BY KENNETH MULZ A C* JESUS’ TWO PARABLES OF GRACE · tion: “‘Who is my neighbor?’” (vs. 29). The Jews believed that the neighbor could be only one who belonged to the covenant

5

second; while the Samaritan is thethird. In the second parable, the kingis the first character; the unjust ser-vant is the second, and his colleagueis the third.

4. Both deal with characters oper-ating according to similar principles.The parables demonstrate similarphilosophies of life as illustrated inthe characters. These indicate howpeople live their lives.

5. Both deal with the idea ofmercy. This forms the concludingissue for both parables.

Grace in the Context of the EnemyIn the parable of the Good

Samaritan, the discussion beginsbecause a lawyer wants to test Jesus:“‘What must I do to inherit eternallife?’” (Luke 10:25, NIV). His motiveappears to be negative because thisNew Testament use of the word testusually expresses such a connota-tion. Further, the words “‘What mustI do?’” “implies that by the perfor-mance of one thing eternal life canbe secured. What heroic act must beperformed, or what great sacrificemade?”4 This emphasis on doingsomething to gain eternal life pointsin the direction of merit by humanaction and achievement. Jesusdirects the lawyer’s attention, mostappropriately, to what the Lawteaches. The man responds by quot-ing portions of the Law (Deut. 6:5;Lev. 19:18, respectively) to show thattotal love for God and one’s neigh-

bor insures eternal life. Jesus answerswith an imperative: “‘Do this andyou will live’” (Luke 10:28, NIV).The implication is that eternal lifecannot be accomplished by merit, asthe lawyer suggests.

Not grasping the implications ofhis own words, the lawyer seeks self-justification by posing another ques-tion: “‘Who is my neighbor?’” (vs.29). The Jews believed that theneighbor could be only one whobelonged to the covenant commu-nity, not an outsider. Already there isa hint that this definition is too lim-ited, because the word for “neigh-bor” quoted in Leviticus 19:18means more than one who livesnearby or next door.

Interestingly, Jesus does notdirectly answer the lawyer’s ques-tion,“Who is my neighbor?” Instead,He turns it around and, by tellingthe parable, answers a differentquestion: “Whose neighbor am I?”In other words, He teaches how oneought to behave neighborly. Thestory represents the perspective ofthe needs of the wounded man, whois the only person who remains onthe scene of action throughout theaccount.

This man, whose ethnicity is notmentioned but is generally under-stood to be Jewish, was attacked byrobbers on the notoriously danger-ous 18-mile road from Jerusalem toJericho. His desperate plight is cap-tured in verse 30: “‘[The thieves]

4

race is generally defined as“God’s unmerited favortoward humanity and espe-cially his people, realizedthrough the covenant and ful-

filled through Jesus Christ.”1 Theidea of “unmerited favor” is gener-ally highlighted in such definitionsbecause it is perceived as the “es-sence of grace in biblical terms.”2

Two of Jesus’ parables place theemphasis of grace on unmeritedfavor, not in the typical God-to-per-son context, but in the person-to-person context. Indeed, the teachingis decidedly pastoral. These parablesof the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and the unmerciful servant(Matt. 18:21-35) share the followingcharacteristics:

1. Both are introduced as Jesus’responses to questions posed by His

hearers. In the first the query of theexpert in the law is, “‘What must I doto inherit eternal life?’” (Luke 10:25,NIV)3 and more specifically, “‘Who ismy neighbor?’” (vs. 29). In the secondPeter inquires, “‘Lord, how manytimes shall I forgive my brother whenhe sins against me? Up to seventimes?’” (Matt. 18:21).

2. Both deal with how a persontreats another. Hence, they are in theconcrete context of human behavior.

3. Both are triadic. In the first, thethieves, by having the same intent,are lumped together as one charac-ter; the priest and Levite, since theyare both religious persons, form the

JESUS’ TWOPARABLES OF GRACE

B Y K E N N E T H M U L Z A C *

GWithout using the word grace, Christ left us with the

clearest possible expressions of it.

*Kenneth Mulzac is a professor of OldTestament at the Adventist Interna-tional Institute of Advanced Studies,Silang, Cavite, Philippines.

7

Samaritan, from whom hearerswould have expected nothing. Thehistoric enmity between Jews andSamaritans was well known. To becalled a Samaritan was a deep insult,and the groups avoided contact witheach other as much as possible.

The impact is heightened byJesus’ use of contrast: “‘But a Samar-itan, . . . came where the man was;and when he saw him, he took pityon him’” (vs. 33, italics supplied).Whereas those who are expected toact with compassion toward thehelpless victim deliberately refuse todo so, the one who is hated anddespised deliberately stoops to help.Furthermore, he risks himself indoing so, and this action definescompassion.

The compassion is illustrated inwhat the Samaritan does for theinjured man. He administers firstaid, provides transportation to a safeplace, pays for the man’s immediatebasic needs, and makes arrange-ments for any future attentions hemay need. In so doing, the Samari-

tan demonstrates his philosophy oflife: “I will share what I have.” It is inthis sharing that love is exemplified.Therefore, the Samaritan’s philoso-phy and action in life indicate thathe is fulfilling the ethical demands ofthe Law: “‘Love your neighbor asyourself ’” (Lev. 19:18). As such, he,an outcast, is closer to eternal lifethan those who count themselves asprivileged members of the electcommunity. By their refusal to liveout their own ethical system, thepriest and Levite have made them-selves the (new?) outcasts. They arefar from eternal life.

Though the word grace is notused in the story, the idea of it isquite evident. From the perspectiveof the victim, grace is experienced.The sufferer does not merit favor,especially since Jewish fanaticismwould prefer death rather thanreceive help from a Samaritan. Butby his very actions, this Samaritanexemplifies grace.

In His conclusion to the parable,Jesus then asks the lawyer, “‘Which

6

stripped him of his clothes, beat himand went away, leaving him halfdead.’” This verse also introduces thefirst character in the triad. Since thethieves all had the same intention,they are grouped together. Fromtheir violent and vicious actions,they manifest a certain philosophyof life that says, “I will take what youhave.” It is their actions, based onsuch a philosophy of life, that placethe unfortunate victim in a state ofemergency—indeed, in a life-and-death situation. His desperate needresults directly from their atrociousand barbarous behavior.

Verses 31 and 32 describe the sec-ond triad. Since both priest andLevite are religious persons, they aregrouped together. To Jesus’ listeners,the arrival of the priest would havesignaled hope for the wounded man.If anyone is expected to help a mor-tally wounded person, surely itwould be one who works on behalfof people in distress. However, “thisprime representative of the religionthat, in the person of the lawyer, hasjust agreed upon the fundamentalplace of love hardens his heart andpasses by on the other side.”5

Next comes a Levite. As a reli-gious person, he would be expectedto help, though that expectationwould be less than that of the priest.But he too chooses not to getinvolved and passes by on the otherside. The similar action of these reli-gious figures demonstrates the same

philosophy of life: “I will keep what Ihave.”

There is much discussion aboutthe reasons these two avoided thewounded man. Regardless of thereason, however, we must realizethat the focus here is not on why thereligious leaders refused to help, buton the fact that they did not help.By telling the narrative in this way,Jesus masterfully plots the story soas to have a heightened effect on thehearers. The role of these two reli-gious personages is to create hopeand then quickly dash it to theground: If these two do not help,who will? Further, by bringingtogether the priest and Levite, Jesusmakes the drama even more in-triguing. Certainly the priest is ex-pected to help; but since he doesnot, it is not expected that theLevite will help, as Levites were sub-ordinate to priests. Relegated tomenial and secondary tasks in thetemple, they were of lower rankthan priests. Who, then, will helpthe fallen man?

“At this point the story is open toa number of possible developments.(Is it after all an anti-clerical story,and now an ordinary Israelite willcome along and save the day? WillGod intervene with angelic help andshame the religious figures? Is thestory to be a tragedy in which theinjured man’s demise brings shameupon the covenant community?)”6

Instead, Jesus now introduces the

Though the word grace is not used in the story,

the idea of it is quite evident. From the perspective of the victim,

grace is experienced. The sufferer does not merit favor,

especially since Jewish fanaticism would prefer death rather than

receive help from a Samaritan. But by his very actions,

this Samaritan exemplifies grace.

9

ness should be limitless, even infi-nite. To illustrate this, He tells theparable of the unmerciful servant.

This is one of the kingdom para-bles; Jesus likens the kingdom to “‘aking who wanted to settle accountswith his servants’” (vs. 23). It isclosely connected to the same genreof parables in Matthew 13 that dealwith the kingdom of heaven (vss. 11,24-30, 31-32, 33-43, 44, 45-46, 47-50). Kingdom parables often dealwith the actions and behavior of theresidents of the Kingdom. This para-ble is no different. This is underlinedin that the king is about to settleaccounts with some of his subjects.The parable is clearly triadic, withthe main characters being the king,the first subject, and the second sub-ject. The first subject appears in allscenes of the story, which is toldfrom his perspective.

In the first encounter, the servanthas an astronomically high debt.The use of the word loan, togetherwith the extraordinarily excessivedebt, suggests a royal contract with atax collector. Hence, these servantswere not slaves but officials whomanaged the administrative affairsof the state. The debt is described ina way that suggests an incalculableamount. It meant that the servantwas absolutely incapable of repayingsuch a large sum. Owing to this, theking ordered that the servant and hisfamily, together with all their posses-sions, be sold as repayment (Matt.

18:25). In so doing, the sovereign isfollowing a well-established tradi-tion. The point here is that the ser-vant is not in a position to repay thedebt. Although he has power andinfluence, he is in an impossible sit-uation. To avoid the shame and lossof being sold into slavery, he throwshimself on the mercy of the king:“‘“Be patient with me,” he begged,“and I will pay back everything”’”(vs. 26). Again, even this is insuffi-cient. Further, the plea approacheseven a humorous dimension withthe promise to repay everything.

Despite these factors, the kingaccepts the plea for mercy. In fact, hegoes beyond the man’s request.Instead of allowing him the oppor-tunity to repay as requested, the king“‘took pity on him, canceled thedebt and let him go’” (vs. 27). Therecord is completely expunged. Theservant has nothing to commendhim to the monarch, and despite hisbest promise, it is impossible for himto erase his indebtedness. It is onlythe ruler’s compassion that saves theservant. In short, the king expressesgrace. His philosophy in life is: “Iwill share what I have.” And thismotivates the act of grace: unmerit-ed favor to the undeserving.

In the second encounter, the for-given servant meets a colleague whoowes him a mere 100 denarii. This isminuscule in comparison to thedebt from which he has been sorecently released. Suddenly he is

8

of these three do you think was aneighbor to the man who fell intothe hands of robbers?’” (Luke 10:36).The answer is obvious: “‘The onewho had mercy on him’” (vs. 37).Yet, the lawyer’s answer shows hisdeep-seated racism. He avoids put-ting the scornful word Samaritan onhis lips and mutters a non-specificdesignation: “‘The one who showedmercy’” (vs. 37, NASB). He deniesidentity to the Samaritan. But it isprecisely the merciful acts of theSamaritan that give him identity. OnJesus’ lips, he is the real person.

According to Jesus, the neighboris anyone who addresses the needs ofthe other. Jesus emphasizes the con-crete actions of sympathy, empathy,and compassion. This is the essenceof grace. It is being neighborly tothose in need. From the perspectiveof the desperate and disenfran-chised, neighborliness is the choiceto share what one has. When oneloves God and people, such a choice,

as exemplified in the Samaritan’sactions, demonstrates grace.

Grace in the Context of ForgivenessThe parable of the unmerciful

servant in Matthew 18:21-35 illus-trates grace in the context of forgive-ness. It is introduced by two ques-tions posed by Peter: “‘How manytimes shall I forgive my brotherwhen he sins against me? Up toseven times?’” (Matt. 18:21). Jesushad just been talking about forgive-ness (vss. 15-18). In that discourse,He said nothing about the numberof times you should forgive some-one who wrongs you. Hence, Peter’squeries. It would seem that sinceseven represents the perfect number,then seven instances of forgivenesswould be superlative. Jesus answersthat one should be willing to forgive490 times. This wide contrast clearlydwarfs Peter’s assumption and putsthe matter in bold relief. Certainly,what Jesus is teaching is that forgive-

According to Jesus, the neighbor is anyone who addresses the needs

of the other. Jesus emphasizes the concrete actions of sympathy,

empathy, and compassion. This is the essence of grace. It is being

neighborly to those in need. From the perspective of the

desperate and disenfranchised, neighborliness is the choice to share

what one has. When one loves God and people, such a choice, as

exemplified in the Samaritan’s actions, demonstrates grace.

1110

nizes no boundaries. It is a state ofheart, not a matter of calculation.”7

Although these two parables donot mention the word grace, theycertainly illustrate the premiumplaced on grace in the teachings ofJesus. Indeed, true religion is seen inhow we treat one another. Graceenables us to be a neighbor and helpeven those who treat us like theenemy. This is what the first parableteaches. The second teaches us thatgrace enables us to forgive otherseven as we would like to be forgivenby God. In both, it is our concreteactions toward other human beingsthat are important. To neglect thefallen and disenfranchised is to belike the priest and Levite, whose reli-gious formalism kept them cold anddetached from serving humanity. Tobe unforgiving is to be as wicked asthe first servant, whose selfishnessmade him heartless. But to servehumanity and to be forgiving are the

best illustrations of what it means tohave grace. The word does not needto be on our lips, but its essencemust be the guiding principle in ourhearts and must be reflected in ourtreatment of people.

enraged and treats his associate withviolent hostility: “‘“Pay back whatyou owe me!”’” (vs. 28). The manoffers a plea that is almost identicalto the one made earlier by hisassailant. The only difference be-tween both pleas is that the latteromits the word everything. His debtis so small that it is ridiculous evento suggest that he needs time torepay everything. That is assumed.This makes the first servant appearin an even worse light. He promisesto repay everything, but he is reallyunable to do so. And now he refusesto give the same leniency to onewho, given time, could repay morethan the entire balance owed. Hewho has just experienced grace nowacts in un-grace. He lives by the phi-losophy, “I will keep what I have.” Hehas just received forgiveness, butnow selfishly keeps that same gift tohimself.

Jesus deliberately contrasts thesefirst two scenes to put the action ofgrace into bold relief. This alsoheightens the impact of the story onthe hearers.

The impact is clear: Treatinganother person without grace, espe-cially when one has just receivedgrace, indicates hardheartedness andcold evil. It betrays an inner inhu-manity. Even the minimum of for-giveness is not attained. Little won-der that in the third encounter (vss.32-34), the other servants report thisincident to the king, who immedi-

ately summons the unjust servant.The king reminds him that he hasreceived grace but has not showngrace, so he deserves to be char-acterized as “wicked” (vs. 32). Thisleads to his rhetorical question:“‘“Shouldn’t you have had mercy onyour fellow servant just as I had onyou?”’” (vs. 33). This question placesthe emphasis squarely on treatingothers as one would like to be treat-ed. Just as the king willingly gives tothe undeserving servant, because ofhis grace, so too the unmerciful ser-vant should have been willing toshare what he had just received.Instead, he has refused. In treatinghis colleague in this way, he isdestroying the kingdom. Such can-not be tolerated. Hence, no one issaddened when the king rescindsthe earlier pardon (vs. 34).

In the final verse, Jesus pointsout that the measure by which weforgive others is the same one theheavenly Father uses when we askfor forgiveness. The application ispoignant. So back to Peter’s originalquery concerning the number oftimes we should forgive a personwho wrongs us. The answer is foundin our reflection on this question:How many times do we want Godto forgive us? Unlimited. Thoughundeserving of forgiveness, wewould like grace extended to us timeand again (even 70 times seven).The point of the parable is “that thespirit of genuine forgiveness recog- Q

Indeed, true religion is seen in how we treat one another.

Grace enables us to be a neighbor and help even those who treat

us like the enemy. This is what the first parable teaches.

The second teaches us that grace enables us to forgive others

even as we would like to be forgiven by God.

In both, it is our concrete actions toward other human beings

that are important.

REFERENCES1 Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (1987), s.v.,

“Grace.”2 Horace O. Duke, Where Is God When

Bad Things Happen? (Mumbai: St. Paul’s,1999), p. 104.

3 Unless otherwise specified, all Bibletexts in this article are quoted from the NewInternational Version

4 Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on theGospel of Luke, New International Commen-tary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids,Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 313.

5 John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, WordBiblical Commentary, vol. 35B (Dallas:Word, 1993), p. 593.

6 Ibid., p. 594.7 William Hendrickson, New Testament

Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel Accord-ing to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973),p. 704.

13

The word also suggests that he wasnot a regular member of that group.The immediate context gives theimpression that he behaves like theone to whom the Earth belongs:“‘roaming through the earth andgoing back and forth in it’” (vs. 7).Satan is characterized as an intruder;playing the role of the accuser andthe possessor of Planet Earth.

According to Job 1:8; 2:3, Godjustifies Job in front of the solemnassembly gathered before Him.Twice in these first two chapters,God declares Job to be right, i.e.,blameless, upright, fearing God, andshunning evil. His character is with-out question, but not because he issinless. Job knows he is a sinner(7:21; 10:6; 14:17); he can be blame-less only through God’s transform-ing grace. In these two encounters,which God initiates, God directs Hiswords to Satan, and He engages withhim in heightened dialogue.

From the very beginning of thisbiblical book, God is presented aspassionately standing up for Job. ButSatan does not share God’s lovingaffection for Job. Instead he involvesJob in his argument against God,and his evil devices go to the veryroot of his dispute with Him.

The Issue in the Great ControversySatan does not agree with God

pronouncing Job righteous; he op-poses His standing on Job’s behalfand tackles Him with a frightful,

subtle, and seemingly innocentquestion: “‘Does Job fear God fornothing?’” (1:9, NIV). This cynicalquestion introduces the theme andthe plot of the book. At first glance,it is directed against Job, but in real-ity it is an attack on God by attempt-ing to disprove His statement aboutJob. Thus the main theme of theBook of Job is the justice of God.The real drama turns on the fact thatHe is for us and proclaims us just.

Is God just when He is justifyingus? Satan’s question expresses hishidden thoughts. To understandSatan’s motive, it is necessary tostudy the key words in the question:“for nothing.” The Hebrew term forthis occurs four times in the book(1:9; 2:3; 9:17; 22:6). It can be trans-lated also as “gratis,” “gratuitously,”“without a reason,” “for nought,”“freely,” “disinterestedly,” “for nopurpose,” “in vain,” “without cause.”Satan’s question can be stated thus:Does Job serve God disinterestedly?Is his piety unselfish and devotionwholehearted? Or expressed differ-ently: Does he serve God out of love,i.e., for nothing?

Why is Satan’s question—whether Job serves God out of love(whether we serve God out oflove)—so evil? Why is it so bad toquestion our motives? Because insuch situations we cannot defendourselves. Only time (and usually along period of time) and difficultiesof life (problems, persecution, suf-

12

od is for us and never againstus. And if He is for us, whocan be against us? Satan triesthrough his many inventionsto separate us from God, but

he is totally unsuccessful with hisvarious activities if we stay in a per-sonal trust relationship with theLord. Paul assures us that nothingcan separate us from the love of God(Rom. 8:35-39).

This truth is evident in a carefulreading of the Old Testament Bookof Job, which, in the scripturalcanon, was probably written first(along with Genesis). It thus pro-vides a preface to the whole of God’srevelation, introduces the Penta-teuch, and gives significant insightinto the Great Controversy.

First, it must be stressed that theBook of Job is not primarily about

Job, but about the God of Job, aboutwho He is. It reveals the characters ofthe three main protagonists in thebook, namely, God, Satan, and Job,but the book is first of all a revela-tion about our God.

The book opens with a prologuethat describes two heavenly scenes ofintense controversy between Godand Satan (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7). Therewas a heavenly assembly before asovereign Ruler of the universe whenthe sons of God gathered beforeHim. Satan, the adversary, “alsocame among them” (1:6, NKJV).

THE SCANDAL OF THE BOOK OF JOB

B Y J I R Í M O S K A L A *

GWe must face the same questions that Job faced—

and be prepared to embrace the answers.

*Jirí Moskala is Professor of Old Testa-ment Exegesis and Theology andDirector of the M.Div. program at theSeventh-day Adventist TheologicalSeminary on the campus of AndrewsUniversity, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

1514

horrible and incredible statement!This is more than a simple puzzle or ariddle.

Those who believe in a good, lov-ing, just, and all-powerful God havean immense problem with this pic-ture of Him. Believers confess that theCreator and the King of the Universeis the Protector of life, Giver of happi-ness, Prince of Peace, Intervener intohuman affairs, and Friend of humans.It seems that Job’s is a different kindof God than they know from otherparts of biblical revelation. Faithmakes no sense, and to some extent itmakes the situation even worse.

Why didn’t the omnipotent Godprotect His servant? This is the realscandal in the experience of Job. Wewould like to see the omnipotent Godintervene and immediately silenceSatan’s accusations and prevent himfrom harming Job. We wish that Godwould stop at once the abuse of chil-dren, rape of women, concentrationcamps, murders, suffering, car acci-dents, plane crashes, collapse of tow-ers, pain, violence, hurricanes,tsunamis . . . People ask the poignant

question in times of tragedies, loss,and war: “Where is God?”

The Book of Job begins with atension. On the one hand, God isputting a hedge around Job, protect-ing him from any harm, blessinghim so generously that he becomesthe Bill Gates of his time. On theother hand, Job is abandoned (for atime) by God to the hands of Satan.There is no logic to this. The situa-tion seems self-contradictory.

We live in a world in which evilreigns, and evil is irrational. Let usnot try to find a logical answer to theproblem of evil. We need to learnhow to live with our unansweredquestions. From that angle, the Bookof Job is really a quest for God’s vis-ible presence in life.

When you lose the most cher-ished things in your life, what wouldbe your attitude toward God? Willyou serve or curse Him? And if youstay with Him, from what motiveswould you follow Him?

The only answer to questionsabout suffering is that God wasexactly in the same place where He

fering) will reveal who is correct—us or our accuser. Every time peopleattack the motives of other people,they put themselves on the side ofSatan. If someone wishes to hurt youbadly, the most effective way he orshe can do it is by attacking yourmotives. In such a situation you areimmediately defenseless.

Satan’s ClaimSatan has no evidence against Job’s

actual behavior, but he claims that noone serves God unselfishly because,according to him, that is impossible.He declares that God is surroundedonly by hypocritical sycophants whoconfess their love to the Lord, butwho in reality serve Him only becauseHe blesses them. Satan asserts thatcreated beings are not following Godbecause of His goodness, kindness,beauty of character, and personality,but for the many benefits and abun-dant privileges they receive fromHim. They are devoted to Him be-cause He is bribing them. God is notonly blessing them now, but evenpromises them eternal life. Why not,then, serve Him for all these wonder-ful things?

Satan thus presses God not tospeculate about something that doesnot exist, namely, that people trulylove Him. Humans do not worshipthe Lord for nothing, even if theyclaim to, but for gain—for selfishreasons. Satan is depicted here asnever accepting the possibility that

someone can serve God for His lov-ing kindness, for His sake, for justbeing God. He denies the existenceof unselfish service to God.

Satan’s RequestSatan argues that God is sur-

rounded by good actors and actresses.To prove his argument, he demandsthat God take everything from Job,because only in this way will God seeJob’s facade crumble: “He will surelycurse you to your face’” (vs. 11, NIV).Satan requests that God remove Hisblessings from humans because theirreal selves will be revealed.

Satan, therefore, charges, “‘Haveyou not put a hedge around him andhis household and everything hehas? You have blessed the work of hishands, so that his flocks and herdsare spread throughout the land’” (vs.10, NIV). It is as if Satan were saying:“Of course it is easy for Job to serveyou, because you give him every-thing that humans desire!” Interest-ingly, even Satan has to admit thatGod blesses His followers, cares forthem, loves them, gives them pros-perity, and protects them. But ofcourse, he now turns it upside downand tries to use the goodness of Godagainst Him.

The Scandal of the BookWhen Satan attacks Job’s integrity,

God allows him to try Job: “‘Verywell, then, everything he has is inyour hands’” (vs. 12, NIV). What a

Satan has no evidence against Job’s actual behavior,

but he claims that no one serves God unselfishly because, according

to him, that is impossible. He declares that God is surrounded

only by hypocritical sycophants who confess their love to the Lord,

but who in reality serve Him only because He blesses them.

1716

however, exercises any means andany strategy available.

How often we wonder why ourAlmighty God allows tragedies tohappen in the lives of good people,not knowing or forgetting that Satancan be defeated only by someonewho is weaker than he is.

Victory Through WeaknessThis is the reason for the incarna-

tion. The God of the whole universehad to become weak in order todefeat evil. Only with the frailties ofhumanity could He defeat Satan. Onthe cross of Calvary, the Creator Goddemonstrated His love, truth, andjustice. The suffering God, hangingon the cross, is a victorious God.What a paradox! Sin started withpride, but was overcome by humility(Isa. 14:12-15; Phil. 2:5-11).

In the story of Job, only Job him-self, who is weaker than the devil,can refute Satan’s argument, defeathim, and thus prove that God isright when He is justifying him andstanding on his side. Job overcamethe devil not because he was so goodor strong (Job 7:21; 10:6; 14:17) butbecause he totally surrendered hislife to God. He did this in full confi-dence and trust in the God who gavehim strength and victory (13:15;19:25-27; 42:5). Paul says elo-quently: “When I am weak, then Iam strong” (2 Cor. 12:10, NIV).

This is a true paradox of life.When we realize our complete depen-

dence on God, when we humblyadmit and accept our frailty, when wetrust God and not ourselves and allowHim to work in our lives, victory isours because He fights for us. We can-not win this battle unless we stay in aclose personal relationship with Him.We need to fight a good fight of faith(1 Tim. 6:12), not against sin, but fora close relationship with Christ, whois the only one who can give us vic-tory. He can bring us victory becauseHe is the Victor. He came to Earthwith a clear purpose: to save us fromsin and not in sin (Matt. 1:21). InHim and because of Him, we are vic-tors, too (Rev. 12:11).

What Was Left When Job LostEverything?

Paradoxically, even after Job losteverything, seven things remained:

1. His life, though one of misery.In a sense, it would have been easierfor Job to die and not to undergo thepainful suffering.

But God had set a boundary forSatan: “‘You must spare his life’” (Job2:6, NIV; compare with 1:12). Thegood news is that God promises wewill never be tested beyond our abilityto cope (1 Cor. 10:13). In the contro-versy between God and Satan, Job’sdeath would not answer the issueunder contention. Jesus Christ had togo through the ultimate test of loy-alty. When Jesus died, Satan wasdefeated, and once and for all it wasdemonstrated that pure love and obe-

was when His Son was murdered atthe cross. God is always on the sideof the oppressed, suffering person.In our suffering, He suffers. “In alltheir distress he too was distressed,. . . In his love and mercy heredeemed them” (Isa. 63:9, NIV).

How Can Satan Be Defeated?All these pertinent, disturbing

inquiries go back to the core of theproblem: How can Satan be de-feated? This question needs to beanswered to shed greater light on thewhole conflict of the Book of Joband the standpoint of God.

Satan cannot be defeated by logicbecause against each argument is acounterargument. To refute some-one only with facts has no lastingresults. If Satan could be defeatedthrough debate, God would havedone it a long time ago, for He is theTruth (Ex. 34:6; Deut. 32:4; Ps. 31:5;John 17:17).

Can Satan be defeated by force?Nothing would please him morethan to face force in whatever form.

This is exactly what he wants toprove about God. He wants toaccuse God of using force, but helacks evidence; he cannot demon-strate it. Of course, Satan could besilenced by power if God chose to doso. The omnipotent Creator is alsothe Mighty Warrior (Ex. 15:3; Isa.42:13; Jer. 20:11). In that case, how-ever, God would be accused of notplaying fair and thus having anadvantage over Satan. The GreatControversy does need to be won,but in a different way.

If God were to use force to gainvictory, Satan would confront Himwith defiance: “God, are you notashamed to beat me who is weakerthan you? You won because ofpower, not because of love or truth.”

Satan draws weapons from anevil arsenal: ambition, pride, selfish-ness, lies, deceit, violence, anger,hatred, prejudice, racism, terrorism,addictions, manipulation. . . Satancan be overcome only by love, truth,justice, freedom, and order. Goduses only these pure weapons. Satan,

In the story of Job, only Job himself, who is weaker

than the devil, can refute Satan’s argument, defeat him, and

thus prove that God is right when He is justifying him

and standing on his side. Job overcame the devil not because

he was so good or strong, but because he totally

surrendered his life to God.

1918

severely tested, but by faith, he clungto God with all his strength. Hetrusted Him and served unselfishly.Nothing, even pain, suffering, orunanswered questions, could sepa-rate him from God. His integrity wasvindicated.

Because Job had cultivated atrusting relationship with God in thepast and was relying on His prom-ises, he could go through the presentcrisis victoriously. Past experiencewith God helped him to surviveSatan’s savage attack.

Troubles of life, suffering, andpersecution have no power to createfaith in us, but instead they revealour faith. Difficulties of life help usto discover what really is inside us,and they may also further developand strengthen faith (Rom. 8:28).Job himself declares that his rela-tionship with the Lord was deep-ened: “‘My ears had heard of you butnow my eyes have seen you’” (42:5,NIV). Even though he did notunderstand his existing situation, hecompletely trusted His God. Job

retained his faith in Him, eventhough he lost everything, becausehis confidence was anchored in God,not in the prosperity of life. He pre-ferred to fulfill God’s will before hisown; he was willing even to die forHim, to lose everything. Job’s obedi-ence and faithfulness to God wasstronger than his desire to preservehis well-being and happiness. Heserved God even though God’spromises apparently failed.

Final OutcomeIn the darkest situation of life,

God revealed Himself to Job as theCreator (chaps. 38–41). This was Hisanswer to Job’s suffering. By present-ing Himself to Job as the Creator,God declared that He is above all, Heis in control, He is the Source of life,He is able to re-create. He is able outof nothing, even chaos, to createsomething new, valuable, and per-manent.

When Job demonstrated that heloved God above all, God’s standingfor him was vindicated. His justice

dience do exist and are possible. Weovercome Satan only because of Jesus’victory (Rev. 12:10, 11).

2. His wife. She advised him:“‘Curse God and die!’” (2:9, NIV)because she loved him. Out of loveshe gave him bad advice, not realiz-ing that by doing so, she is puttingherself on the side of Satan.

3. His friends. When they heardabout Job’s misery, they immediatelycame to visit him. When they arrivedand saw the tragedy he was endur-ing, they tore their robes, sat downwith him for seven days, and didn’tsay one word. What an importantact of solidarity!

When Job “cursed the day of hisbirth” (Job 3:1, NIV), his friendscould not bear his bold speech. Theyaccused him of self-righteousness.Their false and very simplistic theol-ogy bubbled up to the surface (seeespecially Job 4:6-9), and theyrebuked him (8:2-6; 22:3-11). Theywere miserable comforters (16:2).They were servants of Satan becausethey only extended the accusationshe started. One can say: Where Satancannot enter, he sends friends.

4. His voice. Job spoke openly buthonestly with God. He said things wesometimes think a devoted followerof God should not say. But Job is anexample of a man sincerely questingfor truth. He wanted to know thetruth, the mysteries of life. We need tolearn how to dialogue truthfully withGod without hiding anything.

At the end of the book, God Him-self twice stated that what Job saidabout Him was correct. His threefriends were rebuked (42:7-8). Veryoften people who say harsh thingsabout God because they have beenhurt by the unrighteous, or by theunjust things of life, can be closer toGod and to the truth than those whoalways try to defend God.

5. His mind. To think, to be ableto analyze and evaluate, are veryimportant gifts.

6. His God. Job was longing andsearching for God’s perceptible pres-ence in his life because God wasseemingly hidden and far away. Thegreat news is that God is with us inour problems and carries us throughthem. He suffers with us in our suf-ferings (Isa. 63:9). He never aban-dons us, even though it seems veryoften that He is a faraway God. Hegives victory over all kinds of temp-tations, struggles, problems, and suf-fering. He is always with His peoplegiving them power to overcome andpersevere. Paul states: “I can do ev-erything through him who gives mestrength” (Phil. 4:13, NIV).

7. His personal trust in the per-sonal God. Job, with full confidencein his God, whose actions he did notunderstand, confessed: “‘Though heslay me, yet will I hope in him; I willsurely defend my ways to his face’”(Job 13:15, NIV). His personal faithin a personal God triumphed.

Job’s relationship with God was

In the darkest situation of life, God revealed Himself to

Job as the Creator (chaps. 38–41). This was His answer to Job’s

suffering. By presenting Himself to Job as the Creator, God

declared that He is above all, He is in control, He is the Source of

life, He is able to re-create. He is able out of nothing, even chaos, to

create something new, valuable, and permanent.

21

s we look at events that havetaken place in the political andreligious arena in recent years,two questions surface witheschatological urgency. The

first is the question Jesus asked Hisdisciples: “‘Who do men say that I,the Son of Man, am?’ So they said,‘Some say John the Baptist, some Eli-jah, and others Jeremiah or one ofthe prophets.’ He said to them, ‘Butwho do you say that I am?’” (Matt.16:13-15, NKJV).1

This was the question that Luciferoriginally stumbled over. It is thequestion that every angel in heavenhad to answer: “‘Who do you say thatI am?’” Lucifer and his angels fellfrom heaven because they refused toacknowledge the rightful authorityof the Son of God. “Lucifer was envi-

ous of Christ, and gradually as-sumed command which devolved onChrist alone. . . . Angels that wereloyal and true sought to reconcilethis mighty, rebellious angel to thewill of his Creator. . . . They clearlyset forth that Christ was the Son ofGod, existing with Him before theangels were created; and that He hadever stood at the right hand of God,and His mild, loving authority hadnot heretofore been questioned.”2

What was Lucifer’s response? “‘Iwill be like the Most High’” (Isa.14:14).

Every one of us is confronted

TWO ESSENTIALQUESTIONS

B Y J A C K J . B L A N C O *

AToday, there is an ever-increasing urgency to Jesus’

confrontational dialogue with His disciples.

*Jack J. Blanco, Th.D., is the retireddean of the School of Religion at South-ern Adventist University and author ofThe Clear Word, a Bible paraphrase.

20

prevailed. God is just while justify-ing us because His grace and pres-ence, even though very often unseenand silent, sustains His people. Goddemonstrates that He rules in jus-tice. Satan’s slander, jibes, and tauntsare openly proved to be without anysubstance. Evidences of Job’s life elo-quently cry against Satan.

The Book of Job demonstratesthat it is possible to serve God forlove of Him and not for reward.Devotion to God and human in-tegrity are an expression of love andgratitude to Him for who He is. Thisdevotion and integrity can endureeven in times when disasters comeand tragedies of life strike and raisequestions that cannot be easilyanswered. Faith triumphs despitethe problems of life.

Thus, Job gives a penetratinginsight into the key issue of the greatcontroversy between God and Satan,and we need to ask ourselves: Whydo we serve God? What are ourmotives? Everything in our livesdepends on our motives, and everydeed is judged according to them.

At the end, God rewarded Jobeven more than in the beginning(42:10-16). Does this prove, there-fore, that he nevertheless served Godfor a final reward? Not at all! Godgives rewards; it is His nature. As ourgood Friend, He blesses us not inorder to buy our love, but becauseHe loves us. His faithful followers donot serve Him because of these gifts.

This point was demonstrated clearlyin Job’s afflictions. After it wasproven that he loved God disinter-estedly, he received double blessings.

Job’s experience is a case in whichGod answers mysteries and perplex-ities of our own existence. Job’s caseis a model that each of us must gothrough. Though situations of lifewill be different, Job’s experience isour experience. Everyone has toendure trials of life just as Job did.Satan tries, unfortunately often suc-cessfully, to separate us from the loveof God through his many inven-tions. We are all engaged in the bat-tle between good and evil.

But in God’s hands we are ab-solutely safe and no one can removeus from His caring arms. We are Hissons and daughters. Our identity liesin Him. Paul states in Romans 8:35-39 that absolutely nothing and no oneon Earth or in the whole universe canseparate us from the love of God,even though Satan is a master in hisattempts and intrigues. Of course,this can be true only on the conditionthat we stay in a close, intimate, andtrusting relationship with our loving,holy, and awesome Lord. The Lambof God has the final word in the cos-mic controversy between good andevil: “They will make war against theLamb, but the Lamb will overcomethem because he is Lord of lords andKing of kings” (Rev. 17:14, NIV).Our God is a God of love, truth, andjustice.

21

s we look at events that havetaken place in the political andreligious arena in recent years,two questions surface witheschatological urgency. The

first is the question Jesus asked Hisdisciples: “‘Who do men say that I,the Son of Man, am?’ So they said,‘Some say John the Baptist, some Eli-jah, and others Jeremiah or one ofthe prophets.’ He said to them, ‘Butwho do you say that I am?’” (Matt.16:13-15, NKJV).1

This was the question that Luciferoriginally stumbled over. It is thequestion that every angel in heavenhad to answer: “‘Who do you say thatI am?’” Lucifer and his angels fellfrom heaven because they refused toacknowledge the rightful authorityof the Son of God. “Lucifer was envi-

ous of Christ, and gradually as-sumed command which devolved onChrist alone. . . . Angels that wereloyal and true sought to reconcilethis mighty, rebellious angel to thewill of his Creator. . . . They clearlyset forth that Christ was the Son ofGod, existing with Him before theangels were created; and that He hadever stood at the right hand of God,and His mild, loving authority hadnot heretofore been questioned.”2

What was Lucifer’s response? “‘Iwill be like the Most High’” (Isa.14:14).

Every one of us is confronted

TWO ESSENTIALQUESTIONS

B Y J A C K J . B L A N C O *

AToday, there is an ever-increasing urgency to Jesus’

confrontational dialogue with His disciples.

*Jack J. Blanco, Th.D., is the retireddean of the School of Religion at South-ern Adventist University and author ofThe Clear Word, a Bible paraphrase.

20

prevailed. God is just while justify-ing us because His grace and pres-ence, even though very often unseenand silent, sustains His people. Goddemonstrates that He rules in jus-tice. Satan’s slander, jibes, and tauntsare openly proved to be without anysubstance. Evidences of Job’s life elo-quently cry against Satan.

The Book of Job demonstratesthat it is possible to serve God forlove of Him and not for reward.Devotion to God and human in-tegrity are an expression of love andgratitude to Him for who He is. Thisdevotion and integrity can endureeven in times when disasters comeand tragedies of life strike and raisequestions that cannot be easilyanswered. Faith triumphs despitethe problems of life.

Thus, Job gives a penetratinginsight into the key issue of the greatcontroversy between God and Satan,and we need to ask ourselves: Whydo we serve God? What are ourmotives? Everything in our livesdepends on our motives, and everydeed is judged according to them.

At the end, God rewarded Jobeven more than in the beginning(42:10-16). Does this prove, there-fore, that he nevertheless served Godfor a final reward? Not at all! Godgives rewards; it is His nature. As ourgood Friend, He blesses us not inorder to buy our love, but becauseHe loves us. His faithful followers donot serve Him because of these gifts.

This point was demonstrated clearlyin Job’s afflictions. After it wasproven that he loved God disinter-estedly, he received double blessings.

Job’s experience is a case in whichGod answers mysteries and perplex-ities of our own existence. Job’s caseis a model that each of us must gothrough. Though situations of lifewill be different, Job’s experience isour experience. Everyone has toendure trials of life just as Job did.Satan tries, unfortunately often suc-cessfully, to separate us from the loveof God through his many inven-tions. We are all engaged in the bat-tle between good and evil.

But in God’s hands we are ab-solutely safe and no one can removeus from His caring arms. We are Hissons and daughters. Our identity liesin Him. Paul states in Romans 8:35-39 that absolutely nothing and no oneon Earth or in the whole universe canseparate us from the love of God,even though Satan is a master in hisattempts and intrigues. Of course,this can be true only on the conditionthat we stay in a close, intimate, andtrusting relationship with our loving,holy, and awesome Lord. The Lambof God has the final word in the cos-mic controversy between good andevil: “They will make war against theLamb, but the Lamb will overcomethem because he is Lord of lords andKing of kings” (Rev. 17:14, NIV).Our God is a God of love, truth, andjustice.

2322

humanity, who have difficulty sub-mitting to divine authority, for theysee it as being incompatible withindividual rights and freedom.

The Authority of GodThough democracy places the

locus of political authority in theindividual, it does not mean we can-not also grant God ultimate author-ity in religious things. If these twofoci are not sharply defined, how-ever, individual political and socialautonomy will be carried over tochallenge all religious authority,except what each individual ap-proves for himself or herself. And ifwe make our personal agenda a pri-ori to Scripture, that agenda willshape our theological answer. Inboth the Old and New Testaments,God is asserted as the sole andsupreme authority in matters reli-gious. Only as God’s authority ismade a priori to the understandingof Scripture can our sinful actionsand attitudes come under judgment.Without God as the locus of reli-gious authority, the legitimacy of thewhole structure of Christianity iscalled into question.

Scripture begins and ends withGod, for in Him is located allauthority. As Paul says, “When Godmade a promise to Abraham, be-cause He could swear by no onegreater, He swore by Himself” (Heb.6:13). Biblical authority, then, isrooted in what God Himself is, and

what He is can be known by Hisself-disclosure. Therefore God’sauthority and His revelation inScripture are two sides of the samereality. It is not possible to reject onewithout rejecting the other.

Scripture is the truth from Godabout God. It is about a God of love,about an authority saturated ingrace. There is no imperial force ingrace, no forced obedience. God’sauthority as seen in Jesus Christ isfull of grace and truth (John 1:17;3:16, 17; 14:8, 9; 17:3). This setsChristianity apart from other reli-gions. Through God’s graciousauthority, those who come to Himin faith are set free from all forms ofdestructive authoritarianism.

We need to be careful not to sub-stitute human authority for God’sauthority, either through liberalism’ssubjectivism, which massages theScripture into an image of Godacceptable to modern thinking, orthrough Catholicism’s ecclesiasticalauthoritarianism, in which the finitesits in the place of the Infinite. Theremust be no dilution of God’s dele-gated authority as seen in Scripture.To disobey the utterance or writingof a prophet or an apostle is to dis-obey God and to deny Him Hisrightful authority to direct our lives.The Protestant principle “the Bibleand the Bible only” recognizes Godas the sole authority in matters ofreligion and that He has spoken tous through Scripture. Therefore, sola

with Christ’s question: “‘Who doyou say that I am?’” We cannotescape it. When Peter answered,“‘You are the Christ, the Son of theliving God’” (Matt. 16:16), he essen-tially acknowledged Christ’s Lord-ship. Jesus blessed him and said,“‘Flesh and blood has not revealedthis to you, but My Father who is inheaven’” (vs. 17). No one will be inthe kingdom who does not acceptJesus Christ as King and Lord. For itis the Father’s will that, “at the nameof Jesus every knee should bow, ofthose in heaven, and of those onearth, and of those under the earth,and that every tongue should con-fess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil.2:10, 11). When Christ returns, Hewill return as King of kings and Lordof lords (Rev. 19:16).

Salvation is a two-step processwithin the heart. We are invited toaccept Jesus Christ not only as Sav-ior but also as Lord. As Savior Heoffers us forgiveness, and as Lordand King He expects trustful obedi-ence. If we accept Him as Savior but

not as King, we miss the whole pointof the Great Controversy and forfeitour entrance into God’s kingdom.

The very essence of any religionrequires a willingness to recognizeand submit to a higher authority. Inour modern democratic age, how-ever, with its emphasis on theimportance of the individual, this isbecoming more difficult. Before themodern era, submission to kingsand masters was the political norm;acceptance of a higher authority inreligion did not seem so difficult.But after democracy became thenorm, an unwillingness to submit toany authority became the order ofthe day. In a democratic society,authority flows from the individualupward, not from some authorityfigure downward. This does notmean that Christianity is incompati-ble with individual freedom anddemocracy, but God’s relationshipto us is not democratic. His author-ity is not up for vote. He is not oneamong equals. This is what producesa crisis in the heart of democratic

In a democratic society, authority flows from the individual

upward, not from some authority figure downward. This does not

mean that Christianity is incompatible with individual freedom

and democracy, but God’s relationship to us is not democratic.

His authority is not up for vote. He is not one among equals. This

is what produces a crisis in the heart of democratic humanity.

2524

substitutes. Soon there will be noChristian Church but only a socialinstitution.

It is incumbent on the churchnever to lose contact with the sourcefrom which it derived its authority.It has no authority within itself. Itreceives its teaching authority fromthe Word of God. And having re-ceived it, the church is responsiblefor not losing contact with its sourceof authority or losing sight of Scrip-ture’s repeated connection of God’srightful authority back to Creation.This is why the fourth command-ment is so essential. If the churchfails to capture and maintain itsprimitive spirit of submission toGod’s will and embraces only con-temporary religious references, itwill soon lose all vitality in its reli-gious life, and its worship and wit-ness will degenerate into form with-out substance.

Choosing a KingA frightful example of rejecting

God’s rightful authority is seen in

Israel’s demand for a king of theirown choosing. “Israel had becometired of pious rulers who kept God’spurposes and God’s will and God’shonor ever before them according toGod’s instructions. They wanted areformed religion that they might byexternal, flattering prosperity beesteemed great in the eyes of the sur-rounding nations.”3

Today the question of God’sauthority in the light of the GreatControversy presses upon us witheven greater urgency. “‘Who do yousay that I am?’” Not only do we needto respond as Peter did, “‘You are theChrist, the Son of the living God’”(Matt. 16:16), but more appropri-ately, as the centurian did when hecame to ask Jesus to heal his servant,

“‘Lord, I am not worthy that Youshould come under my roof. Butonly speak a word, and my servantwill be healed. For I also am a manunder authority, having soldiersunder me. And I say to this one,“Go,” and he goes; and to another,“Come,” and he comes; and to my

scriptura, the authority of Scripturealone, continues to be our watch-word.

Over the years, modernism andthe Enlightenment with their em-phasis on reason tried to liberatehumanity from a God-ordered uni-verse and promised a new freedomand progress for humanity. Thoughmodernism is not dead, postmod-ernism has made its debut, in whichno objective truth exists, and all reli-gion simply reflects a historicallyconditioned bias. Consequently, cul-ture is not critiqued and interpretedby Scripture, but Scripture is cri-tiqued and interpreted by culture,especially by each reader’s own cul-ture. This allows for as many inter-pretations of Scripture as there arecultures, and the authority of God isset aside for the authority of theindividual, who essentially says, “Iwill be like the Most High.” Reasonand intellectual freedom became thegod of modernism; spiritual free-dom and the right to interpret Scrip-ture as one sees fit has become thegod of postmodernism.

Democratic HumanityDemocratic humanity continues

to assert political and religious free-dom. But unguided and undisci-plined religious freedom is not ablessing. To obey is to become free.Without obedience, freedom is acurse. Our passion for liberty andindividual freedom is not a priori to

the kingdom of God, but the firstthing must be the enthusiasm forobeying the King in His self-revela-tion. If we push God’s revelationaside, we have no protection againsttheological error. No church or min-ister or believer has a right to claimfreedom from God’s Word, but onlyto be free to uphold the Word. If wespeak of spirituality without Scrip-ture and place culture or religiousexperience above God’s Word, wehave denied God’s rightful authori-ty. Though God’s authority is withinexperience, it is not identical withthe authority of religious experi-ence. Rather, it is His authority expe-rienced.

This was the case with Abraham.He experienced the authority of Godby believing what God promisedand then modifying his life in har-mony with a promise not yet real-ized (Heb. 11: 8-16; Gal. 3:6). There-fore, only those who have the kind offaith that will obey are the childrenof Abraham (Gal. 3:7).

Ironically, when God’s authorityis set aside in favor of freedom,claims to authority increase. Acacophony of voices vies for atten-tion. And when everything counts astheology, scarcely anything counts. Ifwe accept biblical authority only tothe extent that it fits our definitionsor our limited experience with Godand deny the accurate account ofbiblical events, our churches willbecome full of people brought up on

It is incumbent on the church never to lose contact with the source

from which it derived its authority. It has no authority within

itself. It receives its teaching authority from the Word of God.

And having received it, the church is responsible for not losing con-

tact with its source of authority or losing sight of Scripture’s

repeated connection of God’s rightful authority back to Creation.

2726

50:3-5). “When men appreciate thegreat salvation, the self-sacrifice seenin Christ’s life will be seen in theirs.”4

Just as the question of authorityis rooted in the nature of God, so isthe spirit of self-giving. “God soloved the world that He gave Hisonly begotten Son, that whoeverbelieves in Him should not perish”(John 3:16). He gave Him as a sacri-fice for sin to bring a rebelliousworld back to Him (Isa. 53:10, 11;Rom. 5:8; 2 Cor. 5:18). It is the gloryof God to give. This glory is seen inthe face of Jesus Christ. In God’suniverse, everything has been cre-ated to serve. From the angels, whosejoy it is to minister to a fallen race, tothe Sun that shines to gladden ourworld, to the oceans and springs andfountains, everything takes to give.Everything except the sinful heart ofhumanity. But above all lesser repre-sentations we see in Jesus Christ theactions of a God who cares. As Jesussaid, “‘I seek not Mine own glory,but the glory of Him who sent me’”(John 8:50; 7:18). These words ex-press the great principle which is thelaw of life. No one has a right to lifewithout the spirit of self-giving.

Receiving the Spirit of ChristThe spirit of Christ is the spirit

of the gospel. Christ received allthings from God, but He received togive. Self-giving becomes a naturalpart of the Christian’s life. Whenthe Son of Man comes in His glory,

He will separate those who lived toserve from those who did not. Asthe King blesses the righteous, theywill wonder why the Lord is com-mending them so. Then the Kingwill say, “‘Inasmuch as you did it toone of the least of these Mybrethren, you did it to Me. . . .Come, you blessed of My Father,inherit the kingdom prepared foryou’” (Matt. 25:40, 34).

“Christ gave all for us, and thosewho receive Christ will be ready tosacrifice all for the sake of theirRedeemer. The thought of Hishonor and glory will come beforeanything else.”5 When God spoke toAbraham, he obeyed and left hishome in Ur of the Chaldees, came toCanaan, and was willing to sacrificehis only son at God’s command(Gen. 22:10). God accepted Abra-ham’s willingness to do so and calledto him, “‘Do not lay your hand onthe lad, or do anything to him; fornow I know that you fear God, sinceyou have not withheld your son,your only son, from Me’” (vs. 12).Abraham loved God more than hisown life, more than his own son.Therefore, those who love Christ are“Abraham’s seed, and heirs accord-ing to the promise” (Gal. 3:29).

Sacrifice.God also wants to see how much

we love Him. He is asking us to giveHim and His service first place inour lives. Minister or physician,

servant, “Do this,” and he does it.’When Jesus heard it, He marveled,and said to those who followed,‘Assuredly, I say to you, I have notfound such great faith, not even inIsrael!’” (Matt. 8:8-10).

We also are people under author-ity, Christ’s authority. He is our Lordand King. He is the Captain of theLord’s host. When He says, “Go,” wego; when He says, “Come,” we come;and when He says, “Do this,” we doit, because we love Him. And it isthis relationship that gives us iden-tity, a sense of belonging, a sense ofdignity. We are the sons and daugh-ters of the King sent on a mission.Jesus said, “‘All authority has beengiven to Me in heaven and on earth.Go therefore and make disciples ofall the nations, baptizing them in thename of the Father and of the Sonand of the Holy Spirit’” (Matt. 28:18,19).

The Spirit of SacrificeThe second question with escha-

tological urgency is Jesus’ next ques-tion of His disciples: “‘If anyone

desires to come after Me, let himdeny himself, and take up his cross,and follow Me. . . . For what profit isit to a man if he gains the wholeworld, and loses his own soul? Orwhat will a man give in exchange forhis soul?’” (Matt. 16:24, 26). Theanswer to this question, like the firstone, determines our destiny. No onewill be in the kingdom of God whois not a willing sacrifice for the Godwho sacrificed so much for us.Though Christianity is not incom-patible with an abundant life, if weever lose the spirit of sacrifice, wehave lost the spirit of the gospel, forthe spirit of sacrifice is the heart ofthe gospel.

With eschatological urgency, thisquestion presses upon democratichumanity, focused as we usually areon life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness. As the Scripture says,“Our God shall come, and shall notkeep silent; . . . He shall call to theheavens from above, and to theearth, . . . ‘Gather My saints togetherto Me, those who have made acovenant with Me by sacrifice’” (Ps.

The spirit of Christ is the spirit of the gospel.

Christ received all things from God, but He received to give.

Self-giving becomes a natural part of the Christian’s life.

When the Son of Man comes in His glory, He will separate those

who lived to serve from those who did not.

29

t took place about a month aftergraduation. I was a very youngminister attending a youth min-istry retreat in northern Califor-nia. The speaker told a story to

highlight the challenge teachers andothers in formation vocations havewith young collegiates. A college pro-fessor was lecturing to his class in asizable amphitheater-type classroom.In the course of the lecture, he wroteon the blackboard the word apathy. Ayoung male on the last row, leaning sofar back he was nearly horizontal, hislegs up on the seat in front of him,

attempted to read the word: “Ah—pay—thee. Ahpaythee.” Elbowing hisslumbering seatmate to the left heasked: “Hey, what’s that?” His youngfriend, rubbing his eyes, looked at theboard and read: “Ah—pay—thee.”After a long silence, he finallydeclared: “Oh, who cares!”

For those interested in the fright-ful yet joyous responsibility of form-

THE CHALLENGE OF LEADERSHIP

FORMATION

B Y R O N E . M . C L O U Z E T *

IFor too long, it appears, theological training

has overlooked “the inner person

of the would-be parson.”

*Ron E. M. Clouzet, D.Min., is Deanof the School of Religion, SouthernAdventist University, Collegedale,Tennessee.

28

business executive or farmer, pro-fessional or mechanic, each is re-sponsible to do everything possibleto advance God’s kingdom. Every-thing should be a means to this end.Consecration of the life and all itsinterests for the glory of God is thecall of heaven.6

The question Jesus asked His dis-ciples: “‘What profit is it to a man ifhe gains the whole world, and loseshis own soul?’” directs the attentionof God’s remnant to both the fourthcommandment and the 10th com-mandment. While the fourth com-mandment will test our loyaltyexternally, the 10th commandmentwill test the reason for our loyalty.This was the case with Paul, who atfirst kept God’s commandments forhis own glory and the glory of Israel,which he mistakenly thought was forthe glory of God. On the road toDamascus, however, Jesus Christappeared to him and exposed hismotives. As Paul says, “I would nothave known covetousness unless thelaw had said, ‘You shall not covet.’But sin, taking opportunity by thecommandment, produced in me allmanner of evil desire. . . . I was aliveonce without the law, but when thecommandment came, sin revived

and I died. . . . Therefore the law isholy, and the commandment holyand just and good” (Rom. 7:7-9, 12).After his conversion, Paul had anentirely different attitude. “I alsocount all things loss,” he said,“for theexcellence of the knowledge ofChrist Jesus my Lord, for whom Ihave suffered the loss of all things”(Phil. 3:8).

As we see recent events in theireschatological setting, the questionof accepting Christ as our Saviorand Lord and being willing to giveup life itself for Him as He did forus, takes on an urgency as neverbefore. If we want to remain loyal tothe King, we need to practice loy-alty. If we want to keep the spirit ofthe gospel alive in our hearts, weneed to be willing to sacrifice.Many have sacrificed for far lessworthy causes. Should we do lessfor Christ?

Q

REFERENCES1 All scriptural references in this article

are from the New King James Version.2 Lift Him Up, p. 18.3 The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials

(1987), p. 922.4 The Desire of Ages, p. 273.5 Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 49.6 Close paraphrase of Prophets and Kings,

pp. 221, 222.

29

t took place about a month aftergraduation. I was a very youngminister attending a youth min-istry retreat in northern Califor-nia. The speaker told a story to

highlight the challenge teachers andothers in formation vocations havewith young collegiates. A college pro-fessor was lecturing to his class in asizable amphitheater-type classroom.In the course of the lecture, he wroteon the blackboard the word apathy. Ayoung male on the last row, leaning sofar back he was nearly horizontal, hislegs up on the seat in front of him,

attempted to read the word: “Ah—pay—thee. Ahpaythee.” Elbowing hisslumbering seatmate to the left heasked: “Hey, what’s that?” His youngfriend, rubbing his eyes, looked at theboard and read: “Ah—pay—thee.”After a long silence, he finallydeclared: “Oh, who cares!”

For those interested in the fright-ful yet joyous responsibility of form-

THE CHALLENGE OF LEADERSHIP

FORMATION

B Y R O N E . M . C L O U Z E T *

IFor too long, it appears, theological training

has overlooked “the inner person

of the would-be parson.”

*Ron E. M. Clouzet, D.Min., is Deanof the School of Religion, SouthernAdventist University, Collegedale,Tennessee.

28

business executive or farmer, pro-fessional or mechanic, each is re-sponsible to do everything possibleto advance God’s kingdom. Every-thing should be a means to this end.Consecration of the life and all itsinterests for the glory of God is thecall of heaven.6

The question Jesus asked His dis-ciples: “‘What profit is it to a man ifhe gains the whole world, and loseshis own soul?’” directs the attentionof God’s remnant to both the fourthcommandment and the 10th com-mandment. While the fourth com-mandment will test our loyaltyexternally, the 10th commandmentwill test the reason for our loyalty.This was the case with Paul, who atfirst kept God’s commandments forhis own glory and the glory of Israel,which he mistakenly thought was forthe glory of God. On the road toDamascus, however, Jesus Christappeared to him and exposed hismotives. As Paul says, “I would nothave known covetousness unless thelaw had said, ‘You shall not covet.’But sin, taking opportunity by thecommandment, produced in me allmanner of evil desire. . . . I was aliveonce without the law, but when thecommandment came, sin revived

and I died. . . . Therefore the law isholy, and the commandment holyand just and good” (Rom. 7:7-9, 12).After his conversion, Paul had anentirely different attitude. “I alsocount all things loss,” he said,“for theexcellence of the knowledge ofChrist Jesus my Lord, for whom Ihave suffered the loss of all things”(Phil. 3:8).

As we see recent events in theireschatological setting, the questionof accepting Christ as our Saviorand Lord and being willing to giveup life itself for Him as He did forus, takes on an urgency as neverbefore. If we want to remain loyal tothe King, we need to practice loy-alty. If we want to keep the spirit ofthe gospel alive in our hearts, weneed to be willing to sacrifice.Many have sacrificed for far lessworthy causes. Should we do lessfor Christ?

Q

REFERENCES1 All scriptural references in this article

are from the New King James Version.2 Lift Him Up, p. 18.3 The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials

(1987), p. 922.4 The Desire of Ages, p. 273.5 Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 49.6 Close paraphrase of Prophets and Kings,

pp. 221, 222.

3130

never quite achieved was the spiritualor character formation of the futureminister. The current paradigm re-veals the same situation.

During the past century, fourmajor studies were conducted on thestate of theological education in com-parison with the state of ministry.

The first study, conducted byRobert Kelly in the early 1920s,looked at 161 theological schools inAmerica and Canada. The reportincluded many aspects of theologicaleducation, but it also provided thefirst hint that something was amiss inthe training of the inner person of thewould-be parson. It indicated that thegrowth of Bible schools with enroll-ments as high as the seminaries “is anindication that the seminaries havenot occupied the field of ‘theological’education. The churches are demand-ing new types of workers.”1 What didKelly mean by new types of workers?In the rise of Bible colleges, thechurches longed for ministers whoseexposure to the Word actually made adifference in their everyday lives,resulting in greater piety and evange-listic conviction. The irony today isthat most of those once-unaccreditedBible colleges are now well-respectedevangelical seminaries just as unableto transform their charges’ inner lifeas the schools they once criticized!

Ten years after Kelly’s study, areport found a proliferation of pro-fessional courses aimed at stayingeven with other professions, such as

medicine and law. But it also recog-nized the paradigm’s inability todirectly affect the inner life of theministerial candidate. For example,regarding students’ spiritual devel-opment, the study admitted greatconcern:

“These [students] are, for themost part at least, looking forwardto the ministry, and the specialty ofthe minister is religion. Unless theseminary succeeds in keeping thereligious [spiritual] life of its stu-dents unimpaired, it has failed at theplace where failure is most disas-trous . . . many of our seminaries donot seem to be taking this responsi-bility with due seriousness.”2

Another study in the post-WorldWar II years’ enrollment boom, sawthe role of the modern spiritualleader as the “pastoral director” ofthe congregation. The study pro-vided insightful evaluation and deftanalysis, but did not explore whatcould be done about the inner spiri-tual growth of the spiritual leader.

The most ambitious report todate, the Readiness for Ministry studyconducted in the 1970s, became thespark that ignited the current trendof self-examination in theologicaleducation. One observer noted withalarm that the research “marked thebeginning of a season of discontentin American theological education.. . . The worry was whether profes-sionalism produced [spiritual] lead-ers. In and outside theological edu-

ing young men and women tobecome the spiritual leaders of thechurch, the question is this: Willwhat is offered them change any-thing in them? Or will they say of thethings of God, “Who cares?”

This is not an issue of knowledgeor skills, but of character. For if thechange they experience is merelygoing from darkness to being con-versant with Karl Barth’s arguments,if the change is no more than goingfrom stiffness on the platform toglibness behind a pulpit, if thechange is simply from saying“church” in English to saying ekkle-sia in Greek, not much has beenaccomplished that is worthwhile. Iftheir lives have not conformed to theloving will of the Master, teachers,mentors, and administrators havefailed at their greatest task: that ofcharacter transformation.

Formation LackingThe history of theological educa-

tion in the Christian Church shows

that a variety of paradigms have beenused for leadership formation. Theascetic paradigm, with its emphasison mystical religion, gave way to thescholastic paradigm of the 12th and13th centuries. The 16th-centuryReformation brought about a focuson Scripture and preaching. Twotracks can be identified as a result ofthis focus. One, taking deepest root inNorth America, was a mentoring par-adigm, emphasizing relational inter-changes between a would-be pastorand his more-experienced pastor-teacher. The other, rising up in theGerman universities and eventuallyinfluencing American seminaries inthe late 1900s, was an encyclopedicparadigm: the fourfold and now tra-ditional structure of systematic, bibli-cal, historical, and practical theology.Today’s paradigm is known in the lit-erature of theological education asthe professional paradigm, the cur-rently dominant paradigm of the21th century.

At every historical juncture, a goal

If the change is no more than going from stiffness on the

platform to glibness behind a pulpit, if the change is simply from

saying “church” in English to saying ekklesia in Greek,

not much has been accomplished that is worthwhile. If their lives

have not conformed to the loving will of the Master, teachers,

mentors, and administrators have failed at their greatest task: that

of character transformation.

3332

University in 1996, he considered theseminary’s efforts at spiritual-forma-tion a complete failure, noting thatstudents were very resistant to ac-countability in spiritual direction. Itwas not working. Dean Alan Joneshas said it well: “In some ways semi-nary training is too practical. Stu-dents are forced to acquire too many‘skills for ministry’ without ‘the onething needful,’ a maturing sense ofself and a hunger for God.”5

The lack of power in spiritualleadership, the inability to influence aworld careening to self-destruction, isperceived even by those whose inter-est in religion is minimal at best. Notlong ago, John Piper, at a meeting ofthe Evangelical Theological Society,quoted Karl Meissner on Albert Ein-stein’s view of preachers and their rel-evance. Einstein had profound re-spect and awe for the design of theuniverse. Meissner considered Ein-stein more truly religious than manypreachers, certainly than shallow,thoughtless, and powerless ones.Meissner said: “He must have looked

at what preachers said about God andfelt that they were blaspheming. Hehad seen much more majesty thanthey had ever imagined. [The preach-ers] were just not talking about thereal thing.”6

Elisha: The Real ThingDo you think ministerial students

would want to see “the real thing”?Do you think they would like tolearn at the feet of someone who hasbowed so low before God as to havetouched the heavens? Few lives canhave more impact on would-be spir-itual leaders than a teacher’s well-lived life, soaked with the livingSpirit of the loving God of the uni-verse.

Consider an Old Testamentexample: “Elisha died, and theyburied him. And the raiding bandsfrom Moab invaded the land in thespring of the year. So it was, as theywere burying a man, that suddenlythey spied a band of raiders; andthey put the man in the tomb ofElisha; and when the man was let

cation, thoughtful people noted thatthe churches did not have effectivepeople at their head.”3

The study showed that in spite ofcontinued concentration on ministryskills, the preponderance of what wasconsidered valuable for the pastor’seffectiveness in ministry were not, infact, ministry skills, but character val-ues. For example, more than half ofthe 12 most-valued ministry descrip-tions—out of 444—were character-based, such as “keeps his/her ownword and fulfills promises,” “ac-knowledges his/her own need forcontinued growth in faith,” “servesothers willingly with or without pub-lic acclaim,” and “maintains personalintegrity despite pressures to com-promise.” Although skills, compas-sion, and other factors are importantin ministry, this watershed studyclearly showed that the solidity of apastoral candidate’s Christian charac-ter in the sight of God and peopleranked above faith tradition, clericaltraining, or ecclesiastical priorities.

In the wake of the report, a semi-nal work was published by EdwardFarley, called Theologia: The Frag-mentation and Unity of TheologicalEducation, and the Association ofTheological Schools in the UnitedStates and Canada sponsored majorworks in the field of theological edu-cation. What had happened? Whereasuntil then, all discussion on theologi-cal education for spiritual leadershiphad mostly to do with pragmatic

issues of curriculum, resourcing, gov-ernance, and development, suddenlythe entire center had shifted to aimsand purposes of theological leader-ship training. This shift has caused arevolution in the field, producinghundreds of articles and a host ofwell-articulated, book-length propos-als on what is theological about theo-logical training.

But no proposal yet has a handleon how to bring about the spiritualformation of the leader. No oneknows! It is either taken for granted,considered outside of educationalboundaries, or viewed as of such apersonal nature that it is left alone.Yet, all seem to realize that this is keyfor leadership formation and thatsomething ought to be done aboutit. Evangelical seminaries have ac-knowledged poor marks when itcomes to the spiritual developmentof their students. One independentreport said:

“We generally agree that thespiritual development of the pastoris extremely important. . . . But wehave been unable or unwilling togive to the development of the char-acter and spirituality of [our] stu-dents nearly the time and attentionthat we have given to the intellec-tual skills necessary for carefulhandling of the Scriptures.”4

In an interview with the coordina-tor of the spiritual formation compo-nent at the Seventh-day AdventistTheological Seminary at Andrews

No proposal yet has a handle on how to bring about the

spiritual formation of the leader. No one knows! It is either taken

for granted, considered outside of educational boundaries,

or viewed as of such a personal nature that it is left alone. Yet, all

seem to realize that this is key for leadership formation

and that something ought to be done about it.

3534

Does this remind you of the Master,whose only self-description, found inMatthew 11:29, tells us that He is“gentle and humble in heart”? (NIV).Do you think students could profitfrom mentors who have a humblespirit and whose hearts are impressedby the Spirit?

It is interesting to note that at thetime of Samuel, the schools of theprophets were known as the “band”or “company” of the prophets, but atthe time of Elisha, they were knownas the “sons” of the prophets. The“bands” became the “sons.” The Semi-tic idiom “son of” carries a muchdeeper sense of imitation than theEnglish expression, which mainlydeals with identification. The sons ofthe prophets functioned in a spirit ofclose community with their mentors,especially in the time of Elisha. Whenthe school at Jericho needed biggerquarters, Elisha felled trees for con-struction alongside the students.When he was at the Gilgal campus, heshared instruction and meals withthem. This is even demonstrated lin-guistically. R. Payne Smith had notedthat when the sons of the prophetsare found “sitting before” Elisha (2Kings 4:38, NKJV) and “dwell[ing]with” him (6:1, KJV), the verb andpreposition are the same. The verbyashad is translated in its more literalsense in the first passage and denotesan academic activity. In the secondtext, it denotes a domestic activity, adaily routine.

This was “a master-disciple rela-tionship in mutual commitment toservice of God.”7 That relationshipwas so valuable that when a financialcrisis arose on the part of the widowof one of the sons of the prophets,she was led to seek Elisha’s help (2Kings 4:1). Why would she do thatwhen at the time such requests werenormally made of the next of kin?For the same reason God had those“sons” be so close to their teacher: sothey could see that God was aliveand well in Israel.

“In these ‘schools of the prophets’young men were educated by thosewho were not only [1] well versed indivine truth, but who themselves [2]maintained close communion withGod and [3] had received the specialendowment of His Spirit. These edu-cators enjoyed the respect and confi-dence of the people both for learningand piety. The power of the Holy Spir-it was often strikingly manifest in theirassemblies, and the exercise of theprophetic gift was not infrequent”(Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times,July 20, 1882; italics supplied).

This is the real thing, a Christlikecharacter yielding Christlike power.The times of the ministry of Elijahand Elisha were dark, and apostasywas omnipresent in Israel. How elsecould God stay the final decline ofHis people into the hands of theuncircumcised except by nurturing agroup of youth, leading them to beso close to those who knew Him best

down and touched the bones ofElisha, he revived and stood on hisfeet” (1 Kings 13:20, 21, NKJV).

This is a unique incident in Scrip-ture, paralleled only by the Jeru-salem resurrections at the death ofour Lord (Matt. 27:52).

Elisha’s was a well-lived life. Foryears before he led the sons of theprophets, he served a great prophet.He was known as the one “‘whopoured water on the hands of Elijah’ ”(2 Kings 3:11, NKJV). Even this hints

at his character. Ellen White says ofElisha that he had the “characteristicsof a ruler” but “the meekness of onewho would serve” (The Seventh-dayAdventist Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p.1035). That he had energy and wassteadfast (Education, p. 58), and hadintegrity (Prophets and Kings, p. 218).She repeats time and again his chiefcharacteristic: Elisha was meek andhad a gentle spirit (Education, p. 58).He had what we could term a “heartimpressed by the Spirit” (p. 220).

As a master in the schools of the prophets, Elisha demonstrated his spiritual leader-ship through such miracles as the cleansing of Naaman’s leprosy.

3736

sant enemy. He has seen things andtasted things that originate in thethrone room of heaven. But consis-tency in these matters has been elu-sive. He longs to know if there areany Elishas left in the land. He wouldlike to witness a miracle-workinglife, but he will happily settle forknowing a genuinely Christlike soulin whom God lives unrivaled.

Take a 30-year-old senior, a sec-ond-career man with a wife and twochildren, a man who decided toembrace the three angels’ messagesonly a few years ago. He has accepteda conference’s call to pastor and istaking a church ministry course or aseminary’s church administrationcourse. What is he after? Oh, yes, he isafter every single bit of pragmaticwisdom available—after all, ministrynow has context. But what does hereally want? He wants the assurancethat with Christ, all things are possi-ble. All things, indeed! And he wantsto know if his professors and churchleaders, of all people, have found that

truth to be theirs experientially.As John Piper intimated, the prob-

lem faced in our schools is a problemof the heart. As teachers and adminis-trators have become expert profes-sionals in their fields, as they haverubbed shoulders with the best andthe brightest, as they have read someof the most amazing body of litera-ture humans can produce, too manyof them have become false teachers.Leaders in ministry have not aban-doned the faith, certainly not in pub-lic, but some have grown personallycold and distant from the God whogave so much joy in private and pro-duced such Christlike results in pub-lic. David Watson used to quote CarlBates’ sad, yet accurate comment: “IfGod were to take the Holy Spirit outof our midst today, about 95 per centof what we are doing . . . would go on,and we would not know the differ-ence.”8 Even Karl Barth, in his farewelllecture in Basel, recognized the pov-erty of the spirit found in the teachersand shapers of spiritual leaders:

The challenge of leadership formation for this new millennium

and for always has never been about the knowledge or skills

imparted to students, as fundamental as these things may be. The

challenge of leadership formation has to do with whether students

can see God in their mentors, teachers, and administrators, the

infinite, loving, powerful, wise, and transforming God of the heav-

ens in the lives of those with more education and experience.

that absolute trust in the mightyhand of Jehovah was not for them anacademic exercise but a living reality,seen day after day after day? Thoseteachers “had received the endow-ment of His Spirit.” The servant ofGod noted that “the power of theHoly Spirit was often strikinglymanifest in their assemblies.” Canthey see God in those today whohave the responsibility of moldingfuture spiritual leaders?

Seeing GodThe challenge of leadership for-

mation for this new millennium andfor always has never been about theknowledge or skills imparted to stu-dents, as fundamental as these thingsmay be. The challenge of leadershipformation has to do with whetherstudents can see God in their men-tors, teachers, and administrators, theinfinite, loving, powerful, wise, andtransforming God of the heavens inthe lives of those with more educa-tion and experience. Can they see thisin the way classes are conducted? Canthey hear it in the tone of voice? Canthey see the passion that teachers havefor souls in darkness? Can they seethe absolute, awesome respect profes-sors have in the handling of God’sWord? Can they see God when ad-ministrators walk in the hallway? Canthey hear God through prayer in theclassroom? When teachers defend agrade given a wearisome student?Can they see that the Lord God is

without a doubt the most importantPerson in the lives of church leaders?In other words, can they see that theirteachers see God? Students long toclimb a mountain conquered by amentor who, already at the top, cansee the wonders of the living Godfrom such a vantage point. They wantto know Jesus Christ as their leadersdo.

Take an 18-year-old who has justgraduated from academy. When shetakes a college Bible class, what doyou think she is after? Oh, some areafter the “almighty A,” and someafter the easy “religion A.” But deepdown, there is in many the secretlonging to be stunned by God in theclassroom. They may appear non-chalant, they may pretend not tocare, they may look like all that mat-ters in their world is money and fun.But they too, in the words of C. S.Lewis, want to be surprised by joy.They want to believe what they haveheard and not seen: that God is alivein regular people. That what theBible says is actually true, not onlybecause it is merely written there butbecause it is lived by regular folks.

Take a 20-year-old junior, a sixth-generation Adventist, in a theology,homiletics, or New Testament class.What do you think he is after? He ismore anxious than the freshman. Hehas logged two-plus years already,and time is running out. He is moreconscious of his character flaws, hisweak points triggered by an inces-

3938

day’s students cry out, “Where is theGod of Elisha?” They cry out in atime not only of dark worldlinessand demonic enslaving to lesserthings, but also of theological flac-cidity, of powerless belief, and ofrelative certainties. They ask thesame question the Israelites, buf-feted by Moabite raiders in a post-Elisha period, asked: “Where is theGod of Elisha?” Where is the Godwho can make axe heads swim, lep-ers whole, poisoned waters give life,and little boys rise again fromdeath? And God, in His great mercy,will answer. Through the lifelessbones of His servant came life toanswer the anguished cry, as if tosay, “Elisha, my servant, is dead, butI, the Lord, am not. Believe in theGod of Elisha and you too will besaved.”

May those who have surrenderedtheir trust to be formed and shapedunderstand the same message whenthey engage with teachers and leaderstoday: Believe in your teachers’ God,and you too will be delivered. Believein the Master they represent, and theytoo will see their enemies defeated.For the challenge of spiritual leader-ship formation is not in what teachersand leaders know, nor in what they

do, but in what they have become inChrist their Lord and Savior.

“Everything is in order, but every-thing is also in the greatest disorder.The mill is turning, but it is empty asit turns. All the sails are hoisted, butno wind fills them to drive the ship.The fountain adorned with manyspouts is there, but no water comes.. . . There is no doubt piety, but notthe faith which, kindled by God,catches fire. What appears to takeplace there does not really take place.For what happens is that God, who issupposedly involved in all theologicalwork, maintains silence about what isthought and said in theology abouthim (rather than of him as its sourceand basis). It does happen that thereal relation of God to theology andtheologians must be described by avariation of the famous passage inAmos 5: ‘I hate, I despise your lecturesand seminars, your sermons, ad-dresses, and Bible studies, and I takeno delight in your discussions, meet-ings, and conventions. For when youdisplay your hermeneutic, dogmatic,ethical, and pastoral bits of wisdombefore one another and before me, Ihave no pleasure in them: I disdainthese offerings of your fatted calves.Take away from me the hue and cry

that you old men raise with yourthick books and you young men withyour dissertations! I will not listen tothe melody of your reviews that youcompose in your theological maga-zines, monthlies, and quarterlies.”19

This from a man who spent his lifestudying and influencing, one of thegreatest theologians of the 20th cen-tury. And this is his conclusion at theend of his career. Can the same besaid of our own leader shapers? Intrue Pauline fashion: May it never be!

The challenge of leadership for-mation in the new millennium haslittle to do with adequate knowl-edge or consummate skill, it hasnothing to do with finances orresources, but it has everything todo with whether mentors andteachers have a mere properacquaintance with the Almighty orare ravished by the presence of theLover of souls. If, in fact, the latter istrue, like Elisha, the bones of thosein spiritual leadership will makeothers live. And just as Elisha criedon the shores of the Jordan, “Whereis the God of Elijah?” before partingthe waters that would give way tothe beginning of his ministry, to-

This from a man who spent his life studying and influencing,

one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century. And this is his

conclusion at the end of his career. Can the same be said of our own

leader shapers? In true Pauline fashion: May it never be!

Q

REFERENCES1 Robert L. Kelly, Theological Education in

America: A Study of One Hundred Sixty-OneTheological Schools in the United States andCanada (New York: Doran, 1924), p. 229.

2 William Adams Brown, “MinisterialEducation in America: Summary and Inter-pretation,” in The Education of AmericanMinisters (New York: New York Institute ofSociology and Religion, 1934), p. 155.

3 Glenn T. Miller, “The Virtuous Leader:Teaching Leadership in Theological Schools,”in Faith & Mission 9:1 (Fall 1991), p. 27.

4 Quoted in David W. Kling, “New Divi-nity Schools of the Prophets,” in D. G. Hartand R. Albert Mohler, Jr., eds., TheologicalEducation in the Evangelical Tradition (GrandRapids, Mich.: Baker, 1996), p. 147.

5 Dean Alan Jones, “Are We Lovers Any-more: Spiritual Formation in the Seminar-ies,” in Theological Education 24:1 (1987), p.11.

6 Quoted by John Piper, “Training theNext Generation of Evangelical Pastors andMissionaries,” paper presented at the Evan-gelical Theological Society conference in Or-lando, Florida, November 19-21, 1998.

7 Michael J. Wilkins, Following the Master:Discipleship in the Steps of Jesus (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1992), p. 64.

9 Quoted in David Watson, I Believe in theChurch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p.166.

9 Quoted in H. G. D. Wolff, Joel and Amos(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), pp. 267, 268.

41

“I’ll help you out of your hole,old man,” said Smith with roughtenderness. “I’ll put the puppy out ofhis pain.”

“Do you mean to kill me?” theprofessor cried, retreating to thewindow.

“It’s not a thing I’d do for every-one,” Smith said with emotion. “Butyou and I seemed to have got so inti-mate tonight, somehow. I know allyour troubles now, and the onlycure, old chap.

“It’ll soon be over, you know,”Smith continued. And as the wardenmade a run for the window andleapt out awkwardly onto the flyingbuttress below, he followed him likea benefactor with a deeply compas-sionate look, the revolver in his handlike a gift.

Both men were surprised to seethe first streaks of dawn. Their timetogether had begun nearly 24 hoursearlier at Dr. Eames’s morning lec-ture. After a day packed with under-graduate affairs, it had resumed lateat night in the warden’s rooms. Dr.Eames, it was known, was always infor his friends and favorite studentsat any hour of the night.

“I came to see you at thisunearthly hour,” Smith had said asthey started their ruminations,“because I am coming to the conclu-sion that existence is really too rot-ten. I know all the arguments of thethinkers who think otherwise, bish-ops and agnostics and those sort of

people. And knowing you were thegreatest living authority on the pes-simistic thinkers—”

“All thinkers,” Eames had said,“are pessimistic thinkers.” And witha weary cynicism he had kept up thisdepressing conversation for severalhours until something in InnocentSmith had snapped.

Now, with the dawn breaking andEames’s legs hanging over the but-tress and the buttress hanging overthe void below, the mood changedagain.

“The puppy struggles,” Smithsaid with pity; “the poor little puppystruggles. How fortunate it is that Iam wiser and kinder than he.”

“Smith,” said the philosopher, “Ishall go mad!”

“And so look at things from theright angle,” Smith sighed. “Ah, butmadness is only a palliative at best, adrug. The only cure is an opera-tion—an operation that is alwayssuccessful. Death.”

As he spoke, the sun rose, turningthe sky from pigeon gray to pink.Bells rang, birds sang, the roofs ofthe ancient town were lit with fire,and the sun rose farther with a glorytoo deep for the skies to hold. Sud-denly the unhappy man on the lastmorning of his life could bear it nolonger.

“Let me come off this place. Ican’t bear it.”

“I rather doubt it will bear you,”Smith said, referring to the delicate

40

h, hang the world!” Thelarge, somewhat sullen un-dergraduate could take nomore. He slammed his fiston the table and rudely

broke into the professor’s speech.“Let’s give it a bad name first and

then hang it,” the professor went onunruffled, not realizing the moodhad changed. “A puppy with hy-drophobia would probably strugglefor life while we killed it, but if wewere kind we should kill it. So anomniscient god would put us out ofour pain. He would strike us dead.”

“Why doesn’t he strike us dead?”the student asked.

“He is dead himself,” said thephilosopher; “that is where he isreally enviable.”

The eminent warden of the col-

lege continued, “To anyone whothinks, the pleasures of life, trivialand soon tasteless, are bribes tobring us into a torture chamber.” Hewas in full flood now, with all thejaded brilliance of an academic on awell-worn theme.

“We all see that for any thinkingman mere extinction is the . . . Whatare you doing? . . . Are you mad? . . .Put that thing down!”

Dr. Emerson Eames, distinguishedprofessor of philosophy and wardenof Brakespeare College, Cambridge,found himself looking down the cold,small, black barrel of a cocked re-volver in the hands of one of hisbrightest students, Innocent Smith.

TURNINGTHE TABLES

B Y O S G U I N N E S S *

ANo human being lives outside the reality

common to us all.

*Os Guinness is Senior Fellow at theTrinity Forum in McLean, Virginia.

“

4342

simply a flight of Chesterton’s imag-ination but the fruit of his own life.

In 1892 Gilbert Keith Chestertonwas an 18-year-old student at theSlade School of Art in London. Farfrom the stiff-upper-lip primness ofthe caricature of Victorianism, theend-of-the-century world of art wasswirling with decadence, cynicism,and pessimism. Chesterton himselfwas also drawn to the macabre andthe occult. In other words, his worldwas remarkably similar to our post-modern one.

But however much such pes-simism and cynicism was the rageand however drawn to it he felt, onething held Chesterton back: what hedescribed later as a “thin thread ofthanks,” a sort of “mystical mini-mum of gratitude.” Bursting withgratitude for the gift of life, he waswaking up to wonder as he set out tosearch for a philosophy that wouldallow him to be realistic and yet“enjoy enjoyment” too.

In the course of his search, Ches-

terton not only came to faith; he cameto faith by becoming an arch-skepticabout skepticism, a radical disbelieverin the fashionable disbelief. He foundthe skeptics and cynics not skepticaland cynical enough. Far from stop-ping short of tough questioning, thefaith Chesterton came to was theother side of such questioning—andall the stronger for having gonethrough it.

Cold ComfortChesterton’s journey in life and

his story in Manalive highlight aneffective response to skeptics andthose who insist on a radical rela-tivism that is impervious to tradi-tional claims to truth. Curiously, hisapproach is exactly the opposite ofwhat most people try to do.

Advocates of traditional views oftruth often respond to relativists inthe same way as English or Ameri-can tourists traveling in France whospeak their English more slowly andloudly. Similarly, proponents of tra-

stonework; “but before you breakyour neck, or I blow out your brains. . . I want the metaphysical pointcleared up. Do I understand that youwant to get back to life?”

“I’d give anything to get back,”replied the unhappy professor.

“Give anything!” cried Smith;“then blast your impudence, give usa song!” Which the startled professorwas prodded to do, a hymn of grati-tude for existence. Satisfied, Smithfired two barrels over his head andlet him climb to the ground.

“I must ask your indulgence,”Smith said brokenly when they weretogether again. “I must ask you torealize that I have just had an escapefrom death.”

“You have had an escape fromdeath?” the professor said with irri-tation.

“Oh, don’t you understand, don’tyou understand?” Smith cried. “Ihad to do it, Eames. I had to proveyou wrong or die. When a man’syoung, he nearly always has some-one whom he thinks the top water-mark of the mind of man. . . . Well,you were that to me. . . . Don’t yousee that I had to prove you didn’treally mean it. Or else drown myselfin the canal.”

Smith continued, “The thing Isaw shining in your eyes when youdangled from that buttress wasenjoyment at life and not ‘the Will toLive.’ What you knew when you saton that damned gargoyle was that

the world, when all is said and done,is a wonderful and beautiful place. Iknow it, because I knew it at thesame minute.”

Ready to hand himself in and facebeing sent down from Cambridge,Innocent Smith finished with onelast meditation.

“I mean to keep the remainingshots for people in the shamefulstate you and I were in last night—Iwish we could even plead drunken-ness. I mean to keep those bullets forpessimists—pills for pale people.And in this way, I want to make thisworld like a wonderful surprise—tofloat as idly as the thistledown andcome as silently as the sunrise; not tobe expected any more than the thun-derbolt, not to be recalled any morethan the dying breeze. . . . I am goingto hold a pistol to the head of theModern Man. But I shall not use itto kill him. Only to bring him tolife.”

* * *

Shortened and slightly retold, thisinimitable passage is from G. K.Chesterton’s Manalive. Fabulous andfantastic, Chesterton’s writing itselffloats “as idly as the thistledown.”And like his jesting Innocent Smith,he too holds his pistol to the head ofModern Man—and also to the headof Postmodern Man and Woman—not to kill them but to bring them tolife. And the story, of course, is not

In 1892 Gilbert Keith Chesterton was an 18-year-old student

at the Slade School of Art in London. Far from the stiff-upper-lip

primness of the caricature of Victorianism, the end-of-the-century

world of art was swirling with decadence, cynicism, and

pessimism. Chesterton himself was also drawn to the macabre

and the occult. In other words, his world was remarkably similar

to our postmodern one.

4544

bunker debunked, and what emergesis an almost pristine realization ofthe importance of truth.

Wasn’t this the assumption be-hind the prophet Elijah’s challengeto Israel in the ninth century B.C.? IfBaal, and not yhwh, was God, thenfollow Baal, he cried as he offeredthe prophets of Baal the first oppor-tunity to verify their god. With thebulk of the people sitting uneasilyon the fence between God and Baal,Elijah knew that pious calls to returnto God would have fallen on dividedhearts and deaf ears. He had tomount the challenge on theirgrounds.

For if yhwh is God, then Baal isnot, and the fastest way for the peo-ple to see it was to push them towardthe false faith that was bound to befalsified by reality. The disproofcame first and cleared the groundfor the proof, for with the false falsi-fied the true could be verified. “TheLord—he is God! The Lord—he isGod!” was the people’s conclusionwith heartfelt conviction.

The same logic runs downthrough the centuries. Jesus said, “Bytheir fruits you will know them”—not by their seed. If you had spokento the prodigal son the day he lefthome, would he have listened? If youspoke to him the day he hit thepigsty, would he have needed to?“See where it leads to,” St. Augustineadvised in dealing with falsehood.Follow it out to “the absolute ruddy

end,” C. S. Lewis remarked with char-acteristic Englishness. Push them to“the logic of their presuppositions,”Francis Schaeffer used to say.

Examples of inconsistenciesabound. Marxist sociologists may beadept at spotting exploitation in akindergarten but have Mexican nan-nies and pay their teaching assistantspoorly. Smart-aleck high school stu-dents may insist that “everything isrelative” yet will be the first to objectif teachers grade their papers with-out any standards, such as “I didn’tlike your paper—it’s Tuesday.” Radi-cal relativists may deny that there areobjective facts but are strangelyinsistent on circulating highly de-tailed résumés. Postmodernist pro-fessors may claim that authors arewithout privilege in determininghow their texts are interpreted, butwoe betide the reviewer who misin-terprets their latest contribution toscholarship and human knowledge.And so on.

All these examples betray rela-tively trivial contradictions that aremore suitable for humor than per-suasive debate. But what counts iswhen the relativism matters to therelativist, when it becomes a ques-tion of life and not simply logic. Insuch cases, the strategy and the logicare the same. The relativists’ prob-lem is not their clash with us buttheir contradiction with reality andtherefore the cost to themselves.

When I studied philosophy as an

ditional views commonly under-score the objectivity of truth in evermore earnest and labored ways. Andthen, when they fail to carry theirpoint, they mask their frustration byissuing dire warnings of the conse-quences of disagreeing with them.The result is mutual incomprehen-sion and a stalemate.

Peter Berger, however, has putforward two ways to counter radicalrelativism. The first effective strategyfor countering relativism on its owngrounds is negative: “Relativizingthe relativizers.” By this is meantapplying to skeptics the skepticismthey apply to others, thus pushingthem out toward the negative conse-quences of their own beliefs. Ches-terton’s professor has one attitudetoward life and death in his comfort-able college rooms but quite anotherwhen hanging grimly to the buttresswhile staring down the barrel of agun. When turned on him, his phi-losophy of life is cold comfort.

As Berger points out, the strategyrests on two assumptions. The first is

that relativism and skepticism entaila hidden double standard—the rela-tivism is inconsistent and incom-plete. All too often, relativists rela-tivize others but not themselves.They relativize the past but not thepresent. They pour the acid of theirrelativism over all sorts of issues butjealously guard their own favoriteones. A recent study of classicaleducation in the universities pointsto this attribute when it defines thepresent-day American academic as“a well-fed, elite, institutionalizedthinker of the late 20th century, whocrafts ideas for his peers, with theassurance that the consequences ofthose solutions should not and willnot necessarily apply to himself.”

The strategy’s second assumptionis that consistency and clarity arelinked. The task of encountering rel-ativism, Berger writes, is to “see therelativity business to its very end.”Press relativism to its consistent con-clusion and the result is surprising.Far from paralyzing thought, rela-tivism is itself relativized, the de-

Radical relativists may deny that there are objective facts but are

strangely insistent on circulating highly detailed résumés.

Postmodernist professors may claim that authors are without priv-

ilege in determining how their texts are interpreted, but woe

betide the reviewer who misinterprets their latest contribution to

scholarship and human knowledge.

All people at some point behave true to their beliefs. Sooner or

later they will act on the assumptions they truly hold and reap the

consequences. We often say that people don’t “live up to their

beliefs,” but it would be more accurate to say that, in a crunch such

as temptation, they switch to other beliefs and live up to those

instead. We do live by our beliefs. The question is, which ones?

47

point he will be extremely selfish onbehalf of the fitness of his own sur-vival. If someone describes newbornbabies as “replaceable” and of nomore value than snails, you can betthat she will become an advocate of“involuntary euthanasia” (in otherwords, murder), and so on.

The principle also holds true fornations, for ideas have conse-quences. Differences make a differ-ence. Behavior follows beliefs assurely as thunder follows lightning.What starts in the studies will endin the streets. When it comes topostmodernism, the stunning factis that we do not have to predict itsconsequences—we have alreadyseen the influence of its core ideason history. Do we really imaginethere can be no consequences a sec-ond time around?

Not far from his death in 1951,French writer Andre Gide reflectedon the influence of intellectuals onthe moral and cultural weakness ofFrance in the first half of the 20thcentury. He dismissed the scape-

goating of writers and the smearingof whole eras and schools. Heemphatically rejected the fascists’charge that the intellectuals had“discouraged and devitalized”French youth. But still, he acknowl-edged that his generation of artistshad introduced a power-worshipingvitality and barbarism to France.

Yet the crisis, at its very worst, isthe opportunity. The darkest night isjust before dawn. In terms of dis-tance, the prodigal’s pigsty is the far-thest point from home; in terms oftime, the pigsty is the shortest dis-tance to the father’s house. That isone reason people of faith are notovercome by crises. As Chestertonwrote in Orthodoxy, “If any fright-ened curate still says that it will beawful if the darkness of free thoughtshould spread, we can only answerhim in the high and powerful wordsof Mr. Belloc, ‘Do not, I beseech you,be troubled about the increase offorces already in dissolution. Youhave mistaken the hour of the night:It is already morning.’”

46

undergraduate in the 1960s, an Arc-tic chill was still hanging in the airthat froze any serious appreciationof religion. The source had been thephilosophy of A. J. Ayer, who as-serted that only that which could betested by the five senses could be ver-ified as true. Theology was therefore“non-sense,” or as it was famouslysaid, “The word g-o-d is less mean-ingful than the word d-o-g.”

The trouble for A. J. Ayer wasthat his verification principlecouldn’t verify itself—it was self-refuting. To accept as truth onlywhat can be tested by the senses is aprinciple that itself cannot be testedby the senses. It too is non-sense.Ayer’s approach, he later admitted,was “a blind alley.”

Again and again the lesson is sim-ple: While no argument is unar-guable, some thoughts can bethought but not lived. So we shouldnever stop halfway in dealing withskepticism but follow ideas uncom-promisingly to their conclusion.When heads collide with the wall,they will have reached the limits oftheir position and will be open toreconsider. In this sense, reality iswhat we run into when we arewrong, for when we are right, wedon’t run into it. “There are times,”Václav Havel wrote, “when we mustsink to the bottom of our misery tounderstand truth, just as we mustdescend to the bottom of a well tosee the stars in broad daylight.”

Crisis and OpportunityThe strategy of “relativizing the

relativizers” has both a sobering andencouraging side. The sobering sidearises from the fact that ideas haveconsequences. The tactic can easilybe reduced to a game—and a heart-less one—but this obscures its realmercy: Because the skeptics’ view isfinally untrue, it is in their interest todiscover it in good time. But even ifwe care so little that we say and donothing, life itself will most likelypush the skeptics out to face realityanyway, and the final outcome maybe far less pleasant.

Put differently, all people at somepoint behave true to their beliefs.Sooner or later they will act on theassumptions they truly hold andreap the consequences. We often saythat people don’t “live up to theirbeliefs,” but it would be more accu-rate to say that, in a crunch such astemptation, they switch to otherbeliefs and live up to those instead.We do live by our beliefs. The ques-tion is, which ones?

Now although someone’s beliefsand assumptions may not be true anddo not describe reality, they will stilldrive their behavior. So if someonedoesn’t believe in truth, count on himto lie. If someone says there are noobjective facts, expect her to be care-less with facts to further her owninterests. If someone explains every-thing by referring to evolution andthe “selfish gene,” be sure that at some

49

experience that stopped him in histracks and turned him around tostart his journey toward faith.

In 1939 Auden emigrated to theUnited States. In November, twomonths after the outbreak of WorldWar II, he went to a cinema in theYorkville district of Manhattan. Thearea was largely German-speakingand the film he saw was a Naziaccount of their conquest of Poland.When Poles appeared on the screen,he was startled to hear people in theaudience shout, “Kill them! Killthem!”

Auden was stunned. Amid all thechanges of heart and mind he hadpassed through in his life, one thinghad remained consistent: He be-lieved in the essential goodness ofhumanity. Now suddenly, in a flash,he realized two things with the forceof an epiphany. On the one hand, heknew beyond any argument that“human nature was not and nevercould be good”—the reaction of theaudience was “a denial of everyhumanistic value.” On the otherhand, he realized that if he was to saysuch things were absolutely evil, hehad to have some absolute standardby which he could judge them.

Here, Auden realized, was the fatalflaw of his liberalism: “The wholetrend of liberal thought has been toundermine faith in the absolute.” Oras he remarked to a friend, “The Eng-lish intellectuals who now cry toHeaven against the evil incarnated inHitler have no Heaven to cry to.”Spurred by this contradiction-cum-yearning, Auden left the cinema on aquest to renew his “faith in theabsolute” and began the journey thatled him to faith in Christ.

No human being lives outside thereality common to us all. Whateverpeople may say the world is or whothey are, it is what it is and they arewho they are. No argument is unar-guable, but there are thoughts thatcan be thought but not lived. Whenall is said and done, reality alwayshas the last word. The truth willalways out. Standing up to false-hood, lies, and crazy ideas is neveran easy task, but it is far easier thanthe hardest task of all, becomingpeople of truth ourselves.

48

A Fresh-Thinking Smart-BombPeter Berger’s first strategy for

countering relativism—relativizingthe relativizers—is unashamedlynegative. This in itself leaves somepeople uncomfortable, and an addedproblem occurs when people use theapproach in a purely logical way. Insearching for any and all contradic-tions, they end up being tiresomelyfussy and unconvincing.

In contrast, the real task is to beprophetic, not pedantic; to searchfor contradictions that matter—andmatter not to us but to the people weare engaging. In other words, thegoal is to look for the contradictionsbetween logic and life, to search forthe tension between the relativismor skepticism of their philosophyand the “treasure of their heart.”Only the latter will become a smart-bomb to detonate fresh thinking.

Because of the negative nature ofthe first strategy, many people aremore drawn to the second tactic forcountering relativism on its owngrounds, which is entirely positive:“Pointing out the signals of tran-scendence.” By this is meant thestrategy of drawing attention to thecontradiction and yearnings withinpeople’s beliefs that point beyondthose beliefs toward entirely differ-ent possibilities.

Whereas “relativizing the rela-tivizers” is negative because it high-lights the negative consequences offalse assumptions, “pointing out the

signals of transcendence” is positivebecause it points toward the positiveconclusions of true aspirations, un-noticed before. In the comfort of hisroom, Dr. Emerson Eames is miredin his gloom, but when confrontingthe starkness of death in the beautyof dawn, an enjoyment of life beginsto shine in his eyes. This first contra-dicts his put-the-puppy-out-of-its-misery pessimism. Then instinct-ively, intuitively, irrepressibly, andundeniably, his gratitude to be alivepunctures his pessimism and pointsbeyond it to the possibility of highermeaning in life. Gratitude quite lit-erally became Eames’s pointertoward salvation, just as it did for hiscreator in real life.

Berger defines signals of tran-scendence as “phenomena that are tobe found within the domain of our‘natural’ reality but that appear topoint beyond that reality.” His dis-cussion of them in A Rumor ofAngels includes some signals that arepositive—for example, order, hu-mor, and hope—and some that arenegative—for example, his “argu-ment from damnation.”

The best-known example of apositive “signal” in real life is C. S.Lewis’s “surprised by joy”—experi-ences that prodded him towardbeing a “lapsed atheist” and set himoff on a search for meaning. ButBerger’s argument from damnationis particularly powerful and com-mon, as in the poet W. H. Auden’s

Q

Reprinted, by permission, from Os Guinness,Time for Truth: Living Free in a World of Lies,Hype, and Spin (Grand Rapids, Mich.: BakerBooks, 2002).

51

above where the eyebrows would be.From behind, your eye naturally fol-lows the spinal column from themedulla at the base of the braindown to the first lumbar vertebra,where it branches off in the sciaticrootlets and sciatic nerve reachingall the way down the back of each legto the feet. It’s a fascinating display,showing how intimately connectedthe brain is to every part of thehuman body.

Physiologically speaking, thethree-pound brain is central tohuman existence and identity. Inaddition to running the almost infi-nite needs of the physical body, it alsoplays a central role in determining thenature and value of our lives. Scrip-ture teaches: “Do not be conformedto this world, but be transformed bythe renewing of your mind, that youmay prove what is that good andacceptable and perfect will of God”(Rom. 12:2, NKJV). Here we are con-fronted with a world of intangiblethings that Body Worlds can neitherdissect nor put on display: the mind,intellect, reason, imagination, emo-tions, values, beliefs, convictions, will,character, orientation to God and toone’s neighbor. We are more thanmere body, there is our inner world ofthe mind.

When Paul exhorts us to presentour bodies a living sacrifice (Rom.12:1), he is not concerned aboutmere outward conformity to thisage. He is worried about the inner

world of the mind and how it influ-ences what the body does—how wethink, what we think about. Ourworldview. Our emotions and val-ues. Our beliefs and convictions.

Earlier in the Book of Romans, hetraces a downward spiral of thinkingthat leads to moral dysfunction andall sorts of body-oriented evils(1:18-32). But this downward spiralis reversed in those who consecratethemselves to Jesus Christ. Humanbeings are transformed as theirthinking is altered. We become whatwe think intellectually, spiritually,and morally. The body follows themind. Paul says that we should giveourselves wholly to God and not beshaped by the old world order, thatwe should let new thought patternstransform our lives.

No clearer insight into the stew-ardship of the mind can be found. Itis our greatest resource—determin-ing everything we are and do. Whenwe seek to make the most of all thatwe are and all that we have forChrist, our inner world of thoughttakes center stage.

The billboard message “A mind isa terrible thing to waste” effectivelyreminds us of our greatest resource.This is as true in the spiritual realmas it is in the academic arena. Paulasserts that the Christian mind is aterrible thing to waste becausemoral, spiritual matters are of im-portance now. We can glorify Godwith our mind now. What we think

5050

magine standing, look-ing up to something inthe distance. Your faceand entire body are

swordsman, a swimmer, abasketball player—assumetheir normal poses to dem-onstrate the wonders of the

peeled like a peach, with yourentire rubbery organ of skin, flayedand intact, draped over your arm likea raincoat.

This is the essence of Günthervon Hagens’ “Body Worlds: TheAnatomical Exhibition of RealHuman Bodies.” Dr. von Hagens hasinvented a vacuum process calledplastination, which replaces individ-ual cells of the human body withbrightly colored resins and epoxies,much as minerals replace the cells oftrees in a petrified forest. As a result,he can preserve a human body,whole or stripped away to reveal itsinner parts, and display the cadaverin an eerily lifelike pose.

Body Worlds, an exhibition of200-plus preserved bodies, includes awoman eight months pregnant,reclining as if on a couch, herabdomen and womb opened toreveal the fetus resting head-downinside. Skinned athletes—a runner, a

skeletal and muscular systems. Thereare even two flayed corpses, all mus-cles and bones and bulging eyes,kneeling before a cross.

Dr. von Hagens’ macabre exhibi-tion of the naked and the dead hasshocked and fascinated millions ofpeople around the world. Is it art oranatomy? A ghoulish affront tohuman dignity or a way of under-standing ourselves better? The Ger-man scientist believes his displays ofreal corpses can help us understandourselves and our bodies better—aswell as our corporeality and the real-ity of death (both of which ourWestern world tries to deny).

One of Body Worlds’ vivid dis-plays is a man sitting intently at achessboard. In addition to the expo-sure of muscles, tendons, and liga-ments, his back has been stripped ofmuscle to the nerves of his spinalcord and his skull removed to revealthe brain. The frontal lobe projects

I

T H E P R E S I D E N T ’ S P A G E

Larry L. Lichtenwalter

MORE THANA BRAIN

53

he story of David andGoliath has capturedthe imagination ofmillions of Bible stu-dents through the ages.

It is the story of the faith of a

other postmodern scholars,the characters and stories ofthe Bible must have a histor-ical (archaeological) coun-terpart. “Unless this is done,there can be no real basis for

“GOLIATH”FOUND IN NEWINSCRIPTION

W H A T ’ S N E W I N A R C H A E O L O G Y

Michael G. Hasel*

vulnerable young boy withstandingan armored Philistine champion. It isthe story of an Israelite army cower-ing in the Valley of Elah while thePhilistines taunt them and their God.Five stones against iron shields, hel-mets, and sword.

But what is the history behind thestory? Was there a Goliath and aDavid? Recent critical scholarshipquestions the historicity of this bib-lical story. In 1992, Philip Davies,professor of biblical studies at theUniversity of Sheffield, appealed toarchaeology and wrote, “The biblical‘empire’ of David and Solomon hasnot the faintest echo in the archaeo-logical record—as yet.”1 He con-cluded that David and Solomon areno more historical than King Arthurof the Round Table.

But his argument is one fromsilence. In the view of Davies and

claiming that biblical ‘Israel’ has anyparticular relationship to history.”2

The Bible is considered guilty untilproven innocent. But such argumentsfrom silence are dangerous in any dis-cipline. In archaeology—with hun-dreds of archaeologists working inthe Middle East today—it can be dev-astating.

Just this past summer, an excitingarchaeological discovery was madethat sheds new light on the story ofDavid and Goliath. According to theBible, Goliath came from Gath, oneof the five cities of the Philistines (1Sam. 17:4). Modern excavations atGath (Tel es-Safi) directed by Aren

G

*Michael G. Hasel, Ph.D., is Director ofthe Institute of Archaeology and Cura-tor of the Lynn H. Wood ArchaeologicalMuseum at Southern Adventist Uni-versity in Collegedale, Tennessee.

52

determines what we do with ourbody now. To waste a mind is towaste a person. To waste a person isto waste eternity. If the mind is ourgreatest resource, then we must askhow do we prevent its loss or renewa damaged or neglected mind.

The idea of a renewed mind im-plies that it has already been wasted.Scripture teaches such: the humanmind has become “debased” (Rom.1:28, NKJV), “hardened” (2 Cor. 3:14,NASB), “blinded” (4:4, KJV), “dark-ened” (Eph. 4:18, KJV), “hostile”(Col. 1:21, NASB), “delude[d]” (2:4,NASB), “defraud[ed]” (vs. 18, NASB),“depraved” (1 Tim. 6:5, NASB), “cor-rupt” (2 Tim. 3:8, KJV), “defiled”(Titus 1:15, KJV).

This does not mean that humansare reduced intellectually to the levelof animals or that they cannotachieve extraordinary accomplish-ments. Nor does it mean that theycannot perform good deeds or liveaccording to some set of moral val-ues. It does mean, however, that thehuman mind has difficulty in under-standing life from God’s perspective.That we are no longer alive to God,rather we are alive to self, alive to ourworld, alive to all that our world

offers. The words “Don’t let theworld squeeze you into its ownmold” (Rom. 12:2, Phillips), suggestsjust how alive we can be to our worldand its point of view.

The idea that we are transformedwith new patterns of thinking, how-ever, implies that our mind can bereclaimed. Paul tells us that ourmind can be renewed such that wewill be interested in God. Interestedin spiritual things. Renewed to theplace that we can know, appreciate,and then choose what is pleasing toGod (Rom. 12:2b). We can be aliveto God and heavenly realities morethan toward our world.

Stewarding our mind towardheavenly realities means keeping itredemptively focused on JesusChrist as our Savior and Lord andbeing renewed regularly by exposureto the thinking and will of Godfound in Scripture. Scripture is themind of God. Not all of His mind, tobe sure, but all that He cared to giveus. To think like God, we must thinklike Scripture. That’s why Paul en-couraged the Colossians to let theWord of Christ richly dwell withinthem (Col. 3:16). This is what Per-spective Digest is all about.

Q

53

he story of David andGoliath has capturedthe imagination ofmillions of Bible stu-dents through the ages.

It is the story of the faith of a

other postmodern scholars,the characters and stories ofthe Bible must have a histor-ical (archaeological) coun-terpart. “Unless this is done,there can be no real basis for

“GOLIATH”FOUND IN NEWINSCRIPTION

W H A T ’ S N E W I N A R C H A E O L O G Y

Michael G. Hasel*

vulnerable young boy withstandingan armored Philistine champion. It isthe story of an Israelite army cower-ing in the Valley of Elah while thePhilistines taunt them and their God.Five stones against iron shields, hel-mets, and sword.

But what is the history behind thestory? Was there a Goliath and aDavid? Recent critical scholarshipquestions the historicity of this bib-lical story. In 1992, Philip Davies,professor of biblical studies at theUniversity of Sheffield, appealed toarchaeology and wrote, “The biblical‘empire’ of David and Solomon hasnot the faintest echo in the archaeo-logical record—as yet.”1 He con-cluded that David and Solomon areno more historical than King Arthurof the Round Table.

But his argument is one fromsilence. In the view of Davies and

claiming that biblical ‘Israel’ has anyparticular relationship to history.”2

The Bible is considered guilty untilproven innocent. But such argumentsfrom silence are dangerous in any dis-cipline. In archaeology—with hun-dreds of archaeologists working inthe Middle East today—it can be dev-astating.

Just this past summer, an excitingarchaeological discovery was madethat sheds new light on the story ofDavid and Goliath. According to theBible, Goliath came from Gath, oneof the five cities of the Philistines (1Sam. 17:4). Modern excavations atGath (Tel es-Safi) directed by Aren

G

*Michael G. Hasel, Ph.D., is Director ofthe Institute of Archaeology and Cura-tor of the Lynn H. Wood ArchaeologicalMuseum at Southern Adventist Uni-versity in Collegedale, Tennessee.

52

determines what we do with ourbody now. To waste a mind is towaste a person. To waste a person isto waste eternity. If the mind is ourgreatest resource, then we must askhow do we prevent its loss or renewa damaged or neglected mind.

The idea of a renewed mind im-plies that it has already been wasted.Scripture teaches such: the humanmind has become “debased” (Rom.1:28, NKJV), “hardened” (2 Cor. 3:14,NASB), “blinded” (4:4, KJV), “dark-ened” (Eph. 4:18, KJV), “hostile”(Col. 1:21, NASB), “delude[d]” (2:4,NASB), “defraud[ed]” (vs. 18, NASB),“depraved” (1 Tim. 6:5, NASB), “cor-rupt” (2 Tim. 3:8, KJV), “defiled”(Titus 1:15, KJV).

This does not mean that humansare reduced intellectually to the levelof animals or that they cannotachieve extraordinary accomplish-ments. Nor does it mean that theycannot perform good deeds or liveaccording to some set of moral val-ues. It does mean, however, that thehuman mind has difficulty in under-standing life from God’s perspective.That we are no longer alive to God,rather we are alive to self, alive to ourworld, alive to all that our world

offers. The words “Don’t let theworld squeeze you into its ownmold” (Rom. 12:2, Phillips), suggestsjust how alive we can be to our worldand its point of view.

The idea that we are transformedwith new patterns of thinking, how-ever, implies that our mind can bereclaimed. Paul tells us that ourmind can be renewed such that wewill be interested in God. Interestedin spiritual things. Renewed to theplace that we can know, appreciate,and then choose what is pleasing toGod (Rom. 12:2b). We can be aliveto God and heavenly realities morethan toward our world.

Stewarding our mind towardheavenly realities means keeping itredemptively focused on JesusChrist as our Savior and Lord andbeing renewed regularly by exposureto the thinking and will of Godfound in Scripture. Scripture is themind of God. Not all of His mind, tobe sure, but all that He cared to giveus. To think like God, we must thinklike Scripture. That’s why Paul en-couraged the Colossians to let theWord of Christ richly dwell withinthem (Col. 3:16). This is what Per-spective Digest is all about.

Q

54

Maeir of Bar-Ilan University in TelAviv, uncovered a broken piece ofpottery with an inscription duringthe 2005 season. According to Dr.Maeir in his November 2005 presen-tation to the American Schools ofOriental Research in Philadelphia,3

the letters are written in a proto-Canaanite script (in Semitic letters).The letters written without vowelsare: ALWT andWLT. Though thescript is Semitic,however, it is writ-ten in the Indo-European language.The names couldthus be constructedas “Wylattes or Aly-attes.” In the hear-ing of an Israelite it might sound likethis Wylattes/WLT/Goliath. That thenames are written in Indo-Europeanin a Semitic script is significant.Indo-European points to an Aegean(Greek) origin, which is the sameplace that the Bible describes as theorigin of the Philistines (Gen. 10:14).Its writing in a Semitic script indi-cates some adaptation of the lan-guage in written form to the localCanaanite environment where thePhilistines settled.

Where was this inscription found?As archaeologists uncover the ancientcities layer by layer, they can date arti-facts stratigraphically within thoselayers. This inscription was clearlyfound below the massive destruction

of the city that archaeologists haveidentified with the military campaignof Hazael of Syria (2 Kings 12:17).The inscription is then sealed in astratigraphic context and can bedated to the 10th-9th centuries B.C.,around 950 B.C. to no later than 880B.C. The context is important, be-cause it establishes that the nameGoliath was known at Philistine Gath

about 70 years afterthe event betweenDavid and Goliathas recorded in 1Samuel 17. Dr.Maeir, a well re-spected archaeolo-gist who is cur-rently director ofthe Institute of

Archaeology at Bar-Ilan University,concludes that though the inscriptionprobably does not name the biblicalGoliath directly, it does point to “aGoliath or rather two Goliath-likenames.” This affirms that these nameswere used at Philistine Gath someyears after the Bible records the con-flict between David and Goliath.

REFERENCES1 “In Search of Ancient Israel,” Journal for

the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement148 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), p. 67.

2 Ibid., p. 60.3 Aren Maier, “An Iron Age IIA Proto-

Canaanite, Philistine Inscription and OtherNew Finds From Tel es-Safi-Gath.” A PaperPresented to the Annual Meetings of theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research,Philadelphia, Penna., November 18, 2005.

59

lines how to live at peace with Godand fellow humans, how to knowGod as He has revealed Himself inScripture, how to understand andlive in the world around us that GodHimself created. I gave thanks toGod for the meaning and purposethis brings to life—to live in thepresence of God, who created us,redeemed us, and longs to live withus throughout eternity.

And then I thanked God for theintentionality of those who purposedto share this overarching worldviewwith me, for those who sacrificed,spent themselves, devoted their tal-ents, energy, and concern so that Iand others could be part of thisenduring culture. I thanked God forthe revelation of Himself in the Bible,for the pioneers of our church, andHis servant, Ellen G. White, for myparents, my teachers, my pastors,enthusiastic and committed Path-finder leaders, church administra-tors, and my entire church familywho caught the vision to create aheritage, to prepare a people oflongevity, not just for the present,but for eternity.

Then I received a jolt from a bold

claim in the clip. Of the cultures oflongevity surveyed in the article,Seventh-day Adventism is the onlyone that will not lose its longevityedge because, by virtue of the churchcommunity and the nurture andeducation of its young people, it isthe only culture that is still growingand carrying its principles forward.

Now more pointed questionsoccurred to me: Do we really have alongevity edge as the clip claimed?Do we really have the urgency as didour pioneers to pass on our cultureof longevity? Is it true that the nextgeneration is being nurtured in ourheritage? Is our incredible legacyenthusiastically shared with them?Do we prefer compromise anddoubt over the intentionality, sacri-fice, devotion, energy, and concernof our forefathers?

Our descendents deserve no lessthan we have been given: the privi-lege of living in a culture that is notlosing its longevity edge. And Godhas given us the challenge of sharingHis message in its fullness to a worldwandering far from God’s plan. ThisNational Geographic article is a chal-lenge for us to be true to our calling.

58

was eager to get myhands on the latestissue of NationalGeographic maga-zine. A friend had

just forwarded an e-mailclip from the National GeographicSociety featuring Seventh-day Ad-ventists as a culture of longevity. Iwas proud to be an Adventist andcurious to read the article formyself.

The article discussed three cul-tures whose people outlive theircounterparts. These three were geo-graphically diverse: Sardinia, Italy;Okinawa, Japan; and Loma Linda,California. The author of the articlefound Loma Linda (representing theSeventh-day Adventist Church) tobe the most surprising. Seventh-dayAdventist lifestyle is not the result ofa regionalized cultural inheritance.Rather, it is a belief-based systemdispersed among and lived withinmany different cultures.

According to the video clip, Sev-enth-day Adventists tend to outlivethe general population by about 10

years. Why? Becausetheir religion reinforcespositive healthful life-style behavior. The de-vout are vegetarian,non-smokers, non-

drinkers, and take Sabbath everySaturday to separate themselvesfrom the demands of the world.

I had always been curious aboutregional cultures of longevity andeven somewhat envious of thosewho were born into those societies.Wow! So I, too, had the advantage ofbelonging to a culture of longev-ity—not because I was born in aunique geographical location, butbecause I choose to be part of a soci-ety that has a longevity edge!

What made this culture uniquefrom the other disappearing cul-tures? Why is it that I didn’t have tobe born in Okinawa or Sardinia tobe part of a culture of longevity?

As I thought about it, I paused fora moment to thank God for thewonderful message that He hasgiven, a message that goes farbeyond a healthful lifestyle. It out-

I

T H E A S S O C I A T E E D I T O R ’ S D E S K

E. Edward Zinke

HOW ENDURINGWILL OUR

LONGEVITY BE?

Q

61

rated with information, and with somany different voices demanding tobe heard, that it is no longer possibleto know what you either know orwant any more.”1 ESPN, The Na-tional Enquirer, and EntertainmentTonight—all claim to be presentingnews and facts. Talk shows and com-mentators artfully blur the linebetween opinion and fact. And theInternet provides so much raw datathat it boggles the mind.

In an episode of The Practice, aserialized television show now insyndication that centered on thepersonal and professional livesof a group of lawyers inBoston, the practice wasunevenly matched in a legalbattle with a muchmore affluent andprestigious firmrepresenting atransnationalcorporationwith pocketsso deep thatthey seemedto defy gravi-ty. When the underdog practice sub-poenaed the corporation for certaininformation, the opposing firm sentthem an unnecessarily massiveamount of office records in anattempt to discourage them fromfinding the specific information theyneeded. It contained so much dataand documentation that the smallerfirm simply didn’t have the resources

to plumb it.Whether this strategy is actually

employed in the real world ofjurisprudence or is just the figment ofa script writer’s imagination, it’s stillan apt illustration of the fact that it’spossible to bury the truth in informa-

tion. If Satan has his way, that’sliterally what all thesemedia will be doing to us:

submerging the truthunder a Himalayan

range of completely use-less—and often de-

structive—strata.So it’s be-

come an ines-capable conclusion

that much of theinformation gathering

that we indulge in ismotivated by our

hunger for moredata—not formore truth. In thewords of a popularsong on the classicradio stations:

“You don’t reallyneed to find out what’s

going on.“You don’t really want to know

just how far it’s gone.”Christian author Dorothy Sayers

grumbled: “The public do not carewhether they are being told truth ornot.”2 And this was 60 years ago!Back in the time machine to a placewhere there was no such thing as a

60

n addition to the barrageof e-mails that I receiveasking me to act as anagent for the deposit of anastonishing amount of money to

my personal bank account (in U.S.dollars, of course) or advising me thatI’ve been approved for refinancing(even though I’m not buying a homeand have submitted no application forsuch funding), I also receive an occa-sional message that has been sent witha subject line that goes something likethis: “Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Something toThink About” or “Fw: Fw: Fw:Thought for the Day.”

“Apparently for those who don’thave any thoughts of their own,” Imutter to myself, “and could use afew superficial ideas to fill the void.”

By this time I must confess thatI’m usually so fed up with all thevapid spam in my Inbox that I’vebecome, well, ill-humored—or attimes worse. Fleetingly I consider thepossibility of firing back a witheringreply that expresses my, shall we say,euphemistically, lack of appreciationfor this unsought-for encroachment

into my personal life. But Idon’t. I know that these littlemoments in sharing are well-meaning efforts to stay con-

nected.As Charlie Brown would have

said in that world-famous comicstrip: “Sigh.”

So, OK, I acknowledge that thisill humor is a negative facet of mycharacter that I have to work on.Scripture says very clearly thatanger “only causes harm” (Ps. 37:8,NKJV). So, though I believe firmlyin righteousness by faith, I alsoknow that “the grace of God . . .teaches us to . . . live self-controlled,upright and godly lives” (Titus 2:11,12, NIV). So self-control isn’t solelyor simply a matter of works. Pre-sumably we are expected to addressit to such things as getting nettledby inane and annoying e-mails.

And all of this because we’re liv-ing in the so-called age of informa-tion.

Postmodernist philosopher JeanBeaudrillard has asserted, I thinkrightly, that “the media are so satu-

I

W O R K S T A T I O N T W O

Gary B. Swanson

WHAT DOYOU KNOW?

62 63

“To be known and read” by all. . . .

I F YO U L I K E PP EE RR SS PP EE CC TT II VV EE DD II GG EE SS TT ,, YO U ' L L L OV E T H E

Your annual membership entitles you to:• A one-year subscription to the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society,

or Perspective Digest.• A subscription to the ATS newsletter, carrying announcements and information

about ATS conventions, publications, and other activities.• Voting rights at the society's business sessions held at the spring and fall meetings.• Satisfaction that you are helping to affirm and advance solid, centrist

Adventist belief in a church that is rapidly becoming theologically diverse.

Name___________________________________________

Address_________________________________________

City_______________________State_____Zip_________

send me application materials to join the Adventist Theological Society.Mail to: ATS, P.O. Box 86,Berrien Springs, MI 49103

ATS encourages bibli-cal, theological, and histor-ical studies that will helpbring about spiritual reviv-al and reformation withinthe church. It provides aplace for its current mem-bership of nearly 2,000 church admin-istrators, scholars, pastors, and laypeople to address vital questions of theAdventist faith in the context of

prayer, fellowship, andresponsible discussion.

ATS sponsors Conven-tions, scholarly presenta-tions, Bible conferences, andpublications all groundedon two great interests: The

authority of Scripture and the respon-sible principles of biblical interpreta-tion that uphold, rather than compro-mise, biblical authority.

ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Yes, Member dues are $25 for an individual; $35 for husband/wife; and $10 for retirees and students.

A dynamic organization dedicated to advancing the fundamental beliefs ofSeventh-day Adventists and strengthening the heart of Adventist theology.

blog, a podcast, or an infomercial. Inits earlier days, the Internet washailed in halcyon terms as the mostdemocratic of the media. Because allcould access all this valuable infor-mation, advocates crowed, we wouldat last be brought together into agolden future.

But this didn’t take into accountthe human element: The brutal truthis that most of us don’t rely on themedia to seek a balanced menu indata; we go there to reinforce our pre-suppositions. It has become aninstrument of polarization. The avail-ability of all that fantastic informa-tion hasn’t changed us for the betterat all. Instead, we’ve become moreextreme versions of our former selves.“There is reason to think that theInternet is more likely to increasesocial fragmentation than it is likelyto promote social consensus.”3 Andnone of the rest of the media is anybetter. Even the information that issupposedly reported as news is basedon one ideology or another.

As we expose ourselves to thesesources of information in the media,we must be continually asking our-

selves: How important are thesefacts in the cosmic reckoning? Howmuch time should I be devoting toaccessing such facts? Am I devotingtime to the receiving of these facts(this so-called news) at the expenseof something more timeless, tran-scendent, or important?

How crucial is it, after all, to beaware that some newly released filmhas become the third-highest gross-ing film in history? Or that somesomeone has just purchased thePope’s limousine in auction at anobscene price? Or that one celebrityis suing another for failing to live upto a contract?

Is it not possible that we may be“poor, blind, and naked” (Rev. 3:17,NKJV) when we think we’re rich ininformation as well as in materialgoods?

Q

REFERENCES1 Paraphrased in Glenn Ward, Postmod-

ernism (London: Hodder & Stoughton Edu-cational, 1997), p. 182.

2 The Mind of the Maker (San Francisco:Harper San Francisco, 1941), p. xi.

3 Gordon Graham, The Internet: A Philo-sophical Inquiry (London: Routledge, 1999),p. 83.