Archive for the ‘Good News for Adventists Magazines’ Category

When God created space, time began, for time and space are inseparable. If there is space there is time, for the year and its divisions is measured by the Earth’s revolution around the Sun and the day and its divisions is measured by Earth’s rotation on its axis
When Should the Day Start?
But when does the day start? This is a matter that calendar reform would also consider. Should the day start at sunrise, midnight or sunset?
If there is to be uniformity midnight is the only time that is common to people living in the same time zone. Outside of Daylight Saving Time, midnight in Hobart is exactly the same time as midnight in Cairns, but there is a considerable difference between their sunrise and sunset times. To have the day starting at sunrise or sunset would create even greater confusion than we have at the present time and that could hardly be put in the category of ‘reform.’

Common Dating System
The current dating system, B.C. & A.D., was devised by Dionysius Exiguus in 525 A.D. and adapted by Bede (673 – 735). This dating system became common in Europe between the 11th and 14th centuries A.D.
B.C. stands for Before Christ. A.D. (anno domini which is Latin for ‘In the Year of Our Lord’) dates from the traditionally reckoned year of the birth of Christ, though it is now known that Christ was born at least four years before A.D. 1 (A.D. does not mean After Death, for if it did Christ’s death would have occurred at his birth.)
Due to the fact that the world is now largely non-Christian it is becoming more common to replace B.C. with B.C.E. (Before the Common Era), and A.D. with C.E. (Common Era).
Whether this would be a matter to be considered by calendar revisionists, only time will tell.

The Date of Easter
Easter, quite unlike any other religious holiday, is not celebrated on a fixed date each year. Easter is always celebrated on the Sunday immediately following the first full moon after March 20. This means that Easter Sunday—the day that celebrates the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ—can fall anywhere between March 22 and April 25.
The last time Easter was observed on March 22, the earliest possible date, was in 1818 and it will not happen again until 2285. The last time Easter fell on April 25, the latest possible date, was in 1943. It will happen again in 2038.
The resurrection of Jesus was initially celebrated on the Jewish date of 14 Nissan—the date of Passover, regardless of what day of the week it fell on. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, considered to be the spiritual successor of the apostle John, said John always celebrated the resurrection of Jesus on 14 Nissan, because Jesus rose from the dead on 14 Nissan. On the other hand, Anicetus, bishop of Rome, was of the opinion that Jesus’ resurrection should always be celebrated on a Sunday, because Jesus rose on Sunday.
While Polycarp and Anicetus did not see eye to eye on this matter, they chose not to argue about it. Others after them, however, made it a matter of heated dispute. The issue was ultimately settled by the Nicene Council which decreed that Jesus’ resurrection should be observed on a Sunday; hence the roving date for Easter.
If the Gregorian Calendar were reformed, it seems, from discussions that have already taken place, that religious authorities would not look unfavourably upon the proposal to make Easter a fixed date from Friday to Sunday.

Two organisations, the International Fixed Calendar League and The World Calendar Association, aggressively promoted their version of calendar reform in the first half of the 20th Century. The International Fixed Calendar League favoured a thirteen equal-month, blank-day calendar, while The World Calendar Association promoted the twelve month equal-quarter blank-day plan.
The World Calendar
The World Calendar Association (TWCA) was founded by Elizabeth Achelis of Brooklyn, New York, in 1930. She presented her reformed calendar to the League of Nations where it gained considerable support. The following year she started the Journal of Calendar Reform, which was published for twenty-five years.
The Achelis World Calendar is a perennial calendar with equal quarters of ninety-one days, each of which begins with a Sunday and ends with a Saturday. The three months of each quarter have thirty-one, thirty and thirty days respectively. The first month of each quarter always begins with Sunday 1st; the second month of each quarter always begins with Wednesday 1st, and the last month of each quarter always begins with Friday 1st.
The World Calendar also has two off-calendar days known as Worldsday, which is listed as 31st December, and Leapyear Day, which is listed as 31st June. Both days are blank days, that is, they fall between a Saturday and a Sunday on the World Calendar.
To view a graphical presentation of the World Calendar go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World Calendar on the web.
After the Second World War, Achelis presented her World Calendar to the United Nations, but because of pressure from Sabbath-observing people in the United States, the US delayed universal adoption in 1955 by withholding support ‘unless such a reform were favoured by a substantial majority of the citizens of the United States acting through their representatives in the Congress of the United States.’ When Achelis failed to get the support of ‘a substantial majority of the citizens of the United States’ the work of calendar reform received a deadly wound. However, The World Calendar Association, International, which sponsors the Achelis World calendar, has now chosen 2012 as the new date to get its calendar adopted and its wound healed.

The Leapweek Calendars
Is there an acceptable alternative calendar to the thirteen equal-month blank-day calendar and the Achelis twelve month equal-quarter blank-day calendar?
One year before the Geneva Conference, James A. Colligan produced his Pax Calendar which avoided blank days by adding a seven-day leap week to the perpetual 364 day year for seventy-one of every four hundred years. The attractiveness of Colligan’s revision was that it preserved the perpetuity of the seven day week, and therefore would not disrupt the worship of those who observed the seventh-day Sabbath.
Colligan calculated that years ending in 00 would have Pax, unless the year was divisible by 400. Colligan’s reformed calendar had a year of thirteen months, each month having twenty-eight days.
While Colligan’s calendar has the major advantage of preserving the perpetuity of the seven day week, and while every month is exactly the same, thirteen months are not easily divided into halves and quarters for statistical purposes. Also, having thirteen months, rather than twelve in the year, could mean greater costs in monthly charges for such things as electricity, payment of wages and rents, etc.
A similar calendar revision was proposed by Professor Cecil L. Woods of California, who at one time spent six years in China as a Seventh-day Adventist missionary. Woods proposed a Jubilee Calendar in which seventy-one intercalary weeks are inserted in the calendar within a period of 400 years, as follows:
A ‘Jubilee Week’ would be inserted between the last day of December and the first day of January at the beginning of years that are divisible by five, except those ending in 25 or 75 or divisible by 400. The first day of the Jubilee week would be called 1 Jubilee, the second, 2 Jubilee, and so on. This Jubilee week was not to be considered as a part of any year, but would exist outside the year.
The supporters of the Achelis World Calendar hotly oppose Leapyear calendars on the basis that they disregard the annual seasons. But people who live in countries where, on a regular basis, the natural seasons often vary by much more than a week, would not consider this argument to have much weight. And when some Australian farmers wait years for seasonal rains, it seems a mere quibble to complain that the calendar may not match the seasons by as much as five or six days.
Furthermore, the businesses of most people in the world are not dependant upon seasonal changes to any great degree these days. Most people live and work indoors and seasonal fruits and vegetables are shipped from one hemisphere to the other. Besides, those whose livelihoods do depend upon the seasons would be able to make a simple adjustment. The dislocation created by a leapyear is a small and insignificant sacrifice compared to the dislocation of the Sabbath for millions of worshippers worldwide.

The Anti-religious Opposition
The final issue of the Journal of Calendar Reform, criticising Woods’ proposal for a Jubilee Week, said, ‘We have here a striking example how far Orthodox groups will go in order to maintain their own particular traditional idea. Self-interest blinds them to the far greater and wider concept of the calendar. They do not understand its universality. They do not realise that the civil calendar belongs alike to Catholic and Protestant Christian, to Jew and Seventh-Day Adventist, to Moslem and Hindu. The World Calendar is actually a universal system of Time in arrangement, purpose, scope and usage.’i
It is difficult to understand the Journal’s argument where it claims Orthodox groups do not understand the universality of the calendar, because no calendar that disenfranchises millions of Sabbath observers around the world could justifiably claim to be ‘universal’ in its benefits to mankind.
As stated earlier, The World Calendar Association International, has resumed efforts towards having The World Calendar with its blank days, adopted by 2012. Will future calendar reform be responsible for the consummative fulfilment of Daniel 7:25, where it says of the Antichrist: ‘He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law …’ (NASB)? We don’t know. We do know, however, that future calendar reform is inevitable, and should a reformed calendar be introduced with blank days, so that Sabbath observers were faced with a Sabbath that came in the middle of the working week, it would create a great shaking time in the Church, and a serious time of trouble for the faithful.
On such a day would people be so committed to maintaining the sign of their New Covenant relationship with the Lord that they would close their businesses, refuse to go to work and keep their children out of school? What would you do?

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, A. W. The Proposed New Calendar: Will it Bring Peace or Confusion? Warburton, Australia: Signs Publishing Company, n.d.
Haynes, Carlyle B. World Calendar verses World Religion. Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Publishing Association, 1948.
Haynes, Carlyle B. Calendar Change Threatens Religion. Washington 12, D.C.: Religious Liberty Association, n.d.
Journal of Calendar Reform, December 1955 – January 1956.
Nichol, Francis D. The Story of a Lost Day. Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1930.
Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World Calendar

Endnote:
Journal of Calendar Reform, (December 1955 – January 1956), p. 189.

A similar calendar revision was proposed by Professor Cecil L. Woods of California, who at one time spent six years in China as a Seventh-day Adventist missionary. Woods proposed a Jubilee Calendar in which seventy-one intercalary weeks are inserted in the calendar within a period of 400 years …

I lie in bed but cannot sleep.
Dawn breaks inevitably
and the unbearable memories of yesterday linger,
haunting me, mocking me, clawing at my skin.
I cannot escape.
When I sit down my head drops into my belly.
When I stand up my innards sink into my shoes.
I am hollow, drained and lifeless.
No one can cure me.

I feel like a gutted shell,
abandoned by the high tide
and smothered with sand.
No one will rescue me.

Wherever I turn for help the door is locked.
Some listen through the keyhole.
They have no answers.
My questions are insoluble.
I am drowning in drugs
and cannot rise into the fresh air.
My mind has seeped away.
I feel desperate, numb like a zombie.
No one offers hope.

What I have dreamed of
others have dashed.
What I have built
others have torn down.
I am overcome with shame.
My friends are preoccupied.
I am alone, so alone.
No one will miss me.

Trapped in darkness
I see one speck of light
that promises paradise
and freedom from my dreadful pain.
I rush toward it,
eager to grasp it early.
I leap and lunge expectantly
into the void.
It is my only chan . . . .

Suicide is common but perplexing. We are deeply distressed when confronted with the news that someone close to us has committed suicide. But its morality is viewed variously. Some in our society encourage euthanasia, recommending kits to cause a painless death for extreme cases. This position is to the left of those who regard suicide as morally neutral.
On the other hand, among the rightists are those who condemn suicide as reprehensible, even tagging it as self-murder and deserving eternal damnation. There is no compassion in this polemical perspective. It assumes the mantle of God, who alone can judge blame and worthiness.
Scripture does not venture a judgement on suicide. It records at least seven specific examples, all by people, who, apparently, were quite rational to the last. The cases of Abimelech (Judges 9), Ahithophel (2 Samuel 17) and Saul and his armour-bearer (1 Samuel 31) are instances of death to save honour. Zimri did it to cowardly escape the inevitable punishment for regicide (1 Kings 16).
Curiously, the story of Samson’s suicide has all the elements of heroism, raw revenge, mass murder and national pride. Pacifists recoil in horror because of the bloodshed. They wonder why the enemies of Israel could not have been destroyed by some other means other than the human hand. And many will wonder why Samson, deliberately murdering hundreds of fellow humans at the time of his suicide, should be found listed among the faithful (Hebrews 11).
If Matthew’s account of Judas Iscariot’s death is to be preferred over Luke’s version (Acts 1) then we must conclude Judas committed suicide, rather than accidentally tripping and fatally wounding himself.1 Matthew’s account clearly portrays Judas as deeply remorseful, making a public confession and returning the silver. Would that attract God’s forgiveness? Scripture does not provide the answer regarding his eternal destiny.
This author neither advocates nor condemns suicide. None of us live in Utopia. We are trapped in the realities of stress-ridden and sometimes hellish quarters. And some have a chemical predisposition to fragile mental health. At this point in time God has not seen fit to radically change our living conditions. It is unreasonable to assume that God would therefore condemn someone, because they have been unable to cope with the current circumstances.
Double Jeopardy is a game that tramples on the laws of natural justice. It is unimaginable that God, as reflected in Jesus Christ, would deal such a diabolical hand, leaving us in a sinful environment and at the same time sending to eternal oblivion, those who found the personal suffering intolerable.
Everyone, however, needs to realise it is wise to guard our mental health. It is well known that people with hormonal imbalances may find some medical relief. It is also agreed that those overcome with stress will cope better with the free natural remedies—sunshine, fresh air and exercise. It is sound advice to breath deeply, meditate quietly, pray often, walk the beaches, tramp the woods, join a club, keep a diary and regularly help someone who is more disadvantaged. Jesus practised some of these strategies. And a friend who keeps confidences is worth millions. Christian medical and psychiatric professionals may offer additional approaches that can prove helpful.
Having tried avenues of healing, there will always be some who are overwhelmed by the magnitude of their distress. We are not in a position to condemn them. It is a profound comfort to know we all have a Judge possessing incomparable compassion.

Endnote: 1. [It is possible that the word ‘hanged’ in Matthew 27:5 may refer to the hanging which involved impaling, as it did in Esther 2:23. If it does, this would explain why Judas was disembowelled (Acts 1:18). —Ed.].

I have just finished reading a little book by John Stott entitled, The Authentic Jesus. To be authentic requires openness—nothing hidden, freedom from hypocrisy, no pretence about yourself or a given situation. Jesus was a very transparent person. As a consequence, he set people free to discover the truth for themselves and about any problem situation.
Stott begins the conclusion to his book with the following insightful statement:
‘I have almost finished what I have felt impelled to write. Some readers may consider that I have been unnecessarily controversial. For nowadays all kinds of controversy are distasteful, and none more so than religious controversy. Yet to shrink from it is characteristic of the age of uncertainty in which we are living, not of Jesus Christ and his apostles; they contended vigorously for what they believed to be the truth. It is not conducive to the health of the Church to sweep our differences under the carpet or to pretend that all is sweetness and light when it is not. Nor are these subterfuges consistent with Christian integrity. It is more healthy and more honest to bring our disagreements out into the open. This necessitates being outspoken, without ever needing to be rude.’1
Obviously, Stott is calling for change, and if we apply it to our church, where does change take place? When it has been put into effect at a high level it may not have begun there. People in positions of authority need to know when there is dissatisfaction with the status quo. And ordinary members need to know that change is not always apostasy. We do not expect things to be swept under the carpet, but if there is some truth in what is brought to the notice of the leaders, it should be seriously discussed and passed on to honest open-minded scholars, and then, if found to be in harmony with Scripture, to be put into effect.
I am directing this essay to those in positions of leadership, for in my church there is a tendency—if not, a policy—to keep certain things under wraps, to not reveal any truth that would unsettle the members of the church lest things get out of control.
I know of at least one intelligent member who is crying out to be informed. Her comment was, ‘Why do they treat us like children?’ An attitude of protection gives the impression that members are incapable of handling any situation that may disturb their equilibrium. If growth comes with trauma, we should not be afraid of trauma.
On one occasion I expressed the truth that whenever the phrase ‘they that dwell on the earth’ appears in Revelation, it refers to the unconverted, not to God’s people. This is the accepted interpretation of most evangelical theologians. This being the case, the judgement hour of Revelation 14:7 is about the judgement of the unconverted and not the judgement of God’s people. The one in charge responded, ‘You would never preach that, would you?’ But what is the alternative? Let people go on believing a false interpretation. Truth requires openness and our times demands it.
Someday the question will be asked, ‘Why did you not tell us these things?’ The unsatisfactory answer may be given, ‘Well, we tried to protect you because we didn’t want to disturb you. That was our pastoral responsibility.’ But is it really a pastoral responsibility to shield church members from the truth, to allow them to continue believing in a falsehood? Defensiveness in that situation is resistance to the Spirit of truth.
There was no hush, hush for David after his affair with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband. People may be shocked with such revelations, but while the truth may hurt, it is to be revealed rather than covered up. Proverbs 28:13 makes it clear that ‘He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.’ And of even greater force are the words of Jesus, ‘So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that shall not be disclosed, or hidden that shall not be made known’ (Matt. 10:26).
Do you remember that Desmond Ford was accused of pastoral irresponsibility? It was also pointed out that he was a man of integrity—‘true to duty as the needle to the pole.’ He brought his understanding to the highest authority in the Adventist Church. But at Glacier View the brethren were not allowed to use the Bible when discussing a theological position, but simply to discover whether proposals were in harmony with positions already taken and stated in what is known as ‘Fundamentals.’ Most scholars sided with Ford to the dismay of administrators, and some registered their protest at his treatment. After all it was his denomination that sent him to do his degrees. Should they not bear some responsibility if his conclusions differed from the accepted norm? Again, do we not believe that the goal of true education is to ‘teach men to be thinkers and not imitators of other men’s thoughts’? No one can control the thoughts of another person, particularly when that person has the welfare of the Church at heart.
A further question arises: Is it right that the recorded notes of the Glacier View Conference were not made public, simply because what some administrators said did not look good? If that question is not answered by revealing what was said, then suspicion is aroused instead of trust.
To conclude this brief discussion, let me ask, Is it the responsibility of people in positions of administration to determine what is truth? If not, then they are responsible to work together with anyone who believes that he has truth to share, to humble their hearts and pray that the Spirit of Truth will prepare people to receive what is agreed to be truth. Disturbances will come. In this age it is impossible to hide ideas. Truth needs to be revealed to members by those in a position of leadership. It still may disturb, but it will also develop trust. It will say to our people, ‘We may have considered you immature in the past, but that time has passed. Light has been shining and we must change and grow with it.’ Then pastors will be trusted to deal with any ensuing problems at the local church level. But they must be prepared beforehand. After all, the Holy Spirit is the ‘Spirit of Truth’ and he will reveal it to those who are prepared, and this is a time to prepare people to receive truth even if it disturbs, instead of lulling them into a sense of false security.
Endnote:
1. John Stott, The Authentic Jesus, (Marshall , Morgan & Scott, London, 1985), p.85.

Among the ancients, time was measured by the length of the day and by seasons. Calendars were initially created to help people keep trace of the seasons for the purpose of planting and harvesting.1 In those times, seasons had a far greater impact on people’s lives and everything they did than they do today.
Wise men in great civilisations, such as Egypt and Babylon, studied the heavens to improve their measurement of time so they could more accurately predict the seasons and their annual rotations. As civilisations developed, calendars became useful for other matters as well, such as marking religious holidays, taxation and census dates, government works programmes and the accurate recording of history, etc.
However, it was not possible to produce a simple annual calendar that was absolutely accurate, simply because an accurate solar year is anything but simple. A full solar year is precisely 365.2425 days long, but how do you incorporate 1.2425 days in a simple annual calendar?
There have been several attempts in the distant past, by a number of nations, to produce a workable calendar that was consistently accurate. The calendar that we have now traces its origin back, before Christ, to the time of Julius Caesar.

The Julian Calendar
Because of problems with the old Roman Lunar Calendar, Sosigenes, a Greek astronomer who lived in Alexandria, was asked to create a better one. He produced a solar calendar of 365.25 days per year, which became known as the Julian Calendar, after Julius Caesar. Sosigenes was aware of the fact that his year was fractionally longer than the solar year, but knew that this wouldn’t become a problem for a long, long time. As anticipated, the Julian Calendar remained unchanged for 1,600 years, but the time came when another adjustment was necessary. The Julian Calendar lengthened each year incrementally, thus adding another day to the year every 134 years, so that by 1582 the calendar was out of kilter with the seasons by ten days.

The Gregorian Calendar
On the recommendation of the wisest men in the papal court, Pope Gregory XIII commissioned a correction.2 The revised Julian Calendar, now called the Gregorian Calendar, omitted ten days following October 4, 1582. What would have become Friday, October 5, became Friday, October 15. The order of the days of the week remained the same; the only thing that changed with this correction was the date.
In addition, instead of adding a day every four years, it was provided that February should have its twenty-ninth day only in those centesimal years exactly divisible by four hundred, and in all other years divisible by four. Although the Gregorian Calendar is still not one hundred percent accurate, it is as nearly correct as it could be for a thousand-year period.

What’s Wrong with the Gregorian Calendar?
In the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries there was agitation by calendar reformers for a further revision of the calendar because of the following problems with it:
1. It is not perpetual. Next year’s calendar will be different from this year’s and each year starts on a different day of the week. In fact, it will be four hundred years before the calendar will again be the same as our calendar this year.
2. It is difficult to determine the weekday of any given day of the month. For example, do you know on what day of the week your birthday will fall in 2012?
3. Months vary in length and are irregularly distributed throughout the year. This year February had twenty-eight days; March, thirty-one and April, thirty. To remember how long each month is we use the mnemonic, ‘Thirty days hath September, April, June and November,’ etc.
4. Months are irregular in that they sometimes have four Mondays, Tuesdays or Wednesdays, etc. and sometimes five.
5. The calendar is inconsistent, because one year a public holiday may fall in the middle of the working week, but the very next year it may fall at the end of the working week, or even in the weekend.

The Calendar Reform Movement
Endeavours to reform the Gregorian Calendar go back to 1745 when ‘Hirossa-ap-Iccum’ of Maryland published a thirteen month calendar, having exactly four weeks in each month. This calendar was popularised by the French philosopher, Auguste Comte (1798-1857) in one of his works.
In 1834 Abbé Marco Mastrofini, a mathematician and astronomer, proposed a year of 364 days, with the 365th annual day, and the 366th Leap Year day, as extra days outside the seven day week. In other words, the 365th and 366th days of the year, while being within the year, would not be counted as one of the seven days of the week, that is, neither of these days would be a Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday; they would be ‘blanc’ days.
In 1859, an Englishman, Moses B. Cotsworth, a statistician, produced a Reform Calendar, consisting of thirteen months of twenty-eight days each (=364 days). He chose twenty-eight days as the length of the month because they constitute exactly four weeks. Every month and week would begin with Sunday, and end with Saturday. Regardless of the month, Sunday would always be on the 1st, 8th, 15th and 22nd, and Saturday would always be on the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th. Wednesdays, similarly, would always fall on the 4th, 11th, 18th and 25th.
Cotsworth’s ‘Perpetual International Calendar’ would not only make every month the same, but every year the same. The problem, however, that all calendar reformers had to grapple with, was, what were they to do with the 365th day of the year, and Leap Year day when it occurred? Neither of these days could be incorporated within Cotsworth’s calendar without destroying its ‘clinical’ order. His solution was to exclude these days from his perpetual calendar by making them blank days, that is, days that had a date (29th) but which would exist outside of the seven day week.
In Cotsworth’s thirteen-month calendar the blank day would follow the last Saturday of a month, but would not be a Sunday. Instead, the day after the blank day would be Sunday. This meant that the following Friday would be the seventh day from the last Saturday. And in a Leap Year, the seventh day from the last Saturday would be a Thursday. You can well imagine the justifiable consternation among Jews and Sabbatarian Christians if such a proposal were adopted. Cotsworth, who migrated to the United States, received the first endorsement for his Reform Calendar from the Canadian Royal Society in 1909. He then promoted his calendar through the International Fixed Calendar League, after which he got strong financial and moral backing from George Eastman, the millionaire Kodak camera manufacturer.

Official Moves to Reform Calendar
In 1922 the International Astronomical Union voted that some revision of the Gregorian Calendar would be desirable. About that same time the International Chamber of Commerce voted that the League of Nations be requested to appoint a special committee to study the possibility of reforming the calendar.
The following year the League of Nations set up a committee to study the whole subject of calendar revision. This special committee on calendar reform invited Moses Cotsworth to come to Europe to give them the benefit of his technical knowledge. Three years later, in 1926, the committee reported back to the League of Nations. It stated that of the one hundred and eighty-five calendar proposals that had been submitted to it, three were worthy of consideration.
While we haven’t been able to discover what the three finalists were, two probables would have been the thirteen equal month blank day calendar and the twelve month equal quarters blank day calendar. The third possible choice may have been the leap-week calendar.
The League of Nations recommended that each nation be asked to appoint a national committee on calendar simplification, and that the citizens of each country be canvassed to ascertain how they would be affected by any change in the reckoning of time. Once this was done, an International Conference would be called, at which time the final form of new calendar for the whole world would be adopted. This International Conference ‘was held in Geneva, 12 October 1931, and lasted a week.’3
One hundred and eleven delegates from forty-two nations attended the October meeting. There was a strong desire to reform the calendar, but in the end, the Conference chose to take no action with reference to such a revision for three reasons:
(a) There was a lack of agreement among calendar revisionists as to which revised calendar would be best.
(b) There was great political unrest among the nations at the time, which would militate against a revised calendar being adopted worldwide.
(c) There was intense opposition from religious groups who foresaw the perpetual seven day week being trampled underfoot by calendar revisions that incorporated blank days.

Endnotes:
1. The Bible teaches that the lights in the sky (the sun and moon) were to ‘mark seasons and days and years’ (Gen. 1:14).
2. Most of the work on this revision had been done earlier by Luigi Giglio, a lecturer at the University of Perugia.
3. Lewis S. Palen, ‘The Clock of the Centuries’ Journal of Calendar Reform, (December 1955 – January 1956), p.227.

Time is an elusive dimension. Back before the invention of the steam engine each English village and city set its own clocks by the rising of the sun, but when these towns were connected by the railway it was necessary for them to have a common time, without which a reliable railway timetable would have been impossible.
Later, intercontinental travel revealed an even greater problem with keeping time. As Jules Vern’s novel, Around the World in Eighty Days revealed, it is possible to gain or lose a whole day depending on which way you travel around the world. I had the experience of getting aboard an aircraft at Heathrow in England for a flight to Hong Kong. We turned the lights out and pulled the shades down about 10.00pm, slept eight hours and woke up at 2.00pm the next day. In the process of our journey eight hours had been deducted from our day.
Every few years the day is lengthened by a second because the Earth is slowing down. Twenty-two leap seconds have been added since 1972. Three factors are slowing earth’s spin, the tidal forces due to the moon’s gravitational pull; the inertial effects of earth’s liquid core sloshing around and the cycle of evaporation, in which water at the equator gets deposited at the poles as ice, but which melts and returns to the equator.
The problem with adding a leap second every now and then, to maintain synchronization between our clocks and the earth’s rotation, is that Global Positioning Systems do not adjust for leap seconds, causing the clocks in some GPS receivers to malfunction. This problem is caused by the fact that the clocks on earth stop briefly, but the GPS satellite clocks don’t. In addition, the leap second that is taken out of time at midnight in Greenwich in England, occurs in the middle of the day in New Zealand and Australia.
The big problem, however, is not the leap second, or even the leap year, but the fact that our year is so frustratingly irregular. Wouldn’t it be just perfect if the year was exactly three hundred and sixty-four days long, giving us four quarters of exactly ninety-one days each. Then every quarter could have two months of thirty days and one of thirty-one. Furthermore, every month could start on the same day every year and every birthday and holiday would also be on the same day every year. That would be a boon for accountants and analysts who compare one quarter’s operations with another.
There was a time, not too long ago, when there was a world-wide movement to get a calendar of four equal quarters accepted by the nations of the world. That movement was ingenious, except for one critical factor, it disrupted the previously unbroken cycle of the week. Under this new calendar the last Saturday of the year would be eight days away from the first Saturday the following year, or nine days away in a leap year. Among those who regard the seventh day of the week as a sign of their New Covenant relationship with their Lord and Saviour, such a change would be extremely distressing and unacceptable.
While calendar reform has not yet happened, in the light of Daniel’s prophecy that a person or power would arise seeking ‘to change the set times and the laws’ (7:25), I thought it wise to acquaint our readers with the work of the Calendar Reform Movement in the past, so that we will be better prepared should people seek to reform the calendar in the near future, which is what they are planning to do.

—Ritchie Way.

Church Accountability: Seven Cautionary Narratives
Mid-June 2008, a newly published 379-page book arrived in my mailbox on the east coast of Australia. Who was willing, I wondered, to pay $15.00 to airmail this volume from the United States to the Antipodes? Immediately, the title arrested my attention: Who Watches? Who Cares? Misadventures in Stewardship. On the back cover, a three-part blurb summarized the contents: ‘Religion/Seventh-day Adventist/Finance.’
As an historian, my special interest is in the history-of-ideas as applied to religion in general and Adventism in particular. Having studied and worked in the North American and South Pacific divisions, I watch closely and care deeply about my world church. Instantly, I questioned the assertion on the back of the soft cover: ‘The greatest need of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is for well-informed members to give liberally, not only of their tithes and offerings, but of their very best judgement—as church board members, as constituency meeting delegates, as local and union conference committee members and as institutional trustees.’ Without question, that sentence articulates a great need. But the greatest need? A bold claim indeed! I was about to read a new, important, doctoral dissertation. Unwillingly, at first, I laid that task aside: to read Who Cares and assess its evidence.
The book is a very good read, mostly narrative history brightened by precise language and penetrating insights. In sharp focus are institutions and personalities from the remembered past—Fuller Memorial Hospital; Donald J. Davenport; M.D. Harris Pine Mills; Family Enrichment Resources; Shady Grove Adventist Hospital; Robert S. Folkenberg; Boston Regional Medical Center. At least some of the key names will evoke memories for most Adventists of long standing. Most of the major outcomes were known to me. But, as I read the scintillating text, I realised that I was unaware of rich details within each of the seven cautionary tales, and, even more particularly, disclosed in the copious (1,184) endnotes.
Who Watches delivers a startling message: not nearly enough Adventists watch closely. Our church is big business, very big business. Excellent pastors may be disastrous executives. Wise spiritual leaders may fail to see bold indicators of looming financial disaster. Conflicts of interest may cloud the vision of decision-makers.
While the chapter themes derive from a bevy of related concerns, they center in the issue of accountability. After witnessing successfully for generations, why did a number of Adventist healthcare institutions die painfully or pass to other owners? How did the church for decades accrue rich benefits from the ‘gift’ of Harris Pine Mills and then lose the facility entirely? What caused the literature ministry to suffer ‘immeasurable’ losses in souls and dollars? Why did a projected ‘series of fifteen videotapes with animated Bible stories ranging from creation to redemption’ cost so much yet never materialise?
Donald Davenport told President Robert H. Pierson the truth in 1977, that he was ‘handling and investing millions of dollars for the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a corporate entity as well as for many officers and individuals’ (page 56). But in the same letter, Davenport complained that for ‘several years a short statured Napoleonic complexed individual’ in Pierson’s office had been opposing such investments. Why did the church fail to heed the voices that warned so urgently of inevitable disaster? Time revealed the ‘Napoleonic’ treasury official was a faithful whistleblower whose advice might well have minimized an escalating disaster. But up to fifty percent interest on personal investments clouded the judgement of well-meaning leaders with sacred money in their trust.
Similarly, unwise decisions destroyed Robert Folkenberg’s promising presidency of the General Conference. In hindsight, a deep flaw in the church’s method of electing leaders doomed it in 1990 to the tragedy that became public nine years later. Folkenberg’s track record in financial matters dogged his steps as a missionary and a local conference president for decades. Surely, had this reality been shared with the Nominating Committee in Indianapolis, no astute member would have voted him into the awesome role of world leader. The church and its mission—and the president and his career—were diminished by the debacle.
Who is equipped to tell such cautionary tales? The author, Douglas Hackleman, is probably remembered most colourfully as the investigative reporter whose writing spiced the magazine Adventist Currents early in the tumultuous 1980’s. His mind is now more measured, his language gentler, but his passion for truth remains. Hackleman’s acknowledgements (vii-xii) begin with twelve participants in a Members for Church Accountability symposium that convened in Loma Linda during 2001. ‘Among them the dutiful dozen provided a moderator, an introduction, seven eight-minute digests of financial misadventure stories and three essays suggesting causes and cures.’ The quality of this book has benefited from many other persons, as well, under the driving initiative of an author, who over long years, has invested evident skill and outstanding diligence in a task that merits the gratitude of the church at large.
Hackleman’s Epilogue illustrates the informed, probing nature, yet, constructive tone of the book. He issues a call for ‘POT’—Policy, Oversight and Transparency. He deals with the significance of mercy and forgiveness, as well as the biblical admonition not to judge. He notes, sadly, that no ‘person responsible for any part in these stories of administrative or fiduciary failure, has come forward to publicly bewail his responsibility in the loss of money, institutions or reputation.’ Hackelman would have liked to see such a man ‘crusade for the kind of changes that would help him and others like him to perform their work for the church in a way that the travelling Landlord required of his servants.’ Since the church lacks such Chuck Colsons, his closing paragraph is solemn and confronting:
‘Nevertheless, because these disasters were not due to flood, fire or earthquake (acts of God), they were not beyond our collective control. We, the church members, acting as enablers, are by no means blameless—giving and giving of our means without requiring accountability. The intention of MCA [Members for Church Accountability] with this publication is to motivate every Adventist not only to watch and to care, but to agitate for those adjustments to policy, oversight and transparency, that will preclude the need for a sequel to this publication’ (374).

Bravo to the indefatigable writer, ‘the dutiful dozen’ and the many who brought this disturbing book to birth. No local church delegate to a conference session, no union or general conference delegate should presume to cast a vote without internalising its message. Has this cautionary tome exposed the church’s greatest need? My bias suggests that we need the same principles of transparency with reference to matters of biblical and historical interpretation.1 But I am fully persuaded that MCA has proved the accountability it enjoins is a towering need of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Now! 2
—Arthur Patrick, Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Avondale College, 30 June, 2008

Endnotes:
1 Note, for instance, my listing of a number of relevant doctoral studies in the article ‘Recent Tensions in Seventh-day Adventism on the Avondale College Ph.D. website:
http://www.avondale.edu.au/research::Journal_Articles/
Excellent studies on a number of historical issues contextualise the concerns expressed in Who Watches? Who Cares? However, the church has no other publication that treats these matters in depth during the final decades of the Twentieth Century.
2. Further information about the book is available from http://www.advmca.org and advmca@aol.com.

TRUE ISRAEL
Dear Ritchie
You claimed, in the November 2007 issue of Good News Unlimited, that there was a change-over from a literal kingdom of Israel to a spiritual kingdom of Israel at the time of Jesus. I am still to be persuaded that such a transition took place as it is not apparent to me that it did. The nation of Israel is still God’s kingdom.
S. I.

Dear S
What Jesus told Pilate about the type of kingdom that he would reign over may help to solve this problem. He said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place’ (John 18:36).
Please note the following:
1. Jesus’ kingdom is ‘not of this world.’ In other words, it is not like other kingdoms in this world. Modern Israel, however, is like other kingdoms in this world.
2. If Christ’s kingdom were an earthly kingdom his servants would fight to protect its interests. Israel has an army, navy and air force to protect its interests, but Christ’s kingdom has no territory in this world to defend.
3. Jesus said, ‘Now [i.e. from the time of the events that led to his crucifixion] my kingdom is from another place.’ When Jesus died, the transition from the Old Covenant kingdom to the New Covenant kingdom took place. As David was but a shadow of the Messiah, so David’s kingdom was but a shadow of the kingdom that Jesus established through his death and resurrection. Jerusalem, which was a temporal city in the Old Testament (Heb. 13:14), is an eternal city in the New. Old (literal) Jerusalem belonged to the Old Covenant. New (spiritual) Jerusalem belongs to the New Covenant (Gal. 4:24-26). Human leaders rule the old city, but Jesus the Messiah, reigns over the new (John 18:37).
Ritchie.

INVESTIGATIVE JUDGEMENT REWORKED?
Hello
I read an article by Des Ford entitled, ‘The Reworking of the Investigative Judgement Doctrine,’ where there is a quote from The Great Controversy, but as usual it is only part of what Ellen G. White is saying. If you read on she continues: ‘Jesus will appear as their advocate, to plead in their behalf before God … all who have truly repented of sin and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life.’
If you knew, Des, how many have left the church (especially of the young people) and gone out in the world because of your theology, you would not be able to sleep at night. You took away from them the belief in the Investigative Judgement, but you did not have anything to replace that belief with. And when you remove the Investigative Judgement the whole plan of salvation falls apart and you have nothing to build on. In this article there is also nothing that explains Daniel 8:14 and I am not surprised, because I have never heard any real explanation from your followers, because you cannot explain it any other way than what I have heard from our preachers who believe in the message.
Sincerely
S. W.

Dear S
Thank you for yours.
No matter how much one quotes from a book there is always more to come that is not quoted.
It is clear that you have not been able to read much that has been written on this topic. I suggest you begin with the articles by Dr. Arthur Patrick and then move to what is known as the Glacier View Manuscript, and from there to my commentaries on Daniel written in the last fifteen years. I reveal that Daniel 8:14 is explained by Daniel 9:24 (apart from its apotelesmatic application during the crisis under Antiochus Epiphanes). Daniel 8:14, like the climaxes in chapters 2, 7, and 12, points to the final establishment of the Kingdom of God at the second advent.
I have not recommended that any leave the church, but I have recommended that our people follow the advice of Ellen G. White in Counsels to Writers and Editors re. ‘New Light.’ Ellen G. White says there is no excuse for taking the position that we will never have to change some of our doctrines even if they have been held for years.
Partakers of the righteousness of Christ will be glad to follow him in all things including advancing truth.
God bless you in all things
Desmond Ford.

GENESIS ONE AND EVOLUTION
Dear Ritchie
The debate and views put forward by GNU magazine have made me reflect on my beliefs about the date of creation. I have come to the conclusion that there is no room for evolution in the Bible. There is none implied and none revealed. We, as humans, tend to need concrete proof and we overly complicate things and can’t see the forest for the trees. So to simplify this issue, it’s not how God could have created the universe, but how he said he did. How much clearer does he need to be? The summary in Genesis 2:6 says: ‘By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.’ Exodus 20:11 says: ‘For in six days the Lord made the heav ens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.’ The Lord our God has stated it twice. He does not take it back and did not elaborate. That’s good enough for me. [Letter abbreviated.]
K. H.

Hi K
Many thanks for the article accompanying your letter. You’ve put a lot of time and thought into it.
I wish to state, first of all, that neither I, nor any other of the GNU staff, support Darwinian evolution. Nor have we ever supported it.
While scientific evidence overwhelmingly reveals that life has been on Earth for aeons, there is no unequivocal evidence of macro-evolution. Ancient fossils reveal that all creatures were fully formed from their first appearance, and no genuine intermediary species have been found among them. Even archaeopteryx, which was upheld as a prime example of a missing link, was quietly retired from that role when it was discovered to be nothing more than an ancient bird. The sudden appearance of fully-formed creatures in the fossil record supports the biblical position that they were all created.
The real question for Christians is how to interpret Genesis chapter one. If you think about it carefully you will realise that the genre of Genesis one is not the prose of history, like the story of Joseph being sold into slavery, or Paul on his way to Rome for his Supreme Court trial. Instead, the first chapter of Genesis is a poem—written in two parallel stanzas, each with three parts—and which concludes with a seventh stanza on perfect rest. The focal point of this ‘poem’ is not the creation but the Creator. Its purpose is to teach that there is only one God who created all things. The belief that the first chapter of Genesis is about creation, misses the point of what God was trying to teach the Hebrews who had worshipped many gods in Egypt (Eze. 20:6-8).
The message of Genesis one is that there is only one creator God, and he created everything in the world as the Hebrews then understood it. He is the only divine being; there is no other god besides him. And he gave man the seventh day as a rest day—a covenant sign that would testify to our belief in him as the one and only God who created all things.
Ritchie.