I write this the very day of the death of Nancy Ortiz. She was a personal friend and a friend to so many on the DBU campus. The university was quick to respond to this situation by holding a memorial service during our chapel time. No subject could have been better to address this morning than this, and we are to be applauded as a University (the administration especially) for such off the cuff decision making. The Lab School is to be thanked for their concession as well. But some things are objected to and must be expounded upon as well.

Due to the length of this critique, a summary is offered below for brevity, for all of you high power types that don't have the time to read every word of every critical essay put out by us pseudonym types (though incidentally I don't hide too well behind the pseudonym; this is purposeful, so as to not get carried away with on the negative side of criticism). But the full length version is much more comprehensive.

The attitude in chapel was one of reverence. Reverence for God and submission to His plan. Nancy's life and memory were certainly venerated, but God was the center, and properly so.

Many songs were sung, songs that fitted the mood and events: First and foremost "In Christ Alone" was sung; a marvelous ballad of Christ's life, death and resurrection, with implications for the believer as His mission is carried out. Especially important for us to hear was that the wrath of God was satisfied verily by the actual death of Christ ("for on that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied"). Do we really believe this? Or do we think that the cross only made it possible for God's wrath to be satisfied? Romans 5:9,10 certainly seem to agree with the words of the song. Do we? But of special importance to today, the beginning of the last verse struck home: "no guilt in life, no fear in death, this is the power of Christ in me." We are as certain as we are capable of being that this was true of Miss Ortiz as well.

"Before the Throne of God Above" was sung too. Of the utmost importance at such a time as this is the theme of this song: that we have such a high priest. That when we are judged after the first death, we have a shield from the tremendous wrath of God, which we all justly deserve and certainly would receive were it not for Jesus, who makes intercession for all those given Him by the father (Jn 17:2,3). The key doctrine is clearly set forth here: Christ is looked upon; we are pardoned.

Worthy of mention here is also "I Exalt thee", or a similar exaltation song, which was fittingly sung at chapel's beginning. When we are shaken, grieved and taken by surprise at such a happening as this, it must be pushed to the fore and provoked in us that God is still to be exalted. As Jay Harley said (to be dealt with fully below), God remains worthy of our trust. For if God be not exalted, suddenly our understanding and judgment is exalted, at which point we lose hope for the future, when such things occur, and we lose trust in God. We must hold our feelings, thoughts and judgments in submission to what the Scriptures say of God: "though He slay me; yet will I trust Him"-Job.

The last song worthy of mention (or perhaps remaining in the memory) is "Holy is the Lord God Almighty", simply for it's mention of God's reign. God is lifted up as great, awesome, and reigning for ever. Such a "big picture" perspective is necessary currently in order avoid despair, which comes only when God's overall plan is forgotten or ignored. Our bowing down touched on in the song is representational of how we should react to A. bad things happening when B. we know God to be in control (Thanks John T.!!) But enough of the songs. Many more good ones were sung as well; these mentioned only seemed the most fitting.

The speakers in chapel included Dr. Cook, Dr. Blackburn, Jay Harley, John Turner and Henry Loftin. To avoid misrepresentations, comments will be kept general (except in a couple of cases). The point here is that it was said, not especially who said it.

It was stated and repeated by John Turner that God was in control. Especially attention catching, though, was that he said, "and God was in control when her heart stopped beating at 4:30 this morning." You are to be applauded, Mr. Turner. The absolute control of God and the death of Nancy Ortiz were placed side by side in this sentence. That is what we need to know. Not only how much peace we can have now. Or that God loves us even if bad things happen to us. During such a time of mourning and distress over the death of one far too young, outgoing and far too beautiful to die so suddenly, (I met her little brother once and can only imagine what he is going through) we need to be bolstered by the fact that God is indeed in control. This was His plan. It shakes Him not that things happen contrary to our immediate comfort. We need to keep preaching these things to ourselves, mainly, it seems to me, to avoid the picture of a God who is out for our comfort and immediate well being; a "health and wealth God", if you will. When bad things happen, it removes this image of God, and causes us to see Him a bit more as concerned with His glory, and not ours (though of course concerned with our ultimate good; but this is subservient to His glory).

One speaker said this all happened by God's prescription. Well said. The analogy holds of a doctor prescribing a medication to be taken. Sometimes the medication is taken, sometimes not. But here we have an all-powerful Prescriber, who prescribes things to happen that invariably do, due solely to His prescription. Mentioned close to this though was that this became God's plan as it happened. The order is reversed, I believe. In actuality things happen that are beforehand a part of God's plan. So God plans them, then they happen. It is not that, as something happens, God then makes that part of His plan. Perhaps it was meant that it became known to man as God's plan as it happened. This seems plausible, as we do not know the future, and therefore God's plan, until things actually happen.

We heard, three times in twice as many minutes this morning, that God is still "an Object of our trust" (see above). i.e. we can (and must) still trust Him even in the face of terrible events. True, but WHY??? We were not told. It must be proclaimed that God remains an object of my trust, as His adopted son, because God is ˇ§sovereign over the powers of heaven and the people of the earth "and does with them whatever He pleases" (Dan. 4:35). We must know as much today as when the tsunami hit, and when 911 happened, that He is in control of all these things, and none of them happen without His infallible foreknowledge of them- that at the least they are going to happen. In fact, the crucifixion of Christ, in Acts 4:27, 28, is said to have occurred by "whatever your hand and your purpose determined before to be done". How much lesser evils too?? But if this is not seen, it seems to me that our picture will be of a God who desires good (true) and does everything within His power to accomplish it (not true), but somehow things out there can just get out of hand for God, so perhaps it is best that we "take the wheel" when such horrible events occur. The part within me that desired to rebel when this event happened is the part that does not trust God viz. does not trust that He is in control when such wrong things happen as the death of loved ones. Perhaps it's true in your case too?

Lastly is the issue of answered prayer. More than once it was said this morning that "a miracle was prayed for, and that is exactly what happened", in fact, this constituted "the greatest miracle ever". I think that here we should be careful (I'm being very careful) not to misuse or misconstrue the concept of a miracle, especially in regards to what was prayed for. Had I gone to one of the friends of Nancy (of whom I was one), while they were praying at the vigil last night, and had asked them what they were praying for, they (and certainly the Ortiz family) would have said "a miracle", meaning some sort of recovery; consciousness, or some sort of improvement in her physical health. Not death. No one would have said "I'm praying for the miracle of death for Nancy". I in no way deny that her death served a good purpose. Especially for her. But death is not a miracle. And God said "no" to those who were praying for a miracle and "yes" to those who were praying for His will to be done (though the two are certainly not mutually exclusive).

Must we treat the situation as though God said "yes" to everyone's prayers? Would God be less than just had he not answered with a yes? Perhaps we could meditate on how the case would be had she not been a Christian. Would we be willing to say that "God was in control when this non Christian died and is still in control right now"? If we could acknowledge the truth of the above statement in the above situation, then maybe now in this situation we could stand at the podium and say that God did not answer everyone's prayers the way they wanted. I for one would not want anyone to think that we hold God as worthy of trust (and as Sovereign and in control) only because we make it seem like we all got what we wanted. I (in a sense) did not get what I wanted, and I doubt the tears in the eyes of so many today signified their getting what they wanted either. So to conclude; it must be taught that 1. God is Sovereign, with a purpose to be achieved and a hand to achieve it (see Acts 4:28, quoted above) 2. We can therefore always trust him with our lives and obedience, even as the master of our judgment and perspective on reality, and 3. This even though and ESPECIALLY though something just happened directly against our strongest desires and notions of The Good. In short: we don't trust ourselves. It must be said here that as far as we desired God's will to be done, our desires were met. But the occurrence of a miracle is not included (now we know for certain) in this.

These comments aside, the chapel service was used to promote the international department; Nancy would have wanted that. Also promoted was prompt and adequate health treatment. It certainly could mean the difference between life and death. An invitation was given, and at the end hands were laid on those to whom Nancy was especially dear, and they were prayed over. The overall chapel service was respectful to God, reverent to Him, and quite appropriate in theme. Go DBU!

SUMMARY OF CHAPEL CRITIQUE

Chapel was good today. Quite reverent and respectful of God as in control (though this was mainly implied and hinted at, rather than being forcefully stated- except as by John Turner). Songs appropriate for the event were sung; songs keeping God in a place of reverence and worship above our understanding and judgment. Christ as a satisfaction of God's anger on Christians was an especially comforting theme. Glowing Heart sang very well. Some of the comments from the 5 or so speakers brought question, though. It is questionable why they say that God answered our prayers with a miracle; "the greatest miracle ever", in fact. This is a misrepresentation of what happened, and perhaps can be seen as (by a cynic) us wanting to trust God because we make ourselves believe that He says yes to all our prayers. This is not true, and probably not what was being stated, but we must be careful. Also we were not taught why God remains an object of our trust (though He certainly does). Overall, we mourned with those who mourn, and this is oh so fitting for the professing Christian. Much gratitude to the administration and others for bringing this type of chapel about on such short notice.