How Should Christians Respond to the Syrian Refugee Crisis?

Here’s what is happening in the last half of Matthew 2 in a nutshell: the political environment in Israel grows alarmingly dangerous, and because of the threat of death and violence, Joseph takes the Child and his mother, Mary, and flees from the hostile land of Israel to the relative safety of Egypt, where he lives until the danger has passed.

Sounds like the Middle East today, doesn’t it? We see the Child Jesus forced to flee or risk certain death at the hand of Herod, and we see thousands of Syrians fleeing today or risk certain death at the hands of ISIS.

This shines an important light on the realities of the political environment we see in the Middle East today. Political violence and death have been a part of that culture for much longer than Americans care to admit. Jesus was a refugee forced to flee from the threat of Herod.
How Should We Respond to the Syrian Refugee Crisis?

This raises a difficult question for Americans. How should we respond to the request of our president to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States? At the risk of oversimplifying an incredibly complex situation, I see one clear principle in the Matthew narrative that I believe is important when seeking ways to minister to refugees—it is the importance of returning to your homeland. Jesus didn’t flee to Egypt, take up residence and live out the rest of His life in Egypt. As soon as the threat of violence was over, He returned to the Land of Israel.

One of the problems we face with the prospect of bringing Syrian refugees to America is that they will likely live out the rest of their lives here. Is it right to take young people—the very health and vitality of a population—and transport them around the world to a place from which they will never return? Would it not be better to put resources into helping refugees flee to countries neighboring Syria, care for them, and then when the danger of ISIS is removed, help them return home where they can live and serve as productive citizens?

From a military perspective, it doesn’t make sense to transport able-bodied young Syrian men and women to the United States while at the same time arguing we should transport able-bodied young American men and women to Syria to fight their war. I try to picture how Americans would respond if the situation was reversed. Based on what we know of American history, I think it would be safe to assume that most Americans would rather stay and fight for their homeland than flee to another country on the other side of the world.

I recently read an article on Medgar Evers, the civil rights champion of the 1960s. The South was not a safe place to be an African-American civil rights worker in the 1960s. Evers lived with the constant threat of violence and even death, and many encouraged him to flee the South until the political environment cooled down. Not long before he was gunned down by Byron De La Beckwith, he was quoted as saying, “I don’t know whether I am going to heaven or to hell, but I’m going from Jackson.” Evers had the courage and the conviction to stay in Mississippi and fight for the rights of others, but he also had something else–a love for his home and a desire to see it become a better place to live.

I find it hard to believe there are not modern-day Syrians who have the “stay and fight” courage and conviction of a Medgar Evers or Mahatma Gandhi. Would the people of Syria not be better served if we created safe zones within neighboring countries to protect the true refugees–the mothers and their children, the old, and the weak–and then train and equip the young men to fight against the evil that has invaded their country?

I can hear someone now charging, “that’s not compassionate.” Is it compassionate to take the very people who will be needed to rebuild a new Syria after this terrible civil war? Is it compassionate to accept a token 10,000 refugees out of the millions of hurting people just so we can feel good and note we “did our part”? No, my friend, true compassion is being willing to help change the radical Islamic paradigm in Syria in order to lay the foundation for a peaceful, prosperous country that is safe for all people to live. Simply transporting the problems to America is not a compassionate solution.–Chris Eller

This Week’s Core Virtue

Hope (Hebrews 6:19-20): I can cope with the hardships of life and with death because of the hope I have in Jesus Christ.

Download This Week’s Issue

Download The Compass for the week of December 20.

What Do Seventh-day Adventists Believe?

The painting above is "The Divine Counselor" by well-known Seventh-day Adventist painter Harry Anderson.

Religion and American politics has always proven to be a complicated mix. Religious conservatives like to quote their heroes of the faith of the last 100 years. President’s like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush seem to lead the pack.

Yet, if one looks at the presidents of the 20th Century, many of those who were known to be devout men of faith were Democrats. Presidents like Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman are prime examples. Within the last generation, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both identified themselves as Southern Baptists during their political careers and time in office.Like many other years, 2016 is shaping up to be another year when religion plays a role in selecting our next president, at least the GOP candidate. It seems to be to be a rite of passage for a candidate to express their faith in no uncertain terms. Even Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon, received the coveted endorsement of Evangelical America's patron saint, Billy Graham.

The Rise of Ben Carson

One candidate that continues to intrigue the GOP electorate is Dr. Ben Carson. The former neurosurgeon is the antithesis of the other standout candidate for 2016, Donald Trump. Where Trump is loud and in your face, Carson is quiet and humble. He is also a Seventh-day Adventist.Most of us can identify the key distinctive of Seventh-day Adventists—they keep the Sabbath on Saturday, hence the label that has come to define the group. Still, labels can be misleading, especially historic labels. Take Southern Baptists, for example; visit most Southern Baptists churches outside of the South and the State of Texas and you will find that they are neither Southern nor Baptist. Most would prefer to identify themselves as “non-denominational.” I digress.For purposes of reference, I started looking into what Seventh-Day Adventists believe and came across this article found within The School of Biblical Evangelism. It provides a good overview of the history, beliefs, and practices of Seventh-day Adventists.

Seventh-day Adventists

By Dr. James BjornstadSeventh-day Adventism originated during the great “Second Advent” wakening of the 19th century. In 1818 William Miller, a Baptist minister, read Daniel 8:14 and predicted Christ’s return in twenty-five years—between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844 (2300 years from 457 b.c.). Later his associates set the date for October 22, 1844. During the following years, from 1844–1847, three groups came together to form Seventh-day Adventism:

• Hiram Edson provided the doctrine of the Sanctuary and Christ’s final ministry in the Holy of Holies (the Investigative Judgment). On October 23, 1844, “Suddenly there burst upon his mind the thought that there were two phases to Christ’s ministry in the Heaven of Heavens, just as in the earthly sanctuary of old. Instead of our high priest coming out of the most holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month at the end of the twenty-three hundred days, He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary, and that He had a work to perform in the most holy before coming to this earth.”
• Joseph Bates provided the doctrine of seventh-day worship, the Sabbath.
• Ellen G. Harmon (White) provided the doctrine of the “Spirit of Prophecy.” Her visions and prophecies brought together the theological notions above to form a unique religious system.

Theology

Seventh-day Adventists are in basic agreement with historic, biblical Christianity in many areas: the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible; the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead (the Fatherhood of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the person and deity of the Holy Spirit); and that man was created in the image of God, but is in a fallen state of sin and in need of redemption. They teach that Jesus Christ was virgin-born; lived a sinless life; was crucified, dead, and buried; and rose bodily from the grave.On the other hand, Seventh-day Adventists also have a number of distinctive doctrines that are not in accord with historic Christianity.

The Role of Ellen G. White

Seventh-day Adventists claim that Ellen G. White “performed the work of a true prophet during the seventy years of her public ministry. As Samuel was a prophet, as Jeremiah was a prophet, as John the Baptist, we believe that Mrs. White was a prophet to the Church of Christ today” (The Advent). The Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual states: “As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.” Mrs. White herself claimed, “When I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God.”However, there are some problems with Mrs. White’s “gift of prophecy.” Walter Rea, in his book The White Lie, documents extensive plagiarism. She was also frequently in error, as she herself admitted.

The Person of Jesus Christ

Seventh-day Adventism differs from historic Christian doctrine in some of its teachings regarding the person of Jesus Christ, such as the following:

• Some early Seventh-day Adventists contended that the Son was not fully equal to the Father, and that the former must have had a beginning in the remote past.
• The name Michael is applied not to a created angel but to the Son of God in His pre-incarnate state.
• When Christ became a man, He took upon Himself human flesh and a human nature, but no human soul as a distinct immaterial substance.

The Sleep of the Soul and the Destruction of the Wicked

In contrast to historic Christian teaching, Seventh-day Adventism holds that the soul represents the whole man and the whole man (the body) remains in the tomb until the resurrection morning. The soul cannot exist apart from the body, and there is no conscious existence after death. The righteous will be resurrected and caught up to meet the Lord at His return; the unrighteous will be resurrected after the millennium and then cast into the lake of fire where they will be annihilated.

The Sabbath and the Mark of the Beast

Seventh-day Adventists teach that the Seventh-day Sabbath (Friday evening until Saturday evening) was instituted by God, and that observance of this day is a test of one’s loyalty to Christ. A counterfeit Sabbath will be proclaimed during the Tribulation period. Those who worship on that day will receive the mark of the beast; those who remain faithful to God will continue to worship on the Sabbath.

The Heavenly Sanctuary, the Investigative Judgment, and the Scapegoat

Once again, we see a contrast to historic Christian doctrine in Seventh-day Adventist teachings:

• Jesus entered into the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 to begin a second phase of His ministry.
• The sins of believers have been transferred to, deposited or recorded in the Heavenly Sanctuary, and are now being dealt with in the Investigative Judgment. Those who have died are examined to determine if they are worthy of being part of the first resurrection. The living are also examined to determine those who are abiding and keeping God’s commandments. When the cases of all the righteous have been decided (the standard being the Ten Commandments), their sins will be blotted out and Jesus will return to this earth in all His glory.
• Azazel (the goat the high priest sent out into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement) designates Satan, and “Satan will ultimately have to bear the retributive punishment for his responsibility in the sins of all men, both righteous and wicked.”

Law, Grace, and Salvation

Finally, we see a difference in doctrine when we examine two perspectives of law, grace, and salvation. On the one hand we see justification by faith alone. Opposed to that we find justification by faith which is demonstrated by obedience to God’s commandments. This view strongly advocates Sabbath-keeping and the Old Testament dietary laws, which is difficult to harmonize with Seventh-day Adventists’ assurance that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works. For example, in Just What Do You Believe About Your Church, Fordyce Detamore wrote:

The best summary of the requirements for salvation is found in the counsel Jesus gave the rich young nobleman (Mt. 19:16–22), “If thou wilt enter into life, (1) keep the commandments … and (2) follow me.” There is no other hope of salvation. By the standard of God’s holy law we shall be judged in the day of reckoning. (pp. 32–34) As long as Isaiah 66:15–17 is in this book, how dare I tell you it doesn’t make any difference whether or not you eat swine’s flesh and other unclean foods?… It would be much easier for me to say, “Go ahead and eat as you please; you needn’t worry about those things anymore.” But God says those who are eating unclean things when He comes will be destroyed. Wouldn’t you rather I put it plainly so that you’ll not be deceived and be destroyed at our Lord’s coming? (pp. 22, 23)

Sharing the Truth with Seventh-day Adventists

Our concern is to be sure that individual Adventists are confronted with the one true gospel. If an Adventist will admit that Mrs. White was fallible, that no record in heaven could possibly bring a believer into condemnation, and that the works of the Law such as Sabbath-keeping are not necessary conditions of salvation, then other things being equal, he should be acknowledged as an evangelical.On the other hand, if the Adventist persists in defending Mrs. White’s infallibility, the Investigative Judgment, and the Old Testament dietary laws, he places himself under the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:10) and is preaching another gospel (Galatians 1:8, 9). In response, to those who believe faith must be demonstrated by obedience to God’s commandments:

1. Stress the biblical teaching that a man is justified by faith in Jesus apart from the deeds of the Law (Romans 3:28; 4:6; Galatians 2:16; 3:10–14).
2. Point out that the Law of Moses (the ceremonial and moral aspects) has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. By His perfect life He met all the requirements of the moral aspect of the Law; by His death He fulfilled all the ceremonial ordinances which prefigured His incarnation and sacrifice (Romans 5:10; Colossians 2:16, 17).
3. The law or commandment that Christians are called upon to follow is the law of love (e.g., Matthew 22:37–40; Romans 13:8–10).

To those who believe the Sabbath is binding on the Christian, you might point out that:

1. Constantine did not, as Adventists claim, change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. He enacted that the first day of the week should be a public holiday, but centuries before Constantine, Christians gathered together for worship on the first day of the week. Reference to worship on the first day of the week can be found in Acts 2:41; 20:6, 7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10, etc. (Also, both the Didache and Ignatius refer to Sunday as the “Lord’s Day” “Kuriake”.)In addition, references to worship on the first day of the week can be found in the writings of the early church fathers: Ignatius (110 a.d.); Justin Martyr (100–165 a.d.); Barnabas (120–150 a.d.); Irenaeus (178 a.d.); Bardaisan (154 a.d.); Tertullian (200 a.d.); Origen (225 a.d.); Cyprian (200–258 a.d.); Peter of Alexandria (300 a.d.); and Eusebius (315 a.d.).
2. There is no indication in the New Testament that the observance of the Sabbath was binding on Gentile believers. On the contrary, we find such words as these: “One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord” (Romans 14:5, 6). “Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to … a Sabbath day” (Colossians 2:16).

Adapted from an article by the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute (www.johnankerberg.org).[1]

---

1. Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, The School of Biblical Evangelism: 101 Lessons: How to Share Your Faith Simply, Effectively, Biblically—the Way Jesus Did (Gainesville, FL: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 2004), 630–635.  ↩

Satan's Fishing Hole

How to Backup Your Twitter Stream

Our twitter stream provides a unique insight into what’s happening in life. For some, their twitter stream is filled with minute details like the fact that you are having your first cup of coffee for the day (Breakfast Blend) and that the temperature outside is 22 degrees. For others, it proves to be a log of your reading trends and interesting facts that come across your information stream.

I fall into the last category.

This morning the idea hit me that I should find a way to archive my twitter stream and post it on my website. Not that it will be of any great significance in years to come, but it may prove interesting.

After some quick searches, I landed on TweetBackup.com. It couldn’t be easier to begin. Simply enter your twitter account credentials and in a few minutes you have a complete backup of every tweet you have sent. In my case, my first tweet was on May 29, 2008. Interesting. Like all similar services, TweetBackup is limited to 3200 tweets, which is the maximum number allowed by Twitter’s API.

Here are a couple of things I wish I could do with my twitter stream that I haven’t found a way to accomplish (yet):

1. I wish I could automatically update my archive page with the latest tweets using an RSS feed or something similar.
2. I wish TweetBackup had an easy way to archive hashtags. It may be possible, but I haven’t found a way, yet.

How about you? Do you archive your twitter stream? Is it available on your website? 

Good-bye SugarSync, Hello Dropbox

I am a long-time SugarSync user. Prior to my complete switch to Mac OS at home and work in late 2011, I relied exclusively on SugarSync for a couple of reasons:

1. Dollar-for-dollar, SugarSync provides more storage than Dropbox. I subscribed to the $9.99 / month plan and received 60 GB of space. Dropbox only provides 50 GB of space for the same money.
2. Prior to my complete switch to Apple products, I used a Mac at home, a Windows PC at work, an iPad and an Android phone. Early in the game, SugarSync simply played better in a multi platform environment.

In early April, we made the switch to iPhones at work, and this completed my transformation to an Apple environment. Now I use Macs at home and at work, an iPad, and an iPhone. At the risk of gushing, it is wonderful. :)

As I’ve learned more about the iPhone and about some of the cool apps that really make iOS the awesome operating system that it is (e.g. Instacast, TextExpander, 1Password, and Byword) I’ve also learned that iOS apps strongly favor Dropbox as the preferred method of syncing between devices. Yes, SugarSync provides an iOS app, but many of the in-app sync preferences only support Dropbox. Even support for Apple’s own iCloud falls far short of support for Dropbox.

So, I am in the process of transferring my files out of SugarSync and into Dropbox. Uploading over 40 GBs of data will take some time, so it will likely be a multi-day transition.

The question that begs to be asked is why not iCloud? Simple: even though iCloud has been released, it is still very early in its development, and there has not been a broad embrace of iCloud yet within the developer community. I believe iCloud will be a true contender in the cloud/sync arena by early- to mid-2013. Right now, however, iCloud is not ready for prime time.

How about you? Have you made the transitioned away from Dropbox to iCloud?