My familiar relationship with death, for personal and professional reasons, has bred contempt, but judging from reader responses, it has not been clear that my contempt is for death itself, not the dead or dying. I had taken that as a given.

This thought comes in part from responses to the previous post on suicide. I did not address my contempt for death in the post yet I know it lies hidden, a buried context that may infuse it’s feeling in unwanted places. Like John Donne, in every death I hear the bell tolling my own mortality, for I, a single piece of humanity, remain a part of the whole. This is even more true of those united through the Spirit to the body of Christ. A loss in part is and should be felt by the whole.

However, we vary so much in our feelings and attitudes toward death and loss. Time, place, pesonal history, and our world view, just a few of many mitigating things, give each of us a unique and sometimes conflcting attitude toward our losses. While some may work constructively toward acceptance and healing, many others, in my experience, continue on a lonely road of denial. I say lonely, not because they are alone in their denial…the road is crowded…but because the denial itself is a wall that forbids both entry and escape for the walking wounded. 

As a regular reader will also know, this blog, from the beginning was meant to centre in a theology of the cross, a paradoxical theology that says God is most revealed when he is hidden in suffering, particularly the suffering of Christ, the Son of God, on the cross. I do not have the time today to justify this theology for those who question it. You are free to search out my previous post in the archives or with the search box. I have written frequently on death, suffering, and the hiddenness of God, as well as the glorious life that is born out of Christ death. I hope my thoughts, at least some of them, have helped a few to move from spiritual death to life in Christ and to find comfort as God draws near in the darkness of grief.

Read this First: What follows is a reflection on suicide, painful for any serious thought at the best of times. It is a reflection on the personal passing of a man I knew, but did not know well. However, I want to make this clear: It is not a reflection on or of the man himself.

It is a sensitive subject, the more so since the memorial service I attended was recent. His actual death was several months ago and I have hoped this has allowed time for me to reflect constructively. But since posting what follows I have received a thoughtful private response from someone I respect that questions the appropriateness, for one thing, of my remarks given the sensitive nature of not only the subject, but of the personal circumstances that inspired my reflection. It could be painful if have personal experience with the subject, the person in question, or the event. For the time being I’ll leave the post, along with this cautionary preface. As you know if you are a regular reader, I can write with feeling, too much at times. I hope you will forgive me if I have caused you or anyone else unnecessary pain. 

With respect to this, in response to a friend’s critique, I’ve edited the initial post, removing some remarks that have merit for my argument yet are inappropriate here.

_______________________________________________________________

Yesterday’s memorial service for a colleague who, several months ago, took his own life while suffering from depression and acute physical pain, has given me cause for more reflection on my own beliefs about the morality of suicide. I also have renewed reason to reflect on how our grief and desire for comfort effect, not only our beliefs, but the way we express those beliefs when we are traumatized by loss.

My colleague ( I knew him, but not well ) is one of at least five people I have known personally who have taken their own life. One was a relative, not a Christian, who died violently while intoxicated, full of anger and grief, ten years to the day of his own sisters tragic death in an auto accident. We know his condition because he was not alone at the time. The second, another relative, also shot himself, this in a cemetery, presumably unable to reconcile his life after his wife’s death from cancer. A third man, a friend from my teenage years, shot himself after confessing, in a note, to the grisly murder of another friend after a dispute over a robbery and drug deal gone bad. The fourth was a much-loved Christian friend suffering from schizophrenia who, six months after her diagnosis, stepped onto the tracks and faced the oncoming train. She left a husband and two young children. He has since remarried, but continues suffering the practical consequences of her death.

I give these brief stories to tell you why I and others have more than a passing interest in understanding the morality of suicide and it’s consequences for those left behind.

I also want to make it clear that I have felt the sharp sting of loss, remorse, shame, helplessness, and anger over their actions. I have also felt the numbness and confusion that can stay with a person for days, with some for years, after a friend or relative chooses to leave the rest of us, often without discussion, suddenly, and perhaps violently. Questions about why they would abandon loved ones, why they lost hope, why belief in God was not enough, or even why God did not some how, some way stop them can be ignored but at a deep psychological risk to those still living. A death by suicide demands our attention without asking permission. It intrudes on our minds, on our emotions without the smallest ‘pardon me’.

It is this demand on us, unexpected, uninvited, and unwanted that gives suicide it’s melodic dirge of selfishness.  We cannot help the convincing feeling that they were only thinking of themselves. Such a selfishness, whether we justify it with a knowledge of what they must have been suffering or not, raises profound moral issues, especially for those who professed and seemingly revealed an abiding trust in the God of all hope.

Suicide, as evidenced once again by the unanimous remarks heard yesterday, is inextricably linked, for Christians, to our belief about how God atones for our sins. Taking ones life hardly leaves room for repentance, a thing normally seen as a condition, though given by God as gift, for the forgiveness of sin. Yes, we believe Christ died for the sins of all, but unless we have a universalist theology which says all men will finally be saved in the kingdom of God, regardless of their works, we must give an account of how we understand our personal responsibility for the moral choices we make. I heard no pratical theology on this level yesterday.

Much was made in yesterday’s sermon of the Christian assurance of salvation, of the passage that says a Christian’s works, good works, follow them into judgment, that God does not forget these. I would agree. Jesus said, “By their fruits you will know them”. Scripture clearly teaches this, though it does not say such works justify us, a thing not made clear at all in the sermon. Nor was it made clear just what fruit the tree of suicide reveals. Perhaps, as is often the case, the doctrine of justification was merely assumed among those who themselves stand just before God. As I sat alone with my thoughts, listening among hundreds of others, a wondered how this last ‘work’ of a person, the work of taking ones own life that is made in the image of God, will be considered in the judgment when no room was left for repentance. Or were they, possibly contrary to their thoughts and clearly to their actions, abiding in a state of repentance and acceptance granted them by God? Or as some believe, does God refuse to break his covenant promise of eternal life with the Christian no matter what they do, i.e. ‘once saved, always saved’? I hope I’m forgiven for drawing that conclusion from yesterday’s strictly Calvinist sermon offered by a prominent leader of my Arminian-thinking church.

I wondered too how the speaker’s remarks fit with the doctrine of the indwelling Spirit of Christ as given in Romans 8. Can we commit suicide while filled with the Spirit of God? What then do we do with Paul’s statement that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ do not belong to him? If I make the assumption that suicide is the ultimate, irreversible act of the flesh, in opposition to rather than the leading of the Spirit of God, then how can one stand free of the condemnation given to those who have the Spirit of life? My current understanding is that an act of autonomous will made apart from submission to the Spirit of God, no matter what the context, is of itself the essence of sin and rebellion against God. Should the presence of pain and suffering, a reason offered in my colleagues case, be a justification for renouncing the will of God, a will that ask us in Scripture to suffer for his sake, then how will we interpret the life of martyrs as anything but a pitiful waste of humanity? Is the apostle Paul’s life of suffering for Christ and the thought of facing his final beheading less cause for suicide than the suffering of a painful, chronic illness? How far will we push this reasoning while we know God explicitly asks us to bear suffering with patience for his sake? If this is the teaching of the Spirit revealed in the Word, and the two are one, how can one filled with Spirit take their own life?

It is true we don’t know just how to account for acts of the will made by the mentally ill. That is a large question in itself. Certainly our legal statues take issues of diminished responsibility into account in accessing culpability for our actions. God does as well. But that is not the same as asking questions of those in deeply emotional distress who, nonetheless, are very rational, in full possession of moral awareness. Our laws, rooted in morality, also take this into account and tell us merely being upset, even to the extreme, is not an excuse of killing another. Whether or not you class emotional distress or disruption as a disease, especially when it is chronic, merely giving it such a label cannot describe the nuances between cognitive function and emotional disorder.  Personal pain does not, of itself, necessitate moral dysfunction or dismiss our culpability.

Another aspect of our attitudes toward suicide, one that troubled me yesterday, and has for some time, has to do with how much we are willingly to deny reality in order to seek comfort, either for ourselves or for loved ones. For example, we face this problem in ourselves when questioning how much to tell a terminally ill patient. Should we prevaricate with truth when that truth is painful in in itself or will cause more pain?

I asked myself such similar questions just about the propriety of writing this piece in relation to a specific death rather than taking a more academic, abstract approach. You can see from this and from my method of approach to theology and life as revealed in this blog what choice I made. But it is not without understanding, not in ignorance of the fact that it may cause pain. I act with a qualification, a belief that some pain is necessary in life and in the life of thought, that avoiding pain at all cost is as wrong-head and morally suspect as pursuing pleasure at the expense of others.

But back to the question of denial. Some thinkers, e.g. Ernest Becker, have interpreted the struggle of life (our existential angst caused by the freedom of choice and a knowledge of death) as coming from a denial of death. I wondered about this as person after person yesterday refused to acknowledge anything but the most positive aspects of our friend’s life. What that created was a sense within me that if we lived a good life, enjoying the unqualified approval of friends and family, but then faced what to us was an unbearable aspect of life, then suicide, though not such a good thing, was a reasonably good choice under the circumstances. It could not have been read from the remarks as anything other than an acceptable, certainly by God, choice made by a very decent man in distress.

Such a theology of God and death, such a theology of atonement, and such an understanding of the nature of man trouble me. They cause me distress. I know from my own horror’s of clinical depression and suicidal thinking that if I carried this message in my heart during those times, I would not be with you today. I wonder how I would be eulogized, should I decide just now to take my own life rather than face what for me is often a disturbing reality in the face of evil? Would everyone be as quick and assured to place me by the throne of God or would they prefer me outside, near the gates of hell? I can tell you without doubt that some I know would at least prefer me dead. (I remain unforgiven for my sins against them). On what grounds, on what suppositions would you judge me? All I heard speak yesterday felt free in taking judgment to themselves and deciding the case of our friend on what some might suppose as superficial knowledge of his soul. I wondered if any thought it was just such presumptions about him that made life harder than it need be. Perhaps he could no longer be the ever positive, helpful, generous, humorous, loving, intelligent, casually dressed soul everyone had come to expect. How long had self-doubt eaten away at his heart? I remain curious about the easy presumptions made yesterday and those I know others make about myself. Are you so sure you know who I am? Or are you willing to live by faith? Really, when did God make you my judge, for good or for evil?

I can also tell you that more than once I rejected suicide for the sole reason that I believed it was a sin of which I would have no excuse and no atonement, not before man but before my Creator and Redeemer. The cross of Christ was an answer from God that took away the excuses I offered. He had made a way, no matter how painful, that I was capable of following. The way of the cross was a way of dependence on him, not a freedom for autonomous rebellion. That doesn’t mean my theology was, for that reason, correct. I’m just saying it kept me from killing myself.

I hope you can see why I would have a personal stake in a theology of death and atonement. I even hope you care. It concerns me, even pains me, that so much focus is put on deciding a man’s salvation when so many other lives remain in the balance. This, to me, reflects the dynamic and sinful control a suicide continues to exert on those left behind. We read in the notes of the ignored, and now dead, that they believed their death would give them the love or attention they could not find while alive. They knew we could not ignore them. How many suicide notes, especially those written in the blood of teenage angst, must we read before we get the point that we ignore the horror of suicide and it’s moral repugnance at the risk of feeding death itself? The demand to come to terms, to understand, to explain, seem irresistible but is that demand itself, the demand they are responsible for creating a sin that can no longer be reconciled and in fact, by it’s very nature refuses reconciliation with the living?  True, we cannot and should not ignore this voice from the grave, but when we speak back with our answer, has it been for them or for us? Has it been for God’s glory or the comfort of our self-protecting pride? Have we embraced death in embracing the cross of Christ or have we created an image of the cross fashioned according to our nature and not his?

Here is a copy of the About page for the Adventist Theological Society. If your interested in Adventist theology, this is a prime online source. ~ Jan

A Committed Resource

Download Brochure

The conviction that inspires the Adventist Theological Society arises out of a strong desire to foster biblical, theological, and historical studies that strengthen the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s message and mission.

The resources of the Society are freely available to the world field, as Church leadership request theological assistance, training for workers, Bible symposia, and camp meeting speakers.

The Society engages in scholarly bridge-building with non-Adventist evangelical biblical scholars.

A Sense of Mission

The Adventist Theological Society (ATS) is an international, professional, nonprofit organization established as a theological resource for the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

As its logo expresses, the Society affirms the Bible and the Bible alone as the foundation of its scholarship and activities.  As students of God’s Word we accept that all Scripture is inspired and that God reveals Himself to those who come to it with humble hearts. We recognize that our view of God’s Word and the centrality of the Gospel in its message are critical to the theological task before us.

The Society  accepts the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as its theological position and adheres to the Church’s voted “Methods of Bible Study” as its hermeneutical position.

The Society’s vision embraces a variety of values and goals:

• Promoting sound biblical scholarship among Seventh-day Adventist scholars, theologians, teachers, pastors, and Bible students;
• Exploring Scripture in order to better understand it;
• Creating a spiritual and intellectual atmosphere for fellowship and dialogue within the Church and offering support and collegiality to students of God’s Word;
• Upholding the fundamental beliefs and piety of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in education, in church life, and in the completion of its mission;
• Sponsoring Bible symposia and conventions in various parts of the world, providing opportunities for reading, discussion, and dissemination of scholarly thought;
• Interacting with Bible scholars and theologians beyond the Seventh-day Adventist community of faith;
• Publishing theological literature;
• Being a positive, relevant theological voice in the church and society at large.

In a recent comment (Aug. 31, 2008) by Jam7 (see the Recent Comments section in the sidebar), the writer criticizes the argument taking place over my post regarding the work of Walter Veith. Though I won’t take up all the reasons why I disagree with much of Veith’s work here, I’ll reference those points that make the context clear. You can read more in the relevant post, “Why I Won’t Watch Walter Veith Videos”, and in my replies to those who agree or disagree with me. (You can find Walter Veith videos on YouTube here.)

What I do what to address is the subject Jam7 raised about Christians, or anyone for that matter, arguing over doctrine.

If I read Jam7 correctly, he (or she) is suggesting that any argument over the use or meaning of Scripture is wrong. However, in even saying this much, you enter the argument yourself. In other words, to argue that we should not argue is a self-contradiction that only proves argument is, in fact, a necessary part of resolving conflict or discerning between truth and error, whether that conflict is over religious or secular things.

I would agree that our religious experience would become a terrible burden, drained of all joy, if it only consisted of argument. For this and other reasons, Scripture says we should avoid senseless quarreling over irrelevant or minor matters (Titus 3.9-10; 1 Timothy 1.3,4; 2 Timothy 2.16). However, in a world that is populated with a majority who oppose God and those who follow Christ, a defense of our faith is necessary if the truth is going to stand in a world of lies (I Timothy 6. 2c-4; Titus 2.15). The Bible itself teaches this and Jesus himself practiced a defense of his own faith (John 5 & 8, among many other passages).

The Bible is also clear that we should make such a defense in the spirit of Christ with a firm but gentle spirit (2 Timothy 2.24; 1 Peter 3.15; Philippians 1.16) but because we may have failed to do this from time to time does not destroy the necessity for sound argument in itself.

When I hear “teachers of the law” (I Timothy 1.6-7) who misinterpret or distort the Scriptures, as does Walter Veith, I have an obligation as a minister of Christ to correct when and what I can. We are called directly in Scripture to rebuke, in the manner of Christ, those who undermine the faith from within the church by teaching unsound doctrine as if it is truth. In Veith’s case this is more difficult because he has done little of his work in writing. Without spending nearly endless hours going over his video’s or DVD’s, it would be difficult to reference any of his quotes. This fact alone makes his work suspect, especially given the sensational claims he makes.

There are many pastors, theologians, and historians within Veith’s own church who find his preoccupation with conspiracy theories about the World Trade centre being a CIA plot directed by President Bush or that the Saddam Hussein who was hung for war crimes was a body double to not only be absurd, repugnant, unproven speculations, but also a gross misrepresentation of a minister ordained to preach the gospel of Christ. (Two such men have made comments accordingly in response to my initial post. See Crocombe and Weirs). There are church administrators I know who have privately voiced the same concerns and dismay. I know of at least one denial of an offical service request made for Veith to speak in a Seventh-day Adventist Union based on concerns about his indescriminate claims. I suspect this is not the only one. Of course, as conspiracy theorist and their ‘true believers’ see it, this denial and others like it will be construed as furhter evidence of a conspiracy against the ‘truth’ that only they seem to see.

In propounding other foolish ideas, such as using only the King James translation of Scriptures or that marriage between different races is a sin, Veith misrepresents the faith of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, of which, he is a minister. We neither teach or emphasis such things. Why he, a zoologist by profession, was ever given ministerial credentials in South Africa is a question that will soon be getting more attention, I’m sure. Perhaps it was because of his previous work in defending creationism as a professional zoologist or the fact that as a converted atheist with a Ph.d he is a good trophy for our pubiic Christian mantle piece. For my part, the sooner that mantle falls in the fire the better.

Let me address another point, that of Veith’s use of the Bible. While Veith supposedly uses Scripture, especially the book of Revelation to support some of his outlandish claims, he does so by misinterpretation and misapplication. This gives the appearance of sanctity to those unfamiliar with the Bible or to those who do not take the time to study for themselves. Never mind that his theological or historical ‘facts’ cannot be varified with sound research by those trained through years of experience in such work.

Yet, because he is now an ordained minister, his preoccupation with the intricacies of Free Masons, the Illuminati, the Skull and Bones, the Jesuits, and other ‘secret societies’ is sanctified in the eyes of those who feed on foolishness. And because he purports such a concern for our living in the last days of earth’s history and that we are in a world where evil appears on every hand, he comes across to some as an angel sent from God. These dear souls are deeply offended by the least suggestion, from me or others, that Dr. Veith is anything less than the word of God for us today (note the emotional pain evident in the comments of some, not all, who took issue with my first post on Veith.)

You might wonder why I think it is important to raise issues regarding Dr. Veith’s work. I think you’ll find a very good illustration in the volume of comments I have received and continue to receive from my first and until now, only post about him and his work (See link above, from March 22, 2008). That my disagreement over his work has generated such interest, about 30 comments apart from my own, should give a small indication of the influence Veith currently exerts on the web and in the Seventh-day Adventist church. You might also consider the number of views his YouTube videos receive. (over 55,000 on the single clip of his claim that the man hung as Saddam Hussein was a body double.)

Unlike the cassette tape ministries of the past, YouTube and the internet have given a longer lasting, more pervasive voice to men like Veith. The postmodern information age has a longer carbon life for both truth and distortion than other historical forms of communication. It is a mistake to think this misguided interest will gradually dissipate of it’s own accord. That may be true on the local level apart from the online community, but as long as there is power in the grid, Veith and others like him, including my little blog, will live on in cyberspace, having a voice, be it good or bad. For this reason, I would urge those who like myself, find his work a very public misrepresentation of our faith, to speak out for a clearer, more consistent understanding of prophetic, gospel truths.

[For a full account of remarks made on this blog, mine and others, regarding Veith, type ‘Veith’ into the search box of this site, top right sidebar.]

We baptised four adults in Newport (Wales) this morning and had an anointing service for three members this afternoon. In the picture above you see Nick and Dawn Ryall, who have been attending for about two years. They have the support of their two married sons and younger daughter.

Ruth Manyela (on the left) and Saphra Ross (on the right) also gave their lives to Christ and his church today. Perhaps I’ll have more pictures to share as they come in.

We also said our goodbyes to Judy and Davis Gachuba. They and their two children will be returning soon to Nairobi. Sharon and I hope to visit them, perhaps next year. I youth trip planned for Kenya was canceled this year due to the political violence there, but a new trip may come in the future.

it was a good day, full of God’s grace. The church was full of believers and those seeking something more in their lives. I continue to pray for us all, that we will know more of his grace and peace as we wait for the return of Christ

My friend and fellow pastor, Mike Logan, died yesterday evening, eight months after being diagnosed with a brain tumor. I don’t know what else to say.

I’ve left my car, a Peugeot 307, at a specialist garage to have a wiring problem fixed, so I’m spending my time in the Newport church reading, praying, and thinking about my relationship with God. I’m also thinking about who I am and how I relate to others in my life, particularly my wife, Sharon, my friends, and even my casual acquaintances. 

My thoughts have led me to reconsider my beliefs about who God is and what he means to me.

I know from experience that everything else in my life, all the good I desire for myself and others, comes out of my relationship with God. When I remember his goodness, love, mercy, and grace toward me, when I think on him as he truly is, as he has revealed himself from the beginning of creation, I feel satisfied and secure in his love for me. I then pass his love on to others as he leads me by his Spirit.

But sadly, this isn’t how I always live. When I forget, neglect, or doubt his true intentions toward me, when I distrust his love or try to satisfy my deepest needs in some other way, I become more and more like his enemy, the devil, and less like Christ who is the truest revelation of our heavenly Father.

I wish I could tell you this is rare in my life, but that would be a lie. Even today I am doing what I can to renew my love for him by taking in all I can of his love for me. I need to do this because I have neglected him the past several days. Though I spoke in the last post of a blessing on Sabbath, since then I have been taken up with selfishness, a self-centeredness that I recognized but did not resist. I have wasted many hours in meaningless things, even with some things that are often a blessing to me but have been done without the company of his Spirit. I have not cherished his presence and am the worse for missing him.

When I treat the people around me  with the same neglect I have shown Christ, when I have tested the limits of their patience and love for me, I have found only a very few who respond as Christ has done. This isn’t to blame them for not meeting my demands, but to say I cannot depend on them alone for the daily spiritual food that will give me the life I need. They too are dependent on God for what they can pass on to me. They too sin, failing God and failing me. Yet each of us are called to repentance through his grace so that we, as sinful as we have been, may be restored in his love. 

The hardest thing for me in life is to receive the love of God and love others in return. However, the best things in life come when I see and trust his love for me and then pass that love on to others.

I know, again from experience, that I need cherish every revelation of his love, from his work in creating us and our world, to the great sacrifice he has made in redeeming us through the work of his Son.

It is up to me how I spend the rest of this day. What will I do when I finish writing to you? I know that I need to spend more time contemplating his character, learning and correcting my distorted views of him. I need to take time to pray, to talk all of this over with him, pouring out my heart and letting him heal, once again, the things that I have broken.

I enjoyed a good Sabbath yesterday. The Lord touched my heart as I neared the end of my sermon (from Matt. 18), giving me the relief and assurance I had been praying for during the week. I cried without shame. I’m thankful for his mercy and love, for his forgiveness of my sins and for blessing me with a ministry of reconciliation.

Four people, including a husband and wife, have decided for baptism next Sabbath in Newport, so that will be a high day as well, though we will also be saying goodbye to Davis and Judy Gachuba and their children. The church has planned an afternoon lunch for us all. They