|
The End
of the
Great Controversy
By David
R. Larson
The
following paragraphs are drawn from a presentation made at the Loma Linda
University Church Sanctuary Sabbath School Class on March 30, 2002.
When
discussing "The End of the Great Controversy," the topic of our
lesson for this morning, we may have one or the other of two different
things in mind. On the one hand, understanding the word "end" in
a chronological sense, we might be asking "when" questions. On
the other hand, taking the same word in a non-chronological sense, we
might be posing "what" questions.
Imagine, for example, a student who is asked
to answer a question about the end of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln.
He or she might write that it ended at 7:22 a.m. on April 15, 1865,
approximately nine hours after Abraham Lincoln was shot while watching a
play. This answer would be accurate; however, it would tell us very
little. We would learn more about Abraham Lincoln if the student wrote
that his presidency had at least two ends, to preserve the unity of the
United States of America and to eliminate its practice of slavery, and
that much debate continues to this very day as to which of these was more
important for him.
With respect to "The End of the Great
Controversy," answers to our "when" questions fall in to
place quite naturally if we first answer our "what" questions;
however, the opposite is not so nearly the case. Let us therefore begin by
discussing this "end" in its non-chronological sense. Let’s
begin by asking "what?"
What,
then, is "The Great Controversy?"
It is a meta-narrative, a master story. It is
a story that includes all other stories and by which all others find their
meaning and validity. It is not one more story along side of others. It is
the umbrella under which all others find their places. To the extent that
they find some appropriate spot under it, the other stories are also true
and valuable. The contrary is also the case.
Some object to meta-narratives. They find them
oppressive and cruel, ever inclined to stifle creativity and frustrate
inclusiveness. This is true of many; however, my hunch is that it is
impossible entirely to avoid meta-narratives. Even the claim that we
should make no use of them entails at least one that purports to justify
this assertion. The solution is to replace bad meta-narratives with good
ones.
Some may think that the word
"meta-narrative" is too long. Actually, it is no longer than the
word "San Bernardino." If we can’t remember both, it would be
better to keep in mind the meaning of the first term! This would be much
more helpful over the course of our lives.
We can judge the relative merits of competing
meta-narratives by at asking at least three important questions: (1) How
internally coherent are they? (2) How comprehensively are they able to
incorporate all the information we now have? (3) How favorable or
unfavorable in the short and long run are their results when individuals
and groups organize their lives in harmony with what they teach?
Meta-narratives take the bird’s-eye view of
things, not the worm’s; therefore, we should judge them by how well they
portray life as a whole and our places in it. The value of meta-narratives
does not depend upon their ability to give us detailed answers to specific
questions about names, dates, places, things and so forth. Narratives do
that.
Several themes are prominent in the
meta-narrative we call "The Great Controversy." One of these is
that a supremely important debate about the actuality and goodness of God
threads its way through all the other conflicts around us and within
us. Is God actual? Is God worthy of our admiration and our trust? These are
the most important issues in "The Great Controversy." All other
issues are secondary.
Jesus Christ plays a central role in
"The Great Controversy." According to this meta-narrative, we
should look to him when wondering about God’s actuality and goodness. In
his birth, life, teachings, healing ministry, death and resurrection, all
of which we celebrate this Easter weekend, we see more vividly than
anywhere else what God is like and what we should be like. Other windows
are also available, and we should make the best possible use of them, but
Jesus Christ is the most transparent one. This is because he was the
actual presence of God in human life even though he was truly one of us.
According to "The Great
Controversy," in the person of the Holy Spirit, God now is, has
always been, and will always be, present in every moment of every life
throughout the universe as a positive but non-coercive influence for good
in all circumstances. Although there are often hardships and setbacks,
some of which are severe, life is richer in every way for us, for others and for God
when we respond favorably to this influence. Precisely because the
influence of the Holy Spirit is not coercive, things often happen that God
regrets. Yet even in the worst of circumstances, God encourages and
enables us to experience appropriate forms and degrees of greater
well-being. Much depends upon the extent to which we co-operate with God,
however.
This is a point at which our "what"
answers become "when" ones as well. Because our lives are so
short, we sometimes ask how long "The Great Controversy" about
God will
continue. This is understandable, particularly when times are difficult.
But God is neither on our time scale nor in a hurry. We are the ones who
are sometimes impatient, not God!
According to one of the earliest Christians
discussions of this issue, "The Lord is not slack concerning his
promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not
willing that any should perish, but that all should come to
repentance." This same document suggests that we "account that
the longsuffering of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother
Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto
you." (II Peter 3: 9, 15. King James Version)
Because the end of "The Great
Controversy" is to give all those who can do so an opportunity
thoughtfully and freely to decide for or against the actuality and
goodness of God, it will not end until this end has been achieved. It is
possible for individuals and groups to resist, and even ultimately to
reject, God’s positive influence in our lives. But as long as there are
those who have not done so, as long as there are those who can might still
respond favorably, we can expect "The Great Controversy" to
continue. It will end once this end has been reached, not because of some
arbitrary edict, but because it has fulfilled its purpose and is no longer
necessary.
This is good news, not bad!
|