Someone emailed the following:
Discussions of white racism. You call for unity, yet insist on segregating yourselves from “white” people. Get over it! Jesus didn’t segregate, and neither should you.
I assume this is in response to this balanced post
The Burnt Offering provides many lessons for our perusal. First of all, the burnt offering was a voluntary offering. (Leviticus 1:3) It was not necessarily done in response to sin, although it could be added to the sin or trespass offering. It was something that demonstrates complete consecration. The whole of the offering was consumed. Interestingly enough the sacrifice was washed in water and set in order on the alter before it was consumed.
Sacrifice was an important component of the Ancient Hebrew System. It was through that symbol that the people gained a glimpse at the great cost to the well being of the community that sin played. Sin hurt the one who is sinned against. Sin hurt everyone connected to that one sinned against. Sin hurt the community. In addition, sin hurt the sacrifice. Sin presumably hurt the sinner who felt the pain of killing the sacrifice and making amends to the one sinned against.
In a very interesting move, the Allegheny West Conference has elected Pastor Frederick Russell to become its next president. What is interesting to me is that this happens during the discussion in the Adventist world over the existence of so called “regional conferences.”
Russell has written an article that calls for the removal of the separated conferences in America. His plan, which looks like one of the plans presented in the General Conference document that we blogged on two years ago and can be found at this link, calls for the abolishment of both the local conference and the union conference levels and then create a new entity that is larger than a local conference, but smaller than a union conference.
In contrast, Dr. Calvin Rock disagrees with Russel. You can find his compelling piece at this link.
I think when we talk about the Black and White conferences we need to keep a few things in mind. First and foremost many of our brothers and sisters of other denominational traditions are being hypocritical when they condemn us for having black and white conferences. We must keep in mind that many of their denominations may not have black and white conferences, the reason being is because they have white and black Denominations. The Methodists split along the color line and so did the Baptists. Certainly today we see some black churches in predominantly white denominations, and a few in the other direction, but I have heard to many Adventists doing hand wringing when a baptist asks about Black conferences when we can at least say we didn’t split the denomination itself.
Another important point to keep in mind, Black people cannot bear the brunt for the reason for their existence. I sometimes hear black and white brothers and sisters blaming black people for the existence of “Black conferences.” Their existence was due to white racism totally. This was not created by so called black racism, but white racism plain and simple. If we ever do away with them, we must recognize this and state it, if we don’t it will demonstrate their need. A new way this is argued is to say “we don’t’ have white conferences we have black conferences and integrated conferences.” This is attempting to sweep it all under the rug and blame black people for its current existence.
Also, The real need for structural renewal cannot be used to sweep away the Black conferences without us fully dealing with why we created them in the first place.
Is it time to get rid of the Black conferences? I don’t know, but I tend to doubt it. Is it time to get together and figure out when that time would be? Well it is way past time for that determination. We pray that Frederick Russell can begin that conversation in his new role.
Chapter 3 of M. L. Andreasen’s book The Sanctuary Service provides a look at the priesthood in the early Jewish tabernacle services. In that chapter, Andreasen provides three prominent features of the work of the priesthood.
The first of these features is mediation. The priesthood interceded for the sinner. The sinner must slay the animal, but the sinner could not place the blood on the horns of the alter of burnt offering or pour it out at the base of the same alter. The sinner could not go into the holy place and do the work there. The sinner needed someone to do something for the sinner in the Most Holy Place once a year. The sinner needed someone to mediate.
The lesson taught to Israel was that one would come who would intercede for humanity. That one would stand between humanity and the broken law and ultimately bring peace.
The next feature is reconciliation. The sinner has had some distance placed between the sinner and God. However reconciliation was offered to Israel through the work of the priesthood. An atonement for forgiveness was offered to Israel every time they offered a sacrifice. (Leviticus 4:13, 20). Something about that work of the priesthood brought the gift of reconciliation to humanity.
The work of the priesthood also brought sanctification to humanity. We are able to be cleansed as a result of the work of the priesthood. Humanity may have sinned and been separated, but God is faithful and just to forgive and cleanse from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9).
Especially shown in the work of the day of atonement, the priesthood (High Priest) brought cleansing to the sinner as well as the tabernacle itself.
The priesthood brought to Israel mediation, reconciliation, and sanctification. Today our great High Priest in heaven seeks to provide these benefits to us in his great work for the salvation of humanity.
M. L. Andreasen in his very helpful work The Sanctuary Service discusses two primary lessons that the sacrificial system impressed on the mind of the petitioner. The first lesson is Sin Means Death. We are told this explicitly in Romans 6:23 that the wages of sin is simply death. When we sin we are simply buying death, we are setting in motion a death cycle in our lives. We are simply setting ourselves up for future and sometimes present difficulties. The sacrificial system taught the petitioner clearly that sin means death.
The next thing that Andreasen notes is that sacrificial system taught is that forgiveness of sin requires confession and ministration of blood. Sin requires death, to be saved from sin requires the death of the sacrifice as well as confession of sin.
These two primary lessons were taught to those who offered a sacrifice in the typical service. Sometimes preachers note how difficult it was for those who lived under the Typical system. They “had” to bring a lamb, kill it, etc. Often preachers are attempting to describe the great difference between then and now where we presumably don’t have to do any of these things, however, the system lets us know that while we don’t kill a lamb, we kill the Lamb of God. While we don’t go to Jerusalem, we do by faith go to the heavenly tabernacle where Christ ministers. We can never let the “ease” of our forgiveness hide from us the great cost of our salvation to the Son of God.
Website Comments