is over." She came after the period of weaning and brought a piece of bread with her. She fed the child the piece of bread and said, "Oh Allah's Apostle, the child has been weaned." At that Muhammad pronounced judgment about her and she was stoned to death.

Now, consider the New Testament approach, as reflected in Jesus' response to the woman caught in adultery. 'Neither do I condemn you. ... Go and sin no more.' (John 8:11).

It would appear that I have something to learn about the redemptive power of forgiveness, and the hope against evidence that springs from [God's] intense love for those that don't live up to their covenant vows.

© Alister L Hunt PhD

Ahab and Jezebel: Abuse of Authority

I vividly recall Angela and I leaving Rwanda in December 1988. As we filed onto the plane, a soldier lewdly asked whether he could have my woman. I dismissed his comment for the preposterously absurd statement that it was. No-one owns Angela, not even me. However, the fact that he was holding a machine gun made his request for 'my woman' all the more unsettling.

I recalled this experience while reading of Ahab's response to King Ben-Hadad in 1 Kings 20. Ben-Hadad's messengers tell Ahab to send over his wives and children -- and he placates him by sending some of them over. Can you imagine what sort of a family dynamic that would create! Consider what it would be like to realize that you are in the expendable category of family members. And consider what it would have been like to remain in Ahab's household. You would be constantly reviewing where you stood in the household, wondering whether you would be in the next shipment to Ben-Hadad. Would you feel protected? Would you feel that you had a husband or father that depicted God's willingness to sacrifice himself for the salvation of His household?

One thing I learned in Africa is that you never give into a threat from someone in authority, because to to do so is only the beginning of trouble, not the end of it. To give into authority abused is to mark oneself as weak and invite a series of increasingly exacting demands. As husbands, wives, parents, how do we respond when our household is threatened in one way or another by someone abusing authority? Romans 13 tells us to submit to all authority, since it has been established by God. That's one approach -- Ahab's initial response to Ben-Hadad. The other is to do whatever it takes to stand up for right on behalf of our families -- Ahab's second response to Ben-Hadad that enabled God to work a victory on behalf of His people.

© Alister L Hunt PhD

Faith Without Fear

A friend loaned me an audio CD excerpt from the 'Faith Without Fear' PBS series that aired earlier this year. It deals with Islam's ability to grow in its understanding of God through dialogue and debate, and with restoring humanity and reason to Islam.

I recommend listening to the CD, as it has implications for fundamentalist Christianity -- restoring humanity and reason to Christianity. If you wish to purchase the CD, here is a link to find it on the web.

http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=2657860&cp&kw=faith+without+fear&origkw=faith+without+fear&sr=1

© Alister L Hunt PhD

Family Relationships Before and After the Fall

Let's look at what Genesis says about the male/female/family dynamic, and for the purpose of this exchange, let's look at it in two parts - the 'before-sin' and the 'after-sin' relationship.

FACTS BEFORE THE FALL

Fact 1. Before sin, Adam observed that everything on earth came in matching pairs, and he had no match.

Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Fact 2. God, who could have made Adam's match any way he wanted to (having made Adam from the very elements), chose to use a piece of Adam, and a specific piece at that. He chose a rib - a part of the body that gives structure to a man and protects his heart (and other vital organs) -a part of the body that is located at the side of man.

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

Fact 3. God delivered her to Adam - Adam didn't go looking.

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Fact 4. Adam's response was to conclude (and declare) that his match was verily himself and that she was the perfect match - literally a part of him. For this reason - that a woman and man are a perfect match - the man would leave all that was meaningful to him up until that time and "cleave" (to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch) to his wife, and the two would actually become (or be as) one flesh.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Fact 5. They were completely at ease with each other physically/sexually.

Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

FACTS AFTER THE FALL

Fact 1. Eve trusted her own judgment rather than the explicit word of God.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Fact 2. Adam put his love for/trust in Eve ahead of the explicit word of God.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Fact 3. With the introduction of putting something ahead of God, both began to be uncomfortable with who they were.

Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Fact 4. Even though they knew something was wrong, they avoided dealing with it directly, instead choosing to avoid, cover up, and deny the reality of their circumstances.

Genesis 3:7,8 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Fact 5. When confronted with the reality of their circumstances, while they initially admitted what they had done, they immediately began blaming anyone but themselves for their circumstances. The upshot being that they were actually blaming God.

Genesis 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Fact 6. The result of all their failure to put God's word above all else (and I emphasize result) was that they were changed from the 'before-the-fall' relationship. The effect of sin on them would be a chronic tension between the forces of good and evil in the lives of all mankind. (Thankfully the ultimate resolution was promised at the same time.)

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Fact 7. They would lose the natural oneness that had been the gift and the plan. In its place, woman would look to man for her sense of self worth rather than to God. Her life would be filled with sorrow in general, in sex in particular, and even the unfettered joy of bearing children would now be tainted with heartache.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Fact 8. Man would no longer cleave to his wife, but rather work would consume him. He would be so obsessed with making a living that he would have little time for his family. Because of this, life would be hard all his days, bitter to his natural end, when he would die, leaving everything that had consumed his focus for all those years to be fooled away by those who came after him.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Fact 9. Grown men and women would be dependent upon their parents for some of the most basic needs rather than being able to provide for themselves.

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Fact 10. Parents would ultimately need to put up barriers between themselves and their children for the overall good, going so far as to put them out of the house and cut them off from inheritance in extreme cases.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Now let's review and draw some conclusions.

Before the fall, Man craved the company of a mate. He yielded his choice to God, who then provided him with the perfect mate, rather than seeking to solve the problem for himself. Having waited upon God and having received the perfect, God-given mate, he not only cleaved to her himself, but prophesied that all mankind to follow would do the same. (Remember, he was prophesying for sinless man.)

He intuitively (in his sinless condition) recognized that Man was to leave all else and to become one with his mate (excepting God, of course). Even the name he gave her indicated by its very meaning that she was a part of him.

The fall came about because both Man and Woman put their self interest ahead of God's explicit word. (This point cannot be overemphasized, either in understanding what went wrong or in recognizing the solution to undoing the harm that was done.)

The characteristics that have plagued and destroyed families ever since, very rapidly became apparent.

1. Acting on one's own volition rather than consulting/communicating with spouse
2. Denying and covering up the results of bad choices and enabling the spouse to do the same by not making him/her accountable for their choices
3. Blaming others rather than taking responsibility for one's choices/actions
Additional problems that plague and destroy families were foretold.

For women:

1. Insecurity, lifelong unfulfillment that even childbearing ultimately can't assuage, domination by the stronger sex

For men:

1. A lifetime of all-consuming hard work and sweat that takes all his focus and energy and makes him intolerant and impatient for gratification when he gets a few minutes to relax. See anything you recognize there? :-)

In the end, it is only by aiming at the 'before-the-fall' ideal, while at the same time recognizing the 'after-the-fall' realities, that we can begin to realize the wholeness that God had and has in store for us.

God didn't make women to need a man's support in order to feel good about herself, and he didn't make man to be so preoccupied with life that he can't nurture his wife - sin did that. Our work in this, as in every area of our lives, is to offset the effects of sin insofar as is possible by seeing what God's ideal was and by His grace trying to achieve it.

© Dennis Farley

July 2007