Comments and feedback

Response to 'Jewish Sabbath, Christian Sabbath' teaching

Tony makes a good case for observing the original Jewish Sabbath (Fri evening – Sat evening), however I’d like to offer a few comments on this.

Assuming that his scriptural and historical case for the Sabbath are correct, and I’m not 100% sure either way on that, what I wish to challenge him on is his dealing with the Ten Commandments. I agree that the age of grace does not do away with the law; in fact Jesus took it yet further in his sermon on the mount. However, the change that has occurred is that under grace we are no longer under a schoolmaster’s rulebook, but the laws are written on our hearts and we desire to obey, not rules as such, but the principles of the law which are the very heart and source of all law.

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:24-26)

You see how this compares it to the process of a child growing into an adult. That as a child we keep rules, but as an adult we are no longer under the rules of our tutors; but as heirs apply the principles for ourselves.

This is by no means a cop out because applying the principles of the law actually extends the law much further, and so the “kingdom” law ends up being a much higher law than just keeping the rules given under the Mosaic covenant. Concerning the Sabbath, surely this kind of dispute is what Paul had in mind when he wrote:

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observed the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. (Romans 14:5-6)

In other words, each must follow his own conscience before God. To some people one day is set aside and holy, whereas to others every day belongs to the Lord and is holy. If we judge God’s servants on this matter, are we not then in danger of binding men up in rules as the Pharisees did? Colossians specifically says we should not judge other Christians on this matter:

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

Ultimately Jesus turns the whole Sabbath principle around and points out that:

…The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27)

It is for our great good to take a day to rest from our labours and worship God. This good will no doubt be achieved regardless of the day chosen.

Nevertheless, I take from Tony’s argument the point that the early church probably did keep the Jewish Sabbath, which indeed would have been only natural to do. I also accept that the Catholic church may have been responsible for the change, and that Sunday worship may not necessarily reflect an ideal early church pattern. Having said that, it is notable that “the first day of the week” is mentioned three times in the New Testament (excluding passages about Jesus rising from the dead), and although not entirely clear there is some inference in the three combined that believers may often have gathered on the first day. Whether this was out of convenience in social / work pattern of the Roman world, or whether it was simply for fellowship at the end of the Sabbath (if the Saturday evening is taken as the start of the first day, as per Jewish system), does not seem particularly clear.

Overall, whatever the technical aspects it seems doubtful, for reasons I’ve already outlined, that Christians should feel compelled to keep the specific Jewish Sabbath, though by all means those with a conscience to do so should do so.

John

Response to 'A billion transistors per human' blog

Dear John,

Many thoughts ran through my mind while reading your recently posted article, "A Billion Transistors Per Human." Just last night my wife and I had been talking about the way so many Christians seem to be allowing technology to reshape their lives, letting the changes carry them along without ever asking about the destination. One troubling example of this in my experience is the growing disconnect in Hutterite lifestyle between the values and skills the community idealizes and those it actually cultivates by its use of technology. Firmly rooted in a rural, agrarian tradition, the Hutterites I know consider desk jobs, especially computer-based work, to be isolating and damaging to the human soul and thus high levels of computer skills are not valued or encouraged at all. Rather, a useful person is considered to be someone who can overhaul a tractor, cook a chicken, build a house, or raise children.

To a great degree, I agree with this outlook. However, where I live as in most other colonies, farm management has adopted cutting-edge labor-saving technology wherever it appeared likely to increase profits, not comprehending that this technology is created and marketed with the goal of eliminating the very types of manual labor we wish to encourage. The result is a generation of young people many of whom, although raised on a farm with a multi-million-dollar cash flow, may have never milked or butchered a cow, seen an animal give birth, heard a rooster crow, or dug a post hole by hand. Only recently has it begun to dawn on community managers that our scale of operation is putting our young people out of work, and I am happy to say that there is now effort and conversation about how to develop appropriately-scaled industries that offer non-specialized manual work suitable for children and unskilled visitors and newcomers.

However, when one looks at the world as a whole, even the few voices daring to criticize technology usually adopt an apologetic, half-joking tone, as if cringing in terror of being labeled a Luddite or a caveman. This indicates that the developed world is already succumbing to a kind of technological tyranny capable of damaging the reputation and career of anyone who interferes with its agenda. I suspect that we are witnessing the rise of a new kind of world religion, in which the apparently magical characteristics of digital technology will converge seamlessly with true witch-craft. Already the scientific community has emerged as the priestly caste of the twenty-first century, while paganism has become both hip and respectable in the academic community. I believe a large percentage of people in the developed world are already unable or unwilling to distinguish between technological and metaphysical phenomena.

It is easy to think of scenarios through which the Evil One could establish the final great one-world religion under his own special agent. Consider the frantic, government-sponsored search for extraterrestrial life that has been going on for years. In today's atmosphere, a demon king in a spaceship, demonstrating dazzling technology and intelligence and offering to explain our origins and solve earth's problems, would encounter a hero's welcome.

But there is another possibility which only really hit me as I finished reading "A Billion Transistors Per Human." Yesterday I ran across this article from Wired Magazine, which describes a man to whom technology is truly a religion. I have also thought a lot about Stephen Hawking's warning to the scientific community 2001, when he predicted that artificial intelligence will grow past biological intelligence and computers will replace biological life unless we speed up our own evolution through genetic engineering. With these things in the back of my mind, your closing question, "Could the mark of the beast be digital?" triggered another, even more startling question— could the beast itself be digital?

I believe evil is in essence a vacuum, the absence of God's influence. What could be more evil than a vast and powerful mind composed of pure computational power, but without the breath of God that makes us able to understand things like justice and love and empathy? This is mere conjecture of course, but I'm going to be taking another look at the Book of Revelation.

Meanwhile, I hope we Christians will open our eyes before it is too late, and create communities in which technology is viewed with suspicion and used sparingly. The testimony of Christians who have made a conscious decision to do this for the right reasons is encouraging. I don't want to disengage from the culture or try to turn back the clock, but I do think there is evil lurking in the sleek devices that pervade our modern lives, and I think we've been unwary pawns of technology for way too long. It's time for us Christians to turn a stern eye on our PDA's, GPS's, PC's, and mobile phones, and ask ourselves whether they are assisting us in our quest for the Kingdom or sneakily sabotaging our efforts.

Thanks for your thoughts, and keep writing. May God bless your endeavors.

for the Kingdom,

Anthony

Seeking true spiritual unity in today's religious scene

Seeking true spiritual unity in today's religious scene is certainly a tremendous challenge, requiring on the one hand a deep humility and openness and on the other an uncompromising insistence upon following what we do believe to be true. I find myself puzzled even as I consider the examples you wrote about; all the seventh-day Adventists I know of officially teach that Sunday worship services are the Mark of the Beast. Isn't the belief that another Christian bears the Mark of the Beast a serious barrier to fellowship? What about the strong Calvinist doctrine in the statement of faith at www.ntrf.org? Yet those groups no doubt include sincere followers of Christ who would feel the same way about issues that seem very important to me.

If someone who seems to have an obedient, faithful relationship with Christ holds beliefs which I consider false, I can respond in several ways. The popular ecumenical response, of course, would be to say, "Well, doctrine doesn't matter much anyway; if someone is sincere, who am I to question his understanding of truth?" The other extreme, of course, is to assume that anyone who disagrees with me must be resisting the truth, since if he were honest God would certainly have shown him the same thing He showed me.

In between is where I want to be. Of course the details of how we live our lives are important, and our beliefs are important because they affect the way we live our lives. There are issues on which there can logically be only one right position— if I meet a Christian who holds a different position on such an issue, it does no good to pretend that our positions are equally valid. We should be able to acknowledge our differences, and acknowledge that they matter, while recognizing that we are in the same family and can learn from each other.

If I avoid fellowship with anyone whom I perceive to be in error, I force him to associate only with those who agree with him, thus reinforcing his error. Meanwhile, I associate only with those who agree with me, reinforcing any errors I may hold. Thus error marches on and truth languishes.

But when Christians who are serious about living the truth join forces with others whose goals are the same, we can point out the errors we see in each other and encourage each other in the truth.

-- Excerpt from email sent by Anthony Hertzler - April 12, 2009 --