Herb38.jpg

Herb Montgomery, self-described itinerant teacher and founder of Renewed Heart Ministries, is one of the speakers at the upcoming Adventist Forum Conference. He talks about listening to communities on the margins, the unsustainability of the North American Adventist church in its current path, and why following Jesus means working toward ending human suffering here and now.

Question: You are one of the speakers at the upcoming Adventist Forum conference with the theme of "non-violence and the atonement." What can we expect to hear at your presentation?

Answer: My title is Victims of Violent Atonement and the Hope for Change. It is important that we listen to the experiences of those who are often the most vulnerable within our religious communities with violent atonement theories. 

Within human society, violent atonement theories have not been without their victims.  The theology we choose to believe is connected with the ethics we choose to live by.  Women, people of color, non-Europeans, as well as those who self identify as belonging to the LGBTQ community have been deeply and negatively impacted by, at minimum, actions of which violent atonement theories have been complicit.  Those who have subscribed to punitive substitutionary ways of interpreting Jesus’ death must make time to listen to these voices. 

The good news is that the work of listening is being done. Alternate ways of understanding the death of Jesus, rooted in the ethics of nonviolence as taught by that same Jesus, have been explored over the last few decades. The impact of these alternatives on the people on the underside and fringes of our human communities looks hopeful.  Time will tell.  But when we look at these examples we do find hope, I believe, for positive change.

Your organization, Renewed Heart Ministries, describes itself as focusing on the words and teachings of Jesus. Your website says:“We believe these teachings have an intrinsic value in informing the work of nonviolently confronting, liberating and transforming our world into a safe, more just, more compassionate home for us all.”  What does that mean in relation to the Old Testament practice of atonement?

Great question! I prefer to call them the interpretations and practices (plural) of atonement in the ancient Hebrew scriptures. There is not just one. And often these practices don’t agree even with each other. 

Our meaning and purpose at Renewed Heart Ministries grows out of and is informed by the Jesus story.  We feel this places us in good company with those in the past and present who have embarked on a critique of the more violent practices of atonement in the Bible as a result of what they have encountered in Jesus. I want to be careful here. We do not mean by this critique that in Jesus we find something that is anti-Jewish. In all the world’s major religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism) we see a transition at certain points in their histories from violent forms of worship and practice, to those much more nonviolent, as each matures. We believe Jesus was part of just such an opportunity for first-century Judea. We also believe that, when understood within his own first century context, Jesus can also help Christians move from violent forms of worship and practice to much more nonviolent forms and practices, as well.

Has your understanding of the atonement changed over time?

Dramatically. The sector of Christianity I grew up in was fundamentalist Christianity. I can attest that having had to grapple with what the Jesus of Matthew and Luke taught — specifically the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain — my older understandings and interpretations of what Christians call the “atonement" have been dramatically challenged.

Has your understanding of the character of God changed over time?

Yes. This has been dramatically impacted by the teachings we attribute to Jesus, as well. It has also been impacted by listening to the experiences of marginalized and excluded communities that the Jesus story calls us to begin valuing and listening to.  

So listening to the experiences of marginalized communities is important, you believe. It seems that Renewed Heart Ministries has allied itself with various "progressive" issues, speaking out on behalf of these minorities, including people of color and LGBTQ Adventists, as you mentioned. You wrote about your experience at Kinship Kampmeeting as one of the most authentic and loving places you had ever been. Why are these social issues important?

Renewed Heart Ministries is not allied with liberal, progressive theology.  We see ourselves as resonating more with what is referred to as liberation theology.  Both are non-traditional, but there are significant differences between liberal theology and liberation theology, as well as the communities from which those theologies are derived.  

Thanks for clarifying. So why are the social issues so important?

Because behind those social issues are real people. I would not say we speak on their behalf, but we do work alongside many of those on the underside or margins of our society.  And in doing so we have encountered stories and experiences that ushered us into a deeper experience of compassion for people and a passion for those matters that affect them most.  

Also, much of what we have found has contradicted the stereotypes we were socialized to believe. Even among the most marginalized, we have found rich traditions practiced by Jesus’ followers. 

We see Jesus emerging within the first century as a healer. It is in this that he called us to follow him.  There is sickness in our world. In addition to physical sickness there is societal sickness.  Some of these are the sicknesses of racism, sexism, heterosexism, and economic sickness.  At the heart of each of these is myriad of phobias toward anything different from us. If we are followers of the Jesus we find in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, our first priority is not post-mortem bliss, but being actively engaged in bringing an end to the things that cause human suffering today, here, now, even when doing so calls us to engage in “cleansing” a few “temples,” as Jesus did.

Do you feel the Adventist church does a good job of speaking out on issues of injustices in society? What does it do well and what could it do better?

There are many sectors within the Adventist church. Adventism itself is home to a whole spectrum of what it means to be “Adventist.” I do not feel, however, that the sectors of the official church that I have been exposed to do an adequate job of addressing our contemporary issues of injustice. 

Granted, I live in the very northern end of what is referred to as the  “Bible Belt.”  My straight, white, male Appalachian culture, both inside of Adventism as well as without, is still struggling with sexism and racism, even within the church. 

There are individual exceptions, but on the whole, we aren’t even prepared to adequately address the injustice of economic poverty here, much less more national debates of social justice. All the other social issues can be derived from the Jesus story, but the economic ones? These are our springboard in the Jesus story.  This is the Jesus that said, “Blessed are you who are poor and woe to those of you who are rich.” 

I would love to be introduced to sectors of the official church that are doing this well; not engaged in charity but addressing actual systemic injustice.  

One of the things we could do better is to begin listening to our own Jesus story through the experiences of those who are not like us.  An example, since you brought it up, would be to listen to our LGBTQ Adventist siblings and their experiences. In our discussions, especially about them, we need to actually include them.  Otherwise, it would be like holding a convention on race here in North American Adventism and only having white speakers. Or an event addressing women’s equality and only having male voices present. Or a discussion on the residual effects of colonialism and only having our European and North American Divisions present at the table. In my opinion, what we could do better is embrace a posture and practice of listening to the voices of those who have not been adequately included in these types of conversations so far.

You speak to groups all around the US. Do you find a general consensus among your audiences that more must be done to increase tolerance and respect for different groups of people? What issues do you find people are most concerned about or interested in?

It all depends on age, gender and race, really. I find among most people under 30 (who will comprise the body of the next 20 years of Adventism) there is a very strong concern and interest regarding compassion (not simply tolerance) and respect for different groups of people.  Once you pass that age 30 threshold (and I’m 40, by the way) it really depends. I find that among most white, straight males like myself, we don’t seem to think anything needs much change. The women I listen to tell me a different story. The people of color I listen to tell me a different story. And so on. So it really depends on which sector or audience you’re seeking to gain a general consensus from.  

Within Adventism, I find an overwhelming number of folks who are very concerned and quite disillusioned with the events of last summer. I hear a lot of feedback over the changes made relating to education, women and the LGBTQ community. It’s mostly covert, but it’s very much there.

Why did you start Renewed Heart Ministries? Why not work for the church?

I started Renewed Heart Ministries when I left Light Bearers, who are now based out of Oregon. Before that I taught for the Southern Union out of Florida. 

I continued to receive phone calls from the parents of students I was teaching, asking for me to visit various churches and share with their congregations. Those invitations led to me leaving the Southern Union to work for Light Bearers Ministry as an itinerant speaker for about seven years. 

In 2005 my mother became very sick and we moved back to West Virginia to be more present in her life. (She passed away two years ago.) In 2007, we branched out on our own with Renewed Heart Ministries. Why not work for the church? Well, I’ve never been asked by the church to work in a capacity like what I am doing for Renewed Heart Ministries. It’s that simple. I don’t think the church offers salaried positions for itinerant teachers like myself to travel all over the globe and teach in various local congregations. These types of roles are usually filled by administrators traveling among institutions, not teachers traveling among churches. I’ve never been offered employment in a role that is a good match for what I have a passion to do. 

Does Renewed Heart Ministries have any full time employees other than yourself? Or part-time? And where does its funding come from?

There are a total of thirteen of us that are part of the Renewed Heart Ministries team.  Two of those are full-time with the rest falling somewhere on a scale between part-time, contracted or volunteer work.  It takes a small community to do what we do. For RHM to provide its ever-changing online content alone takes hundreds of hours each month. 

Our funding is from our monthly supporters. Everything we do at Renewed Heart Ministries is for free. We do not even derive income from the many educational events that we do in various venues. We never charge seminar fees. Also, anything we receive over and above our annual budget we happily give away to other not-for-profits who are making both systemic and personal differences — significant differences — in the lives of those less privileged.

When did you become an Adventist? Why do you remain an Adventist?

I became an Adventist at the very impressionable, young age of 14.

I remain an Adventist for quite a few reasons. Adventism has always been defined from bottom up, not the top down. There are attempts from time to time to change that, but we are a group defined by the discoveries and search for what is true among our people. We began as a movement away from traditional Christian theology in search of what we believed was more true. We, as the people, decide what Adventism is and what Adventism isn’t.  I stay, for one reason, because I want to be part of that deciding process, even if at times I’m among a minority of voices. Also, Adventism is where my roots are.  I owe a lot to Adventism, both good and bad. I don’t look at it linearly like “remaining an Adventist.” I don’t think of it as leaving this and go on to something else. I look at it more like concentric, ever-enlarging circles. I’m still an Adventist, but my circle has simply gotten bigger. My people now include a much larger circle of people in addition to Adventists. And I hope it keeps growing. 

At the end of the day, I’m a human being, part of the human family. We are all siblings, children of God, part of the same divine-human family. And we must learn how to sit at the same family table beside one another. And lastly, there are people I still care about deeply within Adventism. I want to be a part of their journey, too. 

How do you see the Adventist church changing over the next few decades?

It all depends on the choices we make. I only know my own version of Adventism here in North America. I think we have quite a lot of security outside of North America and Europe when it comes to longevity. 

Here in America? If we prioritize the voices of those under 30, I think we have a good shot of growing into something beautiful. If we remain on our present path, though, I don’t see us lasting here. Financially alone, the institution is too expensive to run without the demographic that will not be here 20 years from now. In America, those pains are being felt now, but they will only get worse. I think (and again this is if we continue to cater to the voices we are presently catering to) we will begin to see properties being sold, slowly at first, and then more and more.  Our numbers here will continue to dwindle to a state of institutional “life-support.” 

Similar to other denominations who have placed a high emphasis on educating their youth, if we don’t keep up with the discoveries our educated young people are making, they will move on to find groups that are more relevant to what they have discovered. We live in the information age. There no longer remains a monopoly of control over the information people have access to.  

What is it like living in West Virginia? 

Our state motto is Almost Heaven.    

We have a lot of work to do still. There are quite a few people here involved in the work of survival, resistance, liberation and restoration, who are very active in helping West Virginia grow in inclusivity, in equality, and economically. At times we at RHM partner with some of those here locally for special projects and efforts. 

In West Virginia, we have the same struggles and challenges as everywhere else, I suppose, except that those struggles are compounded by the poverty created by our long dependence on the coal industry. In this regard we have our own set of challenges. But I wouldn't trade the people I share life with here in West Virginia. They are beautiful, smart, inventive, and determined. They’d give you the shirt off their backs, if you were in need — even if it were their last one. I think the future is bright for the people of this state.  

Also, harvest season is upon us. There is nothing in the world quite like witnessing the rich fall colors spread along the rolling hills of Greenbrier county. I was born and raised here. For me, this is home.

The 2016 Adventist Forum Annual Conference, Non-violence and the Atonement, will be held in Silver Spring, Maryland from September 16-18. The keynote speaker is Gregory Boyd (read his Spectrum exclusive interview with Carmen Lau here). Other participants include William Johnsson, Keisha McKenzie, Ronald Osborn, Richard Rice, Charles Scriven and Jean Sheldon. Registration for the event is open now. See the registration page for event details and to register.

Angry_God.jpg

I really appreciated most of the thoughtful, honest answers Jean Sheldon gave during her Spectrum interview, Making Sense of a Vengeful God, just as I appreciate Jean herself. I know her to be an excellent teacher and a wise, loving, caring and thoughtful person. I live in the same community as she does. The other day I offered a ride to a college student escaping campus for an afternoon. When I found out he was a senior theology student I asked him who his favorite teacher was. Without hesitation, he replied “Jean Sheldon.” He then began a long list of the many reasons he felt that way.

The part of the interview that troubled me was the way Jean attempted to offer a rationale for the astonishing difference between the angry, vengeful God portrayed many places in the Old Testament and the merciful, compassionate God presented by Jesus in the New Testament. This is of course one of the greatest problems to face Christian believers, though most are unwilling to attempt to address it and in some cases, resist even acknowledging it or even thinking about it! It truly is “the elephant in the church.”

Sometimes, I am afraid, if we do not have the solution to a difficult conundrum people feel tempted or even compelled to create one, especially when the stakes are so high as is the case with this troubling issue.  And troubling it is indeed. As Jean illustrated when she reported in the interview; “Two students came to me separately to tell me that the Old Testament God is the biggest deterrent to their peers’ having a close relationship with Him.”

I have a friend who is an atheist. We have a good time kidding each other. I like to ask him how he can explain why there is something here instead of nothing. He tells me that he can’t explain it but that he feels his skepticism is more honest than believing in a fairy tale like I do! But when we get serious he tells me that the real reason he could never be a believer is because of the portrayal of God in the OT. “Under today’s standards your God would be convicted as a war criminal by the Geneva Convention,” he tells me. He refers to this god’s instructions (in Deuteronomy 20 and 21) to his people that when they take a city in battle they shall “save alive nothing that breathes.” He is especially incensed when an exception is made for when a beautiful and desirable woman is discovered among the captives. A conquering soldier can bring her home to his house. After a month he can have sex with her. If he finds her pleasing she must become his wife. But, “if it be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go.” He is equally appalled by the divine instruction that if a man rapes a virgin, she must then be forced to marry him (after the rapist has paid off the father with 50 shekels of silver)!

I can only tell my friend what I believe to be the truth . . . that these abysmal rules (and many others like them) were not inspired by God. They came straight from the patriarchy. They were written by men compelled by their own ignorance, anger and burning lusts. They are a disgusting, distorted picture of God.

My friend is not the only one to be turned away from Christianity by this problem. Richard Dawkins, the most prominent and evangelistic atheist today, who was once an altar boy in the Anglican Church and is the author of the best-selling book, The God Delusion writes:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (p.51)

To put it mildly, God seems to have an image problem! He was, after all, the first victim of identity theft! Lucifer stole His benevolent identity in heaven, repeated the trick again in the Garden of Eden, and repeated it again when he influenced some of the OT writers. He tried it again on Jesus! “He is a glutton and a winebibber and has a demon” declared the religious leaders! The devil is still at it today and an incorrect understanding of inspiration is allowing him to foist it on our world.

So, I have to tell my friend that I too am an atheist. An atheist when it comes to the god of Islam. An atheist when it comes to the thousands of gods of Hinduism, and yes, an atheist when it comes to the angry, vengeful, monster god of parts of the OT.

We have to stop, take a deep breath and finally admit that some of the OT writers sometimes were wrong in what they considered God to be like, how they portrayed Him and the rules and actions they credited to Him. Their own distorted picture of Him crept into their writings.

We finally have to stop making excuses and doing theological backflips in order to try and defend these writings as all flawless and inspired. Here is the bottom line. It is a kind of blasphemy to consider all the writings of the OT as equally inspired as those of the NT. As equally inspired as the teachings of Jesus. They aren’t. They must stand in judgement by what He taught and what He was. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Jesus understood this and could separate the truth from the error in the OT. “Moses said to you… but I say unto you.” And He would teach something entirely different than the OT did. That is one of the things that got Him killed.

Seventh-day Adventist teachers and pastors and theologians dare not speak this truth or they too would be terminated. (How sad that our dear brother William Johnsson had to wait until he was retired to become angry and safely speak his truth to power, though I do not fault him for waiting.) Our whole understanding of inspiration needs to be revised. The issue of women’s ordination that threatens to split the church is not about women’s ordination. It is about how we understand inspiration. The ordination battle that has caused Jean and so many other women such pain is just a symptom of the real problem, the real elephant in the church that everybody is afraid to acknowledge and clean up after. Until we clarify and update our understanding of inspiration, there will always be an ordination problem and a homophobia problem and countless other problems.

In her interview, Jean said the following:

God was forced to communicate His character to people who believed whole-heartedly in violence. So violent ways of dealing with human relationship and violent ways of making wrongs right seem acceptable in the Old Testament . . . A vengeful god who would retaliate against abuse and bring retribution on one’s enemies . . . was a god that people anciently felt they could trust . . . God meets them (Israel) within their preferred context of violence.”

I would say that just because the people of that day had not reached a certain stage of moral development (in her assessment) does not justify considering the remote possibility that God would lower Himself to their level by becoming vengeful and violent and merciless or that He would even be willing to appear so.

Jean said it so well in one of her others comments: “Jesus came to reveal the Father.”

Yes! Jesus had to come to correct all the horrible untruths about God, some of them found right in the OT.  At last, He brought us the truth about God!  “The Father Himself loves you.” “He that has seen me has seen the Father.”  “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.”

Now we know… God is Christlike!

Is, was, and always will be. Nothing must stand against this great truth.

Douglas Cooper is president and owner of The Alpha Corporation, a wholesale distributing firm, and a part-time family counselor. He is a graduate of Walla Walla College (B.A. Theology, 1964), Andrews University (MDiv, 1967) and the California Graduate School of Family Psychology (PhD in Marriage, Family and Child Counseling, 1992). He is author of eight books, including Living God’s Love, which sold over 100,00 copies, and he worships with his family at the Pacific Union College Church where he is a deacon and Sabbath School teacher.

If you respond to this article, please:
Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

Tell the World.jpg

Tell the World is an ambitious film that represents a step forward for a Seventh-day Adventist production, breaking out from the traditional “talking heads” documentary.

It’s a difficult film to label because it looks like a movie—through imagined reconstructions of characters and conversations—but acts like a documentary—whose primary role seems to be conveying information. In effect, it’s a “moviementary”: a dramatised history of the origins and the foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It represents progress in an Adventist understanding of how visual media works best: as a communicator of attitudes, emotions, and values rather than of information.

Tell the World begins with the origins of the Millerite movement in the 1830s, with William Miller as the central character. It switches about halfway through to Ellen White as the Millerites gradually organise into the Adventist Church with distinctive doctrines and emphases such as the Sabbath, the health message, and education. The film attempts to explain the key theological and religious ideas that drove the church’s pioneers while fleshing out the founders of Adventism so that they come across as real people.

The cinematic step forward is in dramatising the facts with the intention of making denominational history more appealing and memorable. The film does this well. It looks professional—quality sets, locations, and costumes contribute to the high production values. The professional actors are almost uniformly good, creating believable characters and credible emotions. The cinematography is excellent, and the directing assured. One shot stands out: White standing on a snow-covered ridge in mourning, following the death of her eldest son, Henry. The framing is exquisite, and the tone speaks more eloquently of sorrow than does copious screen weeping. The actress who plays White, Tommie-Amber Pirie, handles her role with aplomb, as convincing with her vision scenes as with the emotionally-charged scenes of the loss of two of her sons.

However, the film is overweighed with history. The screenwriter, Aaron Hartzler, struggles to include the many theological issues of the era, particularly the now-obscure ones of the Millerite movement, while trying to keep the film from bogging down with exposition at the expense of narrative.

The medium of film is ill-suited to explaining complex ideas such as the sanctuary doctrine. It’s more effective in humanising characters such as White and the church’s other pioneers, which Tell the World partially accomplishes. To see the interactions of the principal characters, particularly their disagreements and arguments, and the subtle touches, such as the critics of Adventism meeting in a tavern, is one of the most persuasive features of the film.

Rightly handled, Tell the World is an ideal educational tool rather than a stand-alone cinematic text. Its imposing length and density of historical detail suggest it’s best presented not at a single screening but episodically, with time to discuss and unpack the story with the assistance of additional textual information. While the film struggles to communicate an excess of Adventist apologetics and history, the church should be congratulated for its increasingly assured and effective use of visual media.

Historical movies capture viewers who ordinarily won’t read a book. The movies often act as catalysts for viewers to do their own research. Perhaps the church’s next move should be to produce a miniseries, allowing the full development of characters as inspiration for audiences to seek historical detail, which is best presented in print rather than on screen.

Daniel Reynaud is Assistant Dean (Learning and Teaching) in the Faculty of Arts, Nursing, and Theology at Avondale College of Higher Education. He lectures in modern history and the intersection of history, literature, and media. His interest lies in the Anzac legend and its representation in early Australian films. He has worked with the National Film and Sound Archive in the recovery and partial reconstruction of several silent films, including The Hero of the Dardanelles(1915), Australia’s first Gallipoli movie.

Read Spectrum's interview with Tell the World's director Kyle Portbury, published last year, here. 

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

KM_May2014.jpg

Keisha McKenzie, writer and consultant, previews her talk for the Adventist Forum conference, called "The Violence of Silence." She also shares book recommendations, talks about black conferences, and explains why our church's teaching on wholeness should be taken more seriously.

Question: You are one of the featured speakers at the Adventist Forum conference, coming up this weekend, with a theme of “Non-Violence and the Atonement.” What will you be talking about?

Answer: On Sunday morning, I’m speaking under the title “The Violence of Silence.” I’m equal parts fascinated and horrified by how traditional teachings about atonement seem to be predicated on the silence or continued suffering of various groups of people. We seem to expect people to wait for future justice while we teach them their suffering in the meantime is either necessary or sacred in some way.  

That disturbs me, and I hope that by the time all the speakers are done next weekend, attendees will be just as bothered about it!

Do you feel that the Adventist church's teaching on atonement has its focus in the right place? Should we be moving past this concept, which feels very Old Testament, or maybe outdated?

I don’t like to dissociate Christianity from the Hebrew scriptures it draws from. After all, these were the same scriptures that Jesus and that first generation of followers used. But I think that after 2,000 years of debates about what it means to put the world right, which metaphors to use, how to parse certain Bible verses, and how to weight faith and works or justification and sanctification, we could probably do with a time out!

“For God so loved the world” is one of the hub verses of the Christian gospels, and I wonder whether we’ve paid enough attention to “the world” in that phrase. The conventional Adventist understanding of “atonement” can be both ethnocentric and egocentric: focusing on the denomination’s role in this phase in human history 

or on me and my personal salvation. What could The World Restored teach us about the way we get to live together on this planet today? What could it teach us about our ecological responsibilities? How might it challenge our addictions to domination, bigotry, and waste?

I don’t think we need to jettison any of these big themes, but we could certainly handle them and each other in more humane ways. That’s where the principles of nonviolence and nonviolent communication could be useful.

As a 30-something Adventist, what does the Adventist church offer you? What do you appreciate about it?

I grew up attending and participating in Adventist congregations in London and was baptized at 13. As well as being like an extended family, my home church encouraged me to study, serve, and learn leadership skills that have been a real lifelong advantage, and I’m grateful for that. (I keep threatening to write a series of articles about seven of the things I value most about the Adventist tradition, things that I’d keep regardless of my membership status, but I haven’t done it yet.)

I’m a third-generation Adventist community member. Thanks to slavery and colonialism I have no access to our family’s spiritual heritage before this church, so I’m walking the path I’m on and serving as I can. The denomination doesn’t circumscribe my spirituality, but the tradition will probably always shape me in some way. I’m okay with that.

What do you wish the church would do better?

I wish we took more seriously the Adventist teaching on the unity of human nature. Whether we’ve pitted spirit against body, reason against emotion, male against female, humanity against nature, empire against colonized, or straight against LGBTQ, our dualism hasn’t done us many favors, and I’d love to see more intentional integration in our theology and practice. A lot of people are suffering because they’ve been asked to fragment themselves in some fundamental way. We should be the last church asking people to do that.

How do you see the Adventist church changing in the next decade? 

Outside of North America and Europe, the church is a much younger church than it is here. But within the North American Division, I know administrators are concerned about retention, and for good reason. I’ve been participating in NAD churches for about 12 years now and am hopeful that the fulcrum of influence will shift from the church administration to the local congregation where people connect with each other, learn from each other, and actively serve their neighbors and communities. Some of us spend a lot of energy trying to discuss and propose issues in terms and at a pace that the organizational structure understands — but I’m not sure that’s been very fruitful.

When moderates set the pace of change, the pace is glacial, and not everybody can endure that. So I know quite a few people who are exhausted by “the church” but still long for some form of community, support, and accountability in local relationships. Whatever the formal church structure does, people still need people. (I think that’s my pastoral side talking.)

Why do you think the Adventist church still has some segregated conferences in North America? Do you feel that the church is a different place for a black person than a white person?

I wrote about the NAD’s regional conference system in my college Christian Ethics class. While Adventism has always had issues with prejudice, the structural fissure goes back to the 1940s. The proposal began with the death of a black woman in an white Adventist hospital; I think it’s done deep damage to our moral witness as a community, and the administration keeps “studying” it. Most of us realize that the church should not be structurally divided on ethnic lines, and it’s a testimony against us that we still are.

At the same time, having separate conferences has allowed more non-white ministers to lead and serve over the last 70 years than the white-dominant church would have otherwise made room for. U. S. churches have developed congregations, schools, and ministries that have taken our different cultural contexts into account, and I can’t see how that would have happened in the 20^th century given the church’s fear of taking a clear and moral stand against racism or segregation. None of us is a generic human being. We’re all raced, not just black people; all gendered, not just women; all planted in cultures that influence how we perceive the world and how we express our faith. So our communities reflect that. But segregation goes well beyond the facts of difference.  

I now attend a multi-ethnic congregation — not a majority black congregation — and, yes, there are substantive differences between regional conference churches and state conference churches. When my local church and some of its sister churches gathered around the MLK Memorial this summer, there were so few representatives of local state churches present. It was a stark illustration of the fact that we don’t all walk in this world in the same way. People’s hearts were broken over racism and social violence, so they rallied to pray together and mourn together and talk about what our next steps might be. But for most of the area’s churches, it was just another Saturday afternoon. If this is what being one means, we’re doing it badly.

You graduated from Northern Caribbean University, then earned your Master's and Ph.D in technical communication and rhetoric from Texas Tech University. What did you write about for your thesis? How does your research tie in with the work you are doing now?

Yes, I graduated from Texas Tech in 2012. My doctoral research focused on how institutional structure, professions’ and disciplinary values, and individual motivations influence organizational texts and arguments. I looked at the materials the British government used to make their public case for war in Iraq, including how they handled secret intelligence and technical reports, and while I was studying that context, I couldn’t help but look at our own church as a system and the ways that administrators communicate with the laity and the public.

Technical communication is about informing; rhetoric is about the delivery of arguments and attempts to persuade. I’m on staff at a small congregation, and church life involves both informing and persuasion! But beyond the routines of congregational communications, understanding Adventism as a system with its own cultures has probably made me more patient with it. If I didn’t have a way of interpreting it as an organization, several of its recent policy decisions would not have made sense to me.

What book that you have read over the last year would you most highly recommend? 

I read Kelly Brown Douglas’ book Sexuality and the Black Church last summer, and it was really rewarding. Brown Douglas is a professor of religion at Goucher College in Baltimore, and her book cuts through the fog on Christian teachings about the body, sex, gender, and the legacies of religiously justified slavery and racism in the United States. Alcohol companies always say “drink responsibly!” Well, I think Christians have every historical reason to practice faith more responsibly. That includes how we engage one another on matters related to the body.

Is there a book that you believe every Adventist should read? 

That’s a hard question! I think we could all benefit from a little perspective on our tradition, so reading Bull and Lockhart’s Seeking a Sanctuary or the new Oxford collection on Ellen White, Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet, could do us good. We need our historians and sociologists to help us tell the truth about ourselves.

But I wonder if we also need something like Miroslav Volf’s Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace. It caught me at the right time, deepening my view of God and expanding how I practice grace in my relationships and teach it to others. I should probably read it again if I’m going to keep recommending it to people! M. Scott Peck’s A Different Drum, a book on community-building, is also on my all-time top ten.

What is your favorite verse or chapter in the Bible?

I’m a big fan of John 10:10: “I have come that they may have life.” And the phrase “all things” running through Colossians 1 has gripped me ever since I first read it. Colossians insists on the restoration of all things, and that’s the kernel of atonement for me, whatever else we have to say about it.  

Keisha McKenzie does communications, development, and board-level strategy consulting through her McKenzie Consulting Group. She works part-time as communications coordinator at Unity of Gaithersburg, Maryland, a small Christian community. She volunteers at her local Adventist church as the webmaster and is part of a small group team there.

Register for the Adventist Forum Conference, September 16-18, here.

Matter_Of_Paul_Charles.jpg

The following open letter, has been sent to newly-appointed Southern Africa-Indian Ocean Division (SID) President Dr. Solomon Maphosa and other top leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination after several months of silence on the matter of SID Commucation Director Paul Charles' ongoing employment. Paul Charles has been the object of ongoing scrutiny from Adventist Church members after news broke of his fraudulent academic qualifications, which Charles used to advance his career. -Ed

The Matter of Paul Charles (SID Director of Communication, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty)

Follow Up from Concerned Adventists in Academia
15 September 2016

Dr. Solomon Maphosa
President, Southern Africa-Indian Ocean Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church 27 Regency Drive, Route 21 Corporate Park
Nellmapius Drive, Irene 0174
Pretoria, South Africa

CC:

President of the General Conference (Dr. Ted Wilson)
Executive Secretary of the General Conference (Dr. GT Ng)
Associate Secretary of the General Conference (Pastor H Moorooven)
Executive Secretary of SID (Pastor Gideon Reynecke)
Chief Financial Officer of SID (Goodwell Nthani)
Director of Communication, Public Affairs & Religious Liberty, SID (Pastor Paul Charles) President of Southern Africa Union Conference (Dr David Spencer)
Executive Secretary of Southern Africa Union Conference (Pastor Trevor Kunene)

We would like to express our continued concern over the matter of Pastor Paul Charles (Director of Communication, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty at the SID), which has still not been resolved 5 months after it broke into the public domain. It has now been confirmed, that Paul Charles does not have any legitimate academic qualifications, which in itself would not have been of great concern had it not been for the following:

1. He claimed to have a Masters and a Doctoral degree from the Freedom Institute for Theological Studies & Research which appears to have been a diploma mill.

2. Although he claimed that he studied at Spicer Adventist University (India), he has never produced a copy of his Bachelor’s degree in Theology or Religious Studies, which would have been a normal requirement for appointment as a minister in the Seventh- day Adventist Church. He therefore secured his appointment as a minister in the Southern Africa Union Conference territory under false pretence.

3. It has also become known that Paul Charles was only at Spicer University for a very short period (not more than 2 years) and then left without completing his studies. And it was in that very same year, 1997, (when he left Spicer University) that he “acquired” the Master of Divinity degree from Freedom Institute for Theological Studies & Research. This is clear evidence that his M.Div. degree was fraudulent (“acquired” within a few months after leaving Spicer University before completing his undergraduate degree). He then subsequently “earned” the Doctor of Philosophy (Missiology) degree in March 2001.

4. He knowingly misrepresented his qualifications to the church in order to be employed as a minister. He even approached (in 1999/2000) a government institution, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), which is a dispute resolution body established in terms of the South African Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (LRA), where he laid false charges against the church. He arm-twisted and threatened the church to employ him based on his academic “qualifications” which evidently were illegitimate.

Why_Christian.jpg

The village atheist was never a threat to people of faith. He—and it was always a he—never amounted to being more than a gadfly. That was the case with Robert Ongersoll, the 19th-century master of the craft, and Richard Dawkins of the 21st century has not been any more successful. People are not ideologically threatened by their enemies, be they religious or secular. (Which is probably why fundamentalists tend to view people outside their ranks as enemies.) The threat always comes from friends who find your faith irrelevant—friends such as myself.

People like me are the ones you talk to over the fence, friendly neighbors who lack faith but who are not in your face about it. We don't like calling ourselves atheists because we are not strident, nor are we offended by what you believe; we simply lack faith, and we don't see what Christianity has to offer us beyond what we already have. And that is the greatest challenge that you who are Christians will ever face: convincing the world that your faith is relevant in the 21st century.

We are a mixed group of well-meaning people. Some of us, who can look back at more decades than we care to appreciate, know all about Christian beliefs—or so we think—while newer cohorts confuse angels with fairies and think the Bible says that Noah's Ark was built by fallen angels with bodyparts made out of rocks. But what we have in common is the tuned-out ear and the glazed-over eye when we happen to hear ministers hawking their spiritual wares on the radio or on TV or even in real life. Asking us if we are saved is like being asked what our thoughts are about the Roman Empire or World War I—as puzzling as it is annoying.

The problem with us is that we have read too much about human evil in the past and the present to even consider the possibility that God, should he exist, would be trucking in genocide and torture. It is so unthinkable to us that we dismiss out of hand any implicit or explicit threat of such metaphysical horrors. The only people who fear hell today are your children. Nor are we drawn to the dream of living in a celestial version of Trump Towers for all eternity. Many of us, me certainly included, doubt if we would want to live one hundred years more, let alone an eternity, especially if it would be an eternity caught up in a cosmic personality cult.

What we, your friends without faith, desire is relevance and meaning in life. We are far less concerned about the meaning of life, and so, incidentally, are a great many of you. The world is full of Christians dying from existential and personal despair related to such things as bad jobs, awful marriages, cultural desolation, isolation in old age, and lack of meaningful human contact. An overarching meaning of life will give you pleasant ideological quarters to live in, but ultimately, it is the life you lead there that matters.

Which brings me to the challenge I have for you: how would you, as people of faith, lay out a meaningful version of the Christian faith to your friends on the other side of the fence, especially to those of us who have found meaning in life. Or can that even be done? Is faith an experience, a rapture, that can only be had apart from from any rational pitch? And if so, without a rational pitch, how do you get people to expose themselves to such an experience?

I hope you will use the commentary field to lay out the case for faith in the 21st century and tell me what I and my non-ideological friends are missing. Or is Christianity doomed to be irrelevant to a culture such as ours?

Aage Rendalen is a retired foreign language teacher who has served the Richmond Public School system in Virginia and is a frequent participant in conversations on SpectrumMagazine.org.

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

Urban_Gardens.jpg

Elizabeth Lanning, 31, has started an NGO in Manila, helping communities grow urban gardens and get medical care delivered by bicycle. She talks about being inspired by her father, cultivating relationships, and Project Propel’s next programs.

Question: You are the founder and CEO of Project Propel, an NGO that works with disadvantaged communities in the Philippines. What inspired you to start this organization? How long has it been operational?

Answer: Project Propel was first conceptualized during my undergraduate studies (Social Work at Washington Adventist University) but took root while I was completing my Master's of Public Health at Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies in the Philippines. While working with an informal settlement of 300 families, I was able to build close relationships, learn more about their daily activities, the troubles they face, and how to include them in the development process. The theories of integration that resonated with my core were validated, and I saw no other way except by working directly with the priority population in order to bring about change. 

Project Propel has been operational since December of 2013 and is now a registered 501c3 non-profit organization.

Project Propel's initial and oldest project is helping women to plant vegetable gardens, thus providing them with nutritious and affordable food. When was the first garden planted? How many do you support? Why weren't these Manila communities growing food already?

Project Propel started its first urban garden in 2013, and we now have six self-sustaining gardens. These gardens weren’t already in existence for several reasons. First, there isn’t much open space in metro Manila, which is widely known as one of the most densely populated cities in the world.  However, many families actually worked in provincial farming before coming to the city, so they are not new to planting vegetables! We’ve really had to learn from each other to combine new, space-saving, urban gardening techniques with their practical skills and know-how.  

Second, for families who live meal to meal, investing and building a garden plot is simply not feasible, so Project Propel helps with that initial set up — from coordinating with the local community officials to getting appropriate spaces approved to providing the funds for the materials needed to get started.   

What has been the biggest challenge in the garden program?

Project Propel works predominantly within informal settlements, many of which have been bustling and growing for decades.  These are close-knit communities that have cropped up along public areas such as railways and rivers and under bridges and overpasses.  Initial entry into these communities was not easy.  It was not that they were unaccustomed to well-intentioned people wanting to help.  However, I really wanted to take time cultivating friendships and building mutual respect with both the community leaders and the priority populations.  I also did not want to be intrusive or undermine their dignity in any way.  Once I gained that trust, it felt as if I was being accepted into an extended family which, in retrospect, is really when the programs began to gain momentum.

You are not Filipino, and grew up in the U.S., I believe. Has that fact made it more difficult to do the work you do?

Sure, it took time to get accustomed to a new culture, and I’m still learning new things each day. It takes a lot of listening and observing and asking questions.  I have found Filipinos to generally be excited to share their culture, and I’m fortunate that the people I work with have been great teachers!

I was raised in Maryland, but was introduced to the field of humanitarian aid at a young age while my father worked for ADRA.  Hearing his stories and accompanying him on some of his project visits was an inspiration for me to do this type of work. 

Do you still identify as a Seventh-day Adventist? 

I am incredibly grateful for my Adventist upbringing and the healthy spiritual atmosphere in which my parents raised me.  I am still very connected to the church and experience joy and fellowship among the religious traditions so many of us share.  I do tend to shy away from identifying myself solely based on certain traditions or beliefs and prefer rather to nurture my relationship with our Creator and with all members of humanity as my brothers or my sisters. 

Where does Project Propel's primary funding come from?

Project Propel gets its funding from both private donors and grants. 

I believe you are now working to provide Medicabs (little health clinics on bicycles) in disadvantaged communities. Why this project specifically? Have you funded any Medicabs already? 

Project Propel's Medicabs are custom-made, pedal-driven mobile clinics, equipped with first-aid supplies, materials for health screenings, emergency relief equipment, and a single stretcher.

The idea for the program came about quite naturally while talking with the local health workers.  I learned that there was a small number of people visiting the local health clinic for basic health screenings, so we thought of bringing the clinic to them.   The local health workers were very enthusiastic about the idea, and the program got underway after some basic sketches and a visit to the local welding shop! 

We have Medicabs operating in several communities now, and the welder is currently working on a queue for more orders, all funded by private donors and partnerships with local organizations.

How do you determine which communities to set your projects up in?

Since the first projects started, word of mouth has really brought us from one community to the next. It seems simple, but word travels fast. We haven’t been short on demand! We have been invited to many of our communities by those who have seen our programs and wish to take part in the action.  We are well aware that being invited into a community is significant in gaining entry and begins the relationship with a level of trust.

What other projects do you have in the works?

We would like to explore other mobile clinic options and develop arts and writing programs for children and youth.

How many people work for Project Propel?

We are predominantly volunteer based as we are still growing. We have three full-time staff, two part-time, and have plans to expand operations this year to keep up with the demand.

Who are the members of Project Propel's board?

Roberta Plantak is a program manager for Project Propel and also a board member. Like Roberta and me, board member Amanda Barizo grew up in the U.S. though her family is Filipino. Amanda has a full-time job here in Manila with a different organization. Sara-May Colon comes often to the Philippines to work with projects. Boryana Alexandrova is our fifth board member. It is our wish that the board always be involved on the ground in one aspect or another to help maintain the focus of Project Propel on the individuals and communities that we serve.

What are your ultimate goals for Project Propel? How is running an NGO different than you had imagined? 

My ultimate goals for Project Propel are to empower individuals and communities and help create an environment for positive growth in the areas of health and wellness. I want Project Propel to remain true to the communities we serve — to always listen, learn, and love people. 

Running an NGO is better than I imagined. It requires a lot of work, but the people and moments that stem from each day make each day such a joy. Every day I am inspired to do more, making my job a delight. 

What is the best thing about your work?

I enjoy being able to brainstorm with members of the community and help our ideas materialize into unique programs which address their health needs.  It is also rewarding to see women who once hid back in their communities now empowered and shining as local leaders.

See www.projectpropel.org for more information about Project Propel.

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

Inline Images: 

Joy_In_Adventures.jpg

Prolific writer of Christian fiction Charles Mills talks about the reprint of his children's book series, where Adventist publishing is headed, research in Bozeman, and the micro-second attention spans of today's young readers.

Question: I understand that your Shadow Creek Ranch children's book series has just undergone a reprint. What was the motivation for the reprint?

Answer: With the publishing industry struggling to stay alive and viable, I can only assume that the Pacific Press chose to reprint a book series that had enjoyed some success in the past. This saved them a bit of money (no royalty advance to the author as well as no additional editorial work required) and put before the public a recognized product by a recognized author. I also want to believe that they saw something of spiritual value to the reader within the series. They set up the release beautifully by inviting me to write a number 13 in the series “Out of the Blue” a couple years ago to draw readers—old and new—into the Shadow Creek Ranch fold.

When was the Shadow Creek Ranch series first published?

Shadow Creek Ranch began its publishing run in 1991 with the release of book #1 - “Escape to Shadow Creek Ranch.”  Book #12 “Planet of Joy”  came out in 1999. Then the Pacific Press released book #13 “Out of the Blue”  in 2014 and then re-released the first 12 books in four-book per volume form this year (2016).

What other children's books have you written? When was the last time you wrote for children? Do you envision any projects in the future that would be targeted toward a younger audience?

I’ve had the privilege of writing dozens of children’s books for both the Review and Herald and Pacific Press, including three devotionals and a book about sex and love. It all began with the “Voyager” series and moved on to the “Professor Appleby” and “Honors Club” books. In between were single releases such as “Jackrabbit Safari” and picture books such as “God’s Special Promises to Me” and “When I Grow Up.” The last book I penned was “Out of the Blue,” book 13 in the Shadow Creek Ranch series. As for future projects, our publishing house knows where I am and I’ve told them I’m eager to help out in any way I can.

What issues do you see confronting the Adventist and wider Christian publishing industry relating to producing quality children's literature? How, as an author, did you target an audience and what literary characteristics do you think are critical in writing for children? Do you feel that in our publishing we are adequately addressing issues that affect new generations of Adventist young people? 

I believe that today’s young reader is identical to young readers of the past except for a couple glaring differences. First, their attention span is not measured in hours or minutes, but micro-seconds. Second, some want their content on something other than a dead tree. But moving content to digital release has, in my opinion, created some real problems. You now face relentless and overpowering competition. When I was a young reader, I went to camp meeting and purchased the latest “children’s books” from the “Book and Bible House.” There might be, at most, a dozen new releases from which to choose. Today, we’re buried in “buy me” messages from hundreds of sources—with Adventist authors a decided minority in the mix. There’s also something to be said about what professional publishers add to a project. Very intelligent people bring their talents to bear on professionally published and printed books. Digital-only publishers often say, “Anyone can be a writer.” But, as a reader, I can add, “Yes, but not everyone should be a writer.”

I targeted my audience by first understanding my audience. Being a school teacher for a couple years introduced me to that glorious young mind and showed me, time and time again, what grabbed the attention of young readers. Having never really grown up myself helped a lot, too. So, I tried to make my writing fast-paced and focused on the type of issues that boys and girls face on a daily basis (friendships, fear, uncertainty, curiosity, dealing with grownups and their issues, decision making, adjusting to change, forgiveness, etc., etc.) By and large, writing for kids is exactly like writing for adults. You just use slightly less complicated wording and focus on the things that concern and excite kids today.

I certainly believe that our publishing efforts these days are addressing Adventist young people. But, I have to say that the move to “all true” stories in our books and other publications has put a serious limiting factor on our publishing outreach. To me, that’s like telling Christ that parables are out! Of course, writing Christian fiction is my specialty, so I may be a bit biased.

Who are your favorite children's authors: both Adventist and more broadly?

I’ve always been a great fan of Sam Campbell, Josephine Cunnington Edwards, and anyone willing to tell me an exciting story—real or imagined. Guide magazine was my go-to publication for many years when I was young. They got it right. They still got it right.

How has the explosion in digital media affected the Christian, and specifically Seventh-day Adventist, publishing industry? As an author, would you be interested in the Pacific Press marketing digital versions of your books? Is that an avenue that they are exploring and that you would embrace? (Kindle, Nook, etc.)

I may be behind the times, but I don’t feel that digital has taken over the hearts and minds of readers just yet. It may in time. Even as publishing houses stumble around trying to decide where and how to get the word out, the printed page is still finding its way into eager hands. The Pacific Press is marketing many of my books in digital form, but as far I can tell, dead trees still reign supreme.

Do you think that the Adventist publishing industry should try to target audiences outside of the church?

Yes and no. I’ve written for both the inside and outside crowd and I know just how much I have to “dumb down” my expression of faith when I know my words are headed out the door of the church. We Adventists are unique in this world. We have unique issues and unique needs which must be addressed uniquely. In other words, as much as I love non-Adventist authors, they’re not going to be in the same boat as I’m sailing in, and I read their beautiful words with a careful eye. Error can sound pretty convincing in the hands of a skilled author. But, when I dig into a good ol’ Adventist-authored release, I relax and know that I’m on much safer ground theologically. When I was young, I got the feeling that the books waiting for me on the Bible House shelves were written specially for my brand of faith. But, there was always that “sharing book” which I knew would be going to my neighbors or the world in general. I felt secure knowing that I was being nurtured in my faith and had something of substance available to share with people not of my faith.

If I was an Adventist publishing house, I’d target the church first and foremost, but then provide a few professional tools that could be taken into the community. I think that’s being done on a regular basis. But the lure of the big bucks waiting outside the church (owing to the much larger potential audience) is pretty strong. To a struggling Adventist publishing industry, that’s got to be really, really tempting.

What other projects have you been working on? What nonfiction projects have you worked on? Tell us about your radio show.

I’ve swung toward radio and audio production. I enjoy hosting live programs and presently have weekly taped shows—“Heartwise” and “LifeQuest Liberty”—airing on both the LifeTalk and 3ABN radio networks as well as dozens of other outlets. “Heartwise” is a health program focusing on making sound lifestyle choices, and “LifeQuest Liberty” addresses religious liberty issues around the world. I get to interview really, really smart people and I love that! I’m also happily writing projects for my beloved Guide magazine as well as providing articles for Signs, Message, and the Adventist Review.

I understand that you have recently retired. What does that mean for you?

What does retirement mean for me? For the first time in 43 years, I can relax. As the government slowly gives me my money back, I can face each day without that pedal-to-the-metal, make-a-living-or-die feeling. When I retired, I told the Lord, “Hey, I’m here if you need me, but I’m not going to go looking for things to do.” I thought that was my ticket to a life of leisure. Seems the Lord has both a sense of humor and a very different definition of the word “leisure.” I’m just as busy as always. But the pressure is gone. I love it.

What are your favorite books you have written?

That’s like asking a parent, “Who’s your favorite child?” But there are a couple books that mean a lot to me. My first, “Voyager,”—which started out as a very successful series in Guide magazine, got me believing that I could add writing to how I make a living. Also, book #3 of the “Honors Club” series from Pacific Press, “The Secret of Scarlett Cove,” was set on Chincoteague Island, Virginia where my wife and I vacationed each year. I used some of the local people as characters in the book and writing it was like taking a vacation on that beautiful place. Of course, the entire Shadow Creek Ranch series began with a visit to Bozeman and the surrounding areas. The Review and Herald sent me out to find locations for the ranch and all the things that happened book after book. Very wise people, those Review folk! It made writing it a pure joy as I recalled the incredible beauty of Montana’s mountains, valleys, and critters. I think that joy comes through in each and every adventure. At least it does for me.

Are there any topics that you would like to see Adventist authors address that have not yet been written about?

As host of a weekly religious liberty radio program, I feel that we really need to address those types of issues because they are tied into most everything that’s going on in this world—everything from sexual issues to people movements to wars and rumors of wars. Freedom is delicate to the extreme and can be lost so very easily. We need to be aware and proactive in this area.

Is there anything else you would like to share?

Thank you for letting me share a bit of my journey and a few of the insights I’ve gained along the way. Our church is in crisis mode, but level-headed publishing can go far to steady the boat in the storm. It all begins with truth, and people who aren’t afraid to write and publish it.

In crisis mode? Can you elaborate?

I could write a book about it!

The updated Shadow Creek Ranch books are available on the Adventist Book Center website.

Charles Mills has written more than 50 books and hundreds of articles, mainly for Adventist publishers. He also produces videos and creates and hosts radio programs. During the 1970s and 1980s he also worked for Faith for Today, the Adventist Media Center, Pacific Union College (as radio station manager), and for the Review and Herald Publishing Association. 

Jennifer Payne is second cousin to Charles Mills. She graduated from Andrews University and completed her MA in Humanities at Hood College. She has taught English at North Shore Junior Academy and Highland View Academy. She lives in Michigan with her husband and two children.

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

One_Project.jpg

I’ve been to the One project three times, in Atlanta, Seattle, and Chicago. However, I haven’t attended since retiring from the White Estate three+ years ago. Though I didn’t find the One project splendid in every way as did my good friend William Johnsson (see "the One project: Why I'm Mad"), neither did I find it the hotbed of iniquity described by some of our Adventist brothers and sisters.

What Blessed My Soul  
*The beautiful, Christ-centered music led by Nicholas Zork’s praise group (violins, cellos, and flutes are not typically used in rock bands)
*The opportunity to discuss the presentations in small groups with candor and honesty
*The emphasis on becoming active in our communities to aid the poor, the marginalized, the voiceless
*The focus on Jesus’ grace and righteousness made by some of the presenters
*A recognition that it is the Holy Spirit who anoints for the task to which He calls.

Bonhoeffer_Christianity.jpg

In the final two years of his life, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote several letters from Tegel prison to his friend Eberhard Bethge in which he spoke of the need for what he referred to as a “religionless Christianity.” “I shall not come out of here a homo religiosus!,” he declared vehemently in a note dated November 21, 1943.  “My fear and distrust of ‘religiosity’ have become greater than ever here.  The fact that the Israelites never uttered the name of God always makes me think, and I can understand it better as I go on.”  On April 30, 1944, Bonhoeffer offered one of his most famous and controversial statements on the meaning of discipleship in what he elsewhere called a “world come of age.”  “What is bothering me incessantly is the question what Christianity really is, or indeed who Christ really is, for us today,” he wrote. “We are moving towards a completely religionless time; people as they are now simply cannot be religious anymore.” 

Piety and religiosity had not vanished from German society in Bonhoeffer’s day (any more than they have from American society in the present, confounding the secularization theories of several generations of sociologists of religion).  Yet this very fact, Bonhoeffer concluded, was itself ironically symptomatic of the irrelevance of religion to the problems facing most men and women. “Even those who honestly describe themselves as ‘religious’ do not in the least act up to it,” he wrote, “and so they presumably mean something quite different by ‘religious.’” Under these circumstances, what did it mean to be a follower of Christ?  In the aftermath of the failure of the institutionalized churches and self-professing believers in Europe to withstand the onslaught of totalitarian ideologies—indeed, in the light of the church's own authoritarianism and its ability to carry on uninterrupted even as the ground fell out from under it, with hymns being sung and sermons preached without pause amid the march to war—the question that now confronted Christians was one of first things. 

Did the very language of spiritual inwardness, of evangelism, of apologetics, and of churchly authority that had marked Western Christianity from its beginning still make any sense? Was it the task of believers to somehow refill the vessels of a failed Christendom project that had been thoroughly corrupted by political evil with lost or forgotten meanings?  Or were believers now called to bear witness to Christ in a secular age in radically new ways, and not as “religious” persons at all?  Did “religion” itself need to be left behind as a historical stage, a human construct and sociological phenomenon, that was in no sense synonymous with the presence of the living Christ in the world and in history?  But if so, what would such a “religionless Christianity” even begin to look like? 

“Man is summoned to share in God’s sufferings at the hands of a godless world,” Bonhoeffer wrote to Bethge on July 18, 1944.  Three days later, after learning of the failure of the Officer’s Plot to assassinate Hitler—a plot in which he had been complicit and for which he would be executed at the age of 39 when his role was uncovered by the Gestapo—Bonhoeffer wrote of the “this-worldliness” of the Christian faith:

“During the last year or so I’ve come to know and understand more and more the profound this-worldliness of Christianity.  The Christian is not ahomo religiosus, but simply a man, as Jesus was a man…I’m still discovering right up to this moment, that it is only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. One must completely abandon any attempt to make something of oneself, whether it be a saint, or a converted sinner, or a churchman (a so-called priestly type!) a righteous man or an unrighteous one, a sick man or a healthy one.  By this-worldliness I mean living unreservedly in life’s duties, problems, successes and failures, experiences and perplexities.  In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world—watching with Christ in Gethsemane. That, I think, is faith; that is metanoia; and that is how one becomes a man and a Christian.”

We do not know how Bonhoeffer might have developed these highly allusive ideas had his life not been cut short. His enigmatic and provocative words have often been pressed into the service of agendas Bonhoeffer himself would have resisted, from liberal death-of-God theologies to highly conservative forms of evangelical Protestantism. Yet there are perhaps a few lessons we can learn from Bonhoeffer’s witness as we face the abuses of power, the smallness of heart and mind, and the betrayals of leadership that have led to mounting crises in our own day—both inside and outside of the church.

How can we be faithful disciples of Jesus in the midst of unsettling new realities, in which by faith we trust that God is still at work? How can we be certain of Christ and speak meaning into the lives of our fellow human beings when we can no longer put our trust in church officialdom or attach our confidence in the Holy Spirit to the outworn habits of religious thinking and speech that mark our church structures?  How can we testify to the living Christ when "religion" itself turns the Word of God into a dead letter and takes on the marks of dehumanizing “kingly authority”?

For Bonhoeffer, the answers to these questions lie not in any nostalgic retreat to the past.  He ultimately refused the path of shoring up decaying institutions and exhausted forms of piety.  Rather, Bonhoeffer insisted, believers must now repent of the power and control game that they have been playing for far too long.  They must instead enter with fear and trembling into the dangerous drama of Christ’s kenosis—his self-emptying and co-suffering identification with all of humankind.  The God-forsaken God of religionless Christianity is a living God.  But this God is no longer to be found in our stagnant and increasingly debased institutional forms.  Rather, Bonhoeffer challenges us to consider, Christ is now paradoxically to be found at the margins, in desolate places, and in and among “secular” people, who in certain ways stand closer to God than the religious themselves.

Ronald Osborn is a wandering philosopher and the author of "Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering" (IVP Academic, 2014) and "Anarchy and Apocalypse: Essays on Faith, Violence, and Theodicy" (Cascade Books, 2010).

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

Unity.jpg

Jared Wright has pointed out certain statements in the unity document that should be omitted because they imply that the action taken by some unions are satanically inspired. And probably we can continue to find other statements of that sort. However, it seems to me that the statement would otherwise be valid in enforcing unity if it pertained to a legitimate principle regarding worldwide unity. If the issue the document addresses were a legitimate matter that effectively disrupts the unity of the church, the church would need to act in the proscribed manner. However, what the document does not address is what kind of issue demands worldwide compliance. The major fault of the document is that it does not understand the real problem:  the question of where we should or should not try to enforce unity. The question in this case is whether the matter of women's ordination is an issue on which we should seek worldwide unity.

It is legitimate to seek unity regarding church organization (divisions, unions, conferences, local churches), qualifications for church membership, qualifications necessary for full-time ministerial service. However, it is illegitimate to require worldwide unity on matters pertaining to areas where there are significant differences such as clothing, education, worship styles, and the role of women in various areas of church services.

In these areas we know that there is great disparity in the church. In many areas of the church, women would not be allowed to wear pants, especially if they were doing some church work such as teaching. There are regional differences, as well, governing wage differences and positions women may take in church organizations such as hospitals, colleges, seminaries. And I am sure the church would have great difficulty in enforcing everywhere the principle that men and women ought to receive the same pay if they are doing the same work such as teaching.

If the churches in which women are treated more equitably should dictate to the rest of the church how they should treat women--for example that they should ordain them to serve as ministers--there would be a great howl by those who do not want women to be ordained, greater than what is heard today by those churches that are ready to ordain women. And this is readily understood. When we consider their situation, it is only proper that they would complain. However, this is exactly the logic being employed, except that places where women are treated equally have been ordered not to do so by those divisions that do not treat women equally. Divisions where women are treated equally to men have been ordered by divisions that do not treat women as equals to treat women unequally, that is, that they cannot be ordained.

In these matters, that is, in matters that deal with social practices (as opposed to doctrinal issues) and where there are great geographical differences, it should be evident that there should not be any worldwide policy. There should not be voted any worldwide policy regarding such matters, and this is clearly so with regard to the role of women in society, including women in ministry.

Because this policy deals with such an issue, no matter what the consequences, it will be impossible and should be impossible to bring about unity regarding this, unless unity is simply taken to mean "mandated uniformity of practice." Unions that ordain women will not and cannot back down on this issue because it will mean not only simply a breaking of a policy but a change in the fundamental principle that women are equal to men. (This is a statement of belief clearly articulated in the church manual though the church contradicts it by its policy regarding ordination.) I foresee that the enforcement of this policy of not ordaining women will have serious consequences for the unity of the church. Those unions that have been ordaining women cannot back down even for the sake of ostensible unity because it would reveal a lack of integrity regarding the principle of the equality of men and women.

This issue is not simply a matter of majoritarian conformity; it is an issue of moral conviction.

Sakae Kubo has had a long career in the Adventist Church, primarily in university and college administration. He taught at the Theological Seminary at Andrews University, served as Dean of the School of Theology at Walla Walla University, as President of Newbold College, and as Vice-President and Academic Dean at Atlantic Union College.

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

Why Are We Losing.jpg

Written by a millennial about church conditions: "Unity," A litany based on a whiny peasant.

LEADER: May we continue to discriminate against women without theological foundation for the sake of unity.

PEOPLE: Why are we losing young people?

LEADER: Let us make the literal six day creation a sacrament.

PEOPLE: Why are we losing young people?

LEADER: May we preoccupy ourselves with remnant theology in order that we may emphasize inquisition rather than acceptance, purification rather than love.

PEOPLE: Why are we losing young people?

LEADER: Let us pay lip-service to women and young people, while ensuring their voting power at our synods remains statistically insignificant.

PEOPLE: Why are we losing young people?

LEADER: Whenever our expression of worship, or expression in general, creates conflict, let us defer to the most orthodox views every time and lecture others on the importance of compromise and unity.

PEOPLE: Why are we losing young people?

ALL: God, what is wrong with young people?

ALL: Amen.

Brandon Herrmann is a passionate churchman.

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

Darnisha_Thomas.png

Darnisha Thomas — who is studying for the final year of her master's program at the Theological Seminary at Andrews — recalls the road to pastoral ministry, from meeting role models to recognizing God's call to rebuffing naysayers. "Some of us have been fighting God’s call, but God continues to place that burden of ministry in our hearts, and at some point we have no other choice but to go and to follow," she says.

Question:  You are a seminary student at Andrews University, pursuing your master of divinity degree. What do you enjoy most about your studies at Andrews?

Answer: One of the things I treasure most is the practical theory I am getting here at Andrews. I like how in-depth the classes are in theory but then how we get to go out and put things into practice.

Do you mean you get to practice preaching?

Not only that, but also go out and do first-hand ministry, like service-learning projects. One of my favorite things we did was going to Cuba. That was a highlight of my seminary experience. We just went out and listened to people, learning from other cultures. I really admire that cross-cultural experience.

That sounds amazing. How long were you in Cuba?

We were there for about two weeks during spring break last year. About 25 seminary students were on the trip. I think Andrews has been organizing this study tour for about four years. 

When I came to Andrews, I was kind of sketchy about Cuba since it is Communist and everything, but a couple of my friends went to Cuba my first year. Then I thought I should really give it a shot. Plus, I would get some academic credits. 

When they had the interest meeting about the Cuba trip, 50 people showed up. It was really popular, but there were only 25 spots available. I sent in my passport, paid my deposit, and about a week or two later got a notice saying they had a spot for me on the tour.

Did you meet a lot of Adventists there?

The Adventist church in Cuba is growing surprisingly fast.  I spoke to a pastor there, and I don’t know how many churches he pastored, but it was a lot. He doesn’t even have a car, so has to cycle.

Before Andrews, you studied theology at Oakwood University. What made you decide to study theology for your undergrad and then attend the seminary? Was it a hard decision?

I sensed the call when I was about 13 or 14, but I didn’t want to do it. 

I loved ministry growing up. I was always the little kid who always wanted to help in church: with Sabbath School, in the kitchen at potluck, with the children’s choir. I always loved the church environment. No, my parents were not in pastoral ministry; there was just something about the church atmosphere that I really enjoyed. But I didn’t think I would actually become a pastor.

Where did you grow up?

I grew up in Laurel, Maryland. My family attended the Emmanuel Brinklow Church.

So tell us more about how you made the decision.

Before officially deciding on theology, I was working with my aunt in her dental clinic. I had moments where I thought about being a dentist. 

When I mentioned being a pastor to my family, they said: “You won’t make any money.” 

I said: “Does it matter?” 

I kept thinking about it. I always just wanted to help people; I wanted them to feel valued and loved. My dad wanted me to do law. My mother said, “You would make a great nurse.” She is a nurse. But I didn’t like the medical stuff. I was torn. It was a really hard decision. 

Did your family try to dissuade you because of your gender?

My parents didn’t have a problem with women pastors. My dad introduced me to Brenda Billingy when I was about ten years old. She preached at our church. I had only seen men as pastors growing up. So that was a huge moment for me. I was like “Wow. Okay, this is a woman pastor. This is so cool.”

Years later I saw Andrea Trusty King preach when she was pregnant with her first daughter and realized it is possible to have a family and be a pastor, too.

But yes, my dad is protective, and he didn’t want me to be hurt. And my grandfather on my mom’s side was a conservative West Indian Adventist. But he actually gave me the blessing from the family. When I was about 15 years old, I did an impromptu Bible study with a friend over the phone. My grandfather happened to be in the room. So then we talked about my wish to become a pastor. I told my grandfather, “They are telling me I shouldn’t and that I won’t make a living.” He said, “Is that what God is telling you?”

My mom was my sign of confirmation in the ministry. When I was 16, after reading my prayer journal, she told me I was called. That was when I cried and said, “Okay, God, you got me. I will study theology.” My parents are my top supporters. They feel that they are doing the important work of raising a pastor!

Really I always just wanted to be used by God. I was really obsessed by that. 

I went to Adventist schools. In my eigth-grade year, I ran for class chaplain, but didn’t get it. My first year at Takoma Academy, I was nominated as class pastor but didn’t get that either. My sophomore year, it was the same script, just a different year. 

Then I was asked to preach for the youth choir anniversary concert at Emmanuel Brinklow. That was my big break. I was 14. 

Did anyone else try to talk you out of your plans to study for the ministry?

Yes, there was one very traumatic experience. I was just finishing my freshman year at Oakwood. I was moving out of the dorm for the summer, and I met the mother of a high school friend. She asked me, “What are you studying?” When I answered theology, she asked, “What are you going to do with that? You can’t be a pastor. Ellen White says women can’t be pastors.” She said, “You need to pray about this. You could be a Bible teacher or chaplain, but a pastor is off limits.”

I had never had anyone say something so direct and blunt to me about pastoring before. I was so upset.

I didn’t even go to church that Sabbath because I kept hearing her words in my mind. I just cried. How dare she tell me I needed to pray about it? I had been praying about it for years. I had even tried to run away, but God called me! 

Still, her words gave me doubts. I called my parents and asked if they ever had a problem with me studying theology or being a pastor. They were upset that this had happened to me. My dad told me, “Women were the first to see Jesus at the tomb. The woman at the well was the first to evangelize about Jesus.” My dad put me in touch with a female cousin who was a pastor, and I talked to her which helped a lot. 

Of all those who have spoken out against women pastors, the majority are women. And it’s not just West Indians or people from the south. We talk about women empowerment, and sisters, and looking out for each other, but some of them make me feel like I am committing the deadliest sin!

If Brenda Billingy, who is West Indian, can defy gravity, I can do the same.

Have you told Brenda Billingy about the impact she has had on you?

Oh yes, I always tell her that she changed my life. She was the first woman pastor I met. She let me know that this career is a possibility — God does call women.

At Andrews I have been able to work under an amazing senior pastor. Dr. Hyveth Williams is a wonderful mentor who has taken me in as one of her spiritual daughters.

Maybe you can do the same someday for someone else.

Yes, I have already met a couple of ladies who are sensing the call to ministry.

I think that is why God called me to this ministry. He wants me to reach out to these young ladies who may find it difficult to be called at a young age. 

What is the most difficult thing about studying theology?

Besides the Greek and Hebrew, there are a lot of things that are really challenging. 

When I arrived at Oakwood, that was the beginning of changing that old traditional Adventist mindset. For instance, I had to learn to become open-minded to various worldviews and religions while establishing my faith as an Adventist.

But then going from an all-black institution to a highly-diverse campus — going to Andrews was a culture shock for me. I’ve gotten used to it now. I really love diversity, and that’s something I really admire about the seminary at Andrews. I have formed so many friendships with people from different cultures, and I can see myself being friends with these people all my life.

What are your fellow students like?

They are literally from everywhere. I have met people from Australia, Africa, the Philippines, Canada, the islands —It’s a melting pot.

What would you say is the average age of the seminary students?

I think most people that are a little bit older than I am. There are a lot of us fresh out of undergrad, but there are a lot of people old enough to be my parents. I think there are a lot of people who have been running like Jonah, but God has finally convinced them they need to be here. 

One of my classmates is the father of one of my high school classmates!

How many other women students would you say there are?

This is something really powerful. After the GC vote last year [that went against women’s ordination], we greeted the new cohort that arrives in August, and that was greatest amount of women starting seminary so far. At least 30 women started last year. I think there are at least a hundred of us, not including doctorates and PhDs.

How long until you finish your master's degree?

I arrived at Andrews in August of 2013. I will finish at the end of this calendar year, December 2016.

What will you be doing this time next year?

Well, I think that God has a sense of humor. I was looking at the west coast for my postgrad plans. But as of January 2017, I will be pastoring at the New Hope Church in Maryland. It’s about 15 minutes from where my parents live. 

The church has four pastors, including one other woman. I will be the pastor for teens, college students, and serving (volunteering). 

Congratulations on the job! When considering your job options, did you find the conferences were open to hiring a woman?

The conferences I talked to are really open to hiring women. Some of the conferences with conservative backgrounds are taking baby steps and hiring just one woman and placing her in a progressive church. But all of the conference presidents I have spoken to are really, really supportive and want to hire women.

You have said that you were very disappointed by the vote against ordination at the General Conference session last July. Why? Were you surprised? Did you feel discouraged? Did you consider abandoning your plans to become a minister?

I was disappointed because of all the things we can argue about, we are focusing on invalidating a woman’s place in the church. It’s heartbreaking to hear people so passionate about something so little as gender being the reason why someone can’t be a pastor. 

My father raised three kids, and he raised me to be a strong person. He taught me to speak out about wrongs like this — to get out of the comfort zone and to make an impact. So if people think that I am going against my family, they are incorrect.

I met a woman in Cuba, pastoring the largest church district. I think about the sisters in China who are breathing church plants.

That gets me really upset because the church can acknowledge these woman for pastoring large church districts but won’t ordain them. It’s a weird double standard.

The vote was heartbreaking but didn’t discourage me in my plans. If anything, it added more fuel to the fire. I am going to do what God called me to do.

Also, the North American Division is really great and affirms me. But I don’t answer to anyone but God.

What do you think the future holds for woman pastors in the Seventh-day Adventist church? Can you see things changing?

In the next 10 or 20 years, I do believe there will be more women pastors. We are already seeing it now. I know there will be a lot more in seminary even this year. 

I don’t know if you have seen the film Pearl Harbor, but it quotes the Japanese Admiral in a line that will always stick out to me: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant. . . .”

I personally believe that women in ministry are that sleeping giant. We aren’t there for the ordination; we are there for the service. We don’t think we are men; our purpose is not to make them lose their jobs. But we have been leaving our comfortable jobs and our positions. Some of us have been fighting God’s call, but God continues to place that burden of ministry in our hearts, and at some point, we have no other choice but to go and to follow. That is so powerful about most of my girls in ministry. We are not doing this to get self-accolades. We are just answering to God.

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

POWER.jpg

 A Pocket Guide to the Christian Use of Power

These statements, expressed with particular concern for associations between men and women, define the Christian ideal in both personal and organizational relationships. They would fit snugly on a 4 x 6 card.  

• God made us all, male and female, in the divine image (Genesis 1).
• The Bible sides with the weak against oppression by the strong (Exodus, the prophets, Jesus).  
• Jesus, the Word made flesh, repudiates coercive power and embraces the persuasive power of service and humble witness (John 1, Hebrews 1, Mark 10 and parallels).
• The Holy Spirit clarifies the meaning of Jesus’ ministry and drives disciples toward new and deeper insight (John 14 and 16).
• Paul, prompted by the Holy Spirit, repudiates all distinctions of status based on inherited traits or imposed conditions (Galatians 3).
• When, following the Holy Spirit’s promptings, new consensus comes uneasily, both Gamaliel-like patience and dramatic protest may reflect the spirit of Jesus; coercion does not (Mark 11 and parallels; Acts 5 and15; 1 Corinthians 9).  

Charles Scriven is Board Chair of Adventist Forum, the organization that publishes Spectrum.

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

Summer_Reading_Flourish.jpg

This is the sixth post in a seven-part series for Spectrum’s 2016 Summer Reading Group. Each post will be drawn from chapters of the book Flourishingby Miroslav Volf. You can view the reading/posting schedule here.

There are some real differences, obviously, between the organization of states and the organization of churches. We shouldn’t confuse political theory with ecclesiology. Yet, in light of some of the decisions that will be made at the upcoming annual council meetings, I can’t help but wonder if politics has something to teach religion—in our case, how to deal with pluralism within our own global community of saints.  The question Volf confronts us with is this: Can religious people who each think their way, ultimately, is the best way or only way, live together peaceably with others who see things differently?  And can they live together peaceably inside the church no less than inside society?  Or is the church, ironically, the place where we can be intolerant towards those who think differently than us? 

Rousseau claimed that, “It is impossible to live in peace with people whom we believe to be damned; to love them would be to hate God who punishes them” (149).  He concluded that the real threat that needed to be addressed and contained was “theological intolerance.” Those following him have argued that the only way to a peaceable society is for religious exclusivists to adopt religious relativism or pluralism (all ways are equally good or bad). Volf, however, makes an important and helpful distinctions between religious and political exclusivism and pluralism, arguing that “a consistent religious exclusivist can be a political pluralist” (151).  In a politically pluralistic state, the government is impartial, guaranteeing freedom of conscience, and giving individuals equal voice and opportunity to participate in the public sphere, regardless of their religious beliefs.  

Exhibit A for religious exclusivism combined with political pluralism is Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, which was the first government that intentionally and officially separated the church and the state. Williams, some might be surprised to learn, was a Christian pastor, who, because his religious convictions, believed it was “monstrous” to compel others to believe what he believed or to force them to conform to such beliefs. Because faith is so important, “all humans must be allowed to live by the faith they hold true” (155). Volf argues that these sentiments that gave birth to the freedom of religion can continue to sustain it today. 

This historic discussion of Williams will likely warm the hearts of many Adventists who have been champions of both the strict separation of church and state and the freedom of religion. We believe it is wrong to compel others on matters of faith. It is at odds with our understanding of faith and our collective experience of being religious minorities in many and most places. So we champion the rights, both ours and that of others, when it comes to the state, along with the freedom of conscience and choice.  But what about the respecting the rights, conscience, and choices of those within our own community, especially when these disagree with our own?  

The recent study on church governance and unity (which is in the process of being revised), issued by the General Conference’s Secretariat’s office attempts to broach this issue, clarifying the procedural guidelines provided by the General Conferences Working Policy. One of the arguments that the document makes is that all church parties in disagreement over a particular issue of church policy (not doctrine) are to participate in a process of communal deliberation and, ultimately, submitting themselves to the conclusions of that process—“[W]hen representatives of all regions and all points of view have had input into discussions, the decision of the whole body is binding on those who have entered into deliberations, either in person or through their representatives…If everyone defies decisions that they disagree with, there is no point in having a decision-making process” (40). 

Yet this process can only work, I would argue, if it is overseen by impartial and broad-minded church administrators. Here’s where Volf’s discussion of political pluralism is so pertinent. It doesn’t apply perfectly to the church because, clearly, the church isn’t the state. But perhaps we could adapt Volf’s description of political pluralism and apply it to an ideal form of church governance—one in which:

freedom of conscience is guaranteed to all people…and all have equal voice in running the affairs of common [church] life. Consequently, [church administration] is impartial with regard to major decisions rather than highly favoring one over all others (141). 

To its credit, the GC Study acknowledges and appreciates the great diversity that exists in the church on numerous practical matters—worship style, dress, and even diet (17). Yet, to make this similar to the practice of ordaining women, fails to recognize that for many it’s a genuine moral issue—a matter of conscience. Must we force such individuals to make a choice between church unity and their sense of basic moral justice? 

Secondly, are all voices being respected and given a seat at the table of ecclesial life and discussion? The perception by many is that we could be doing much better. 

This brings me to Volf’s final condition of impartiality. To many, the GC study’s impassioned call to unity sounds discordant because it comes after the fact, by the office of the very same leaders who led out in what is perceived to be a very partial process.  President Wilson has clearly expressed his very definite perspective on the issue of women’s ordination and obtained a result that happened to coincide with his view. Regardless of how perfectly the discussion and decision may have been carried out procedurally, the perception that both the process and outcome was rigged in some way is unavoidable.   

Freedom of conscience. Equal voice. Impartiality. Volf identifies the real issues that need to be addressed if we really want unity.  Perhaps we really shouldn’t confuse the life of the church with that of the state. Hopefully, however, that is because the life of Christ offers through his people is more, rather than less, than the freedom and unity guaranteed by the state. 

Zane Yi is an assistant professor of religion at Loma Linda University’s School of Religion where he teaches courses in philosophy and theology. He serves as an officer in the Society of Adventist Philosophers.

If you respond to this article, please: 

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

Unity.jpg

Here is a vision for how the 2016 GC Annual Council could achieve consensus concerning Adventist ordination and credentialing policy. Adventists globally can embrace a dynamic and Spirit-led model of mission and ministry that incorporates a renewed and revitalizing ordination and credentialing policy as a vital element of the overall mission. Such a vision will require an intentional strategy. I suggest the following:

1. A clarification of what the phrase “the General Conference is the highest authority that God has upon the earth” means in our contemporary context would be helpful. Its use can sound arrogant and dismissive of all other church bodies. I believe that it is intended to serve a far more helpful purpose. The clarification might involve the statement that in matters of Adventist mission and church policy the buck stops with the delegates of the GC Session. This is because that forum is the most representative body within the denomination. And further, God’s speaks through His people as they seek to understand and implement His will in their united mission to the world. It must also be understood that the original statement refers to our denominational context only.

2. The prioritization of the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience above that of any denominational policy is urgently needed. Deeply held principles of conscience concerning the equitable treatment of women and men must be upheld in our formulation of church policy. Religious freedom will always be prioritized over majoritarian conviction in matters of conscience. Adventists dare not champion religious freedom for others while denying it to our own people!

3. Clarification of ordination and credentialing policy is needed. Is it wholly a matter for theological determination? Or does the substance of such policies also cross into the realm of social practice, thereby necessitating a degree of unity in diversity in these policy matters? After all, if the role of women in society is not solely a theological matter but also a matter of social practice, why should we think the role of women in the church is any different.

4. Rationale for mandating global uniformity of Adventist ordination and credentialing practices and policy would be helpful. GC leaders have championed “unity in diversity” for other policy matters. Further, what evidence is there that some degree of global diversity will effectively disrupt denominational unity? We may be hard pressed to show how the ordination of women as elders in some places has brought disunity!

5. A further consensus-building process in search of a more satisfying ordination and credentialing policy platform is merited. Yes, the 2015 GC Session rejected the proposal that the selection criteria for those ordained to gospel ministry should be designed by each of the Divisions. But the defeat of such a proposal is not to be regarded as the final end to our consensus-building attempts. Other policy proposals abound. The timely paper, “A Study of Church Governance and Unity” produced by the 2016 GC Annual Council by the GC Secretariat in September 2016, speaks eloquently of “our system of representative, consultative, consensus-based decision-making” might yet be used to design ordination and credentialing policies that allow “diversity of practice where there is consensus.” (Study, 6). One such set of proposals has been made by Bertil Wiklander, former GC VP and President of the Trans-European Division. These proposals are an appendix to his book, Ordination Reconsidered: The Biblical Vision of Men and Women as Servants of God, (Newbold Academic Press: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK, 2015), 439-442. Another brief set of proposals was put forward by Alden Thompson in the Ministry magazine, October 1997, in an article titled “Utrecht: A Providential Detour?” Thompson here asserts that God gave us an opportunity to reconsider and refine our ordination policies in the wake of the 1995 GC Session not to allow regional variation in our ordination policies. It seems that these proposals lie buried in the Ministry archives.

I offer my own proposals below. I am amazed at the degree of similarity between all of these proposals even though they were created in vastly different contexts in Europe, America, and Australia.

Study of Adventist hermeneutical principles is apropos here. The request for this study voted by the 2015 GC Session was made because of an evident and growing pluralism in the hermeneutical principles used by Adventists to arrive at a helpful understanding of the ordination issue. It is extremely self-defeating to think that such study will not result in a more unified understanding of ordination. Such a study is not an optional “extra” but an important strategy by which the church can maintain its unity in this as well as other matters.

A careful examination of the two foundational ecclesiological principles on which the ordination and credentialing policies are built is called for. These principles were enunciated in the 1930s and early 1940s and enshrined in the GC Working Policy. They appear to be accepted without question, even at a time of great unease concerning the policies. Yet, if it can be shown that both foundational principles have problems, then the policies that are built on their foundations may well merit revision also. Below, I summarize and critique these two foundational principles.

First Foundational Principle Supporting Adventist Ordination Policies

“‘Any shadow of uncertainty in the matter of what ministerial credentials stand for in one field reflects a shadow upon all credentials, and is a matter of general denominational concern.’ Where there is any question about policy provisions, then the GC Executive Committee is obliged to take an interest and reach a verdict.” ("A Study of Church Governance and Unity," Secretariat, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, September, 2016), 36.

I would only urge that in such cases of uncertainty and questions about policy provisions study be given to the adequacy of the policy provisions as well as to potential action to ensure compliance. This surely is obvious.

Second Foundational Principle Supporting the Adventist Ordination Paradigm

I have unpacked and critiqued this principle in two parts:

ONE: The rite of ordination and the sacred status conferred is qualitatively different from the status conferred by commissioning, credentialing, or licencing. It is stated as follows, “Ordination in Adventist ecclesiology and practice undoubtedly is for life, except in wholly unusual circumstances. Ministerial credentials are not necessarily held for life.” (Ibid, 36).

I am very much in favor of pastors believing that God has called them for a lifetime of service in gospel ministry, as God leads and as circumstances allow.

Three objections to this principle follow. First, I believe that this principle, unwittingly perhaps, seeks to impart a sacramental status to the individual. Such thinking is, I believe, theologically inadequate, even dangerous. God calls; individuals answer! This begins with the inner calling of God to the individual to serve His people and the world. This is incomplete without the outer calling of the church of God through a representative body. Ordination is no more or less than the affirmation and blessing of this inner calling of a servant leader. The specific credential offered is a pledge by the denomination to use the individual in service. Thus, both ordination and credentialing reflect the dual nature of that calling. Thus, they do not have a qualitatively different character. Both of these blessings equip the individual for service. They are two sides of the same coin.

God works with individuals as they transition through a lifetime of service using and developing the various gifts He has given.  The body of Christ must do the same. The role of the individual in ministry may change. This doesn’t mean that ordination and credentialing are somehow qualitatively different. Taken together, they form a whole. Our theology and practice must reflect this.

Second, ordination for life invites an unseemly feeling of entitlement and of being beyond reproach in their calling. It breeds a lack of accountability. Unfortunately, there are some who do not live worthy of their calling. Often, these are waiting for their retirement or just living from pay check to pay check.

Third, why must Adventists affirm that once ordained, always ordained? After all, we don’t believe in once saved always saved! To me, ordination for life is an echo of the Roman Catholic teaching that the ordained clergy class has been sealed with the dominicus character, a special seal for life, which cannot be undone, though one live in unbelief. Such a sealing elevates the priest to enjoy a special status with God, where one is enabled to re-enact Christ’s sacrifice for his congregation and to act as a mediator between God and man. In this way, ordination for life reflects a sacramental and an elitist view of gospel ministry, creating an incipient hierarchy.

TWO:“Gospel ministry” is qualitatively different from “administrative service.” Gospel ministry is always to be prioritized over administrative service in that the first is one’s primary calling, the second is a secondary and temporary calling. (See Ibid).

Of course, we honor Adventist administrators who happily return to congregational ministry after a period of time in administration. But is there only one path in fulfilment of gospel ministry. Does one style and size of ministry really fit all?

Two objections can be made to such a principle. First, this principle appears to imply that Adventist administrators really have departed from their original high calling to gospel ministry by accepting a call into administrative service. Is this how the gifts and calling of God really operate? Romans 12: 6-8 indicates that if an individual has a specific gift and the church of God calls him or her to use it, he/she should. The gifts and the calling of God are not to be set up in opposition to each other as if a positive response to serve in administrative service is to defer the performance of God’s primary calling to that individual.

Second, is it true that congregational ministry and evangelism are the core functions of those called to lead the body of Christ? Should gospel ministry be conceived of as the administrator’s primary calling?  Should administrative service always be regarded as an administrator’s secondary and temporary calling? And is this model of primary and secondary callings to be applied to the multitude of ministry specialists who work in tandem with our congregations? Here I am thinking of those working in youth ministries, health ministries, chaplaincy, personal ministries, media ministries such as editing, or indeed our Bible scholars and theologians who are equally involved in the ministry of the Word. Must they also be prepared to slot into congregational ministry and direct evangelism when called to do so even when their gifts don’t fit them for this? Such an understanding of the nature of gospel ministry certainly needs revision!

Years ago, I knew of a person in pastoral ministry who was taken out of denominational employ by people who had determined that he did indeed was more gifted for tertiary teaching than for pastoral ministry, among his other gifts. Unfortunately, conference leaders only gave themselves a very limited window of opportunity to find a more specialized ministry role where he could serve. That individual was very willing to be flexible in the transition process. All he wanted from them was some recognition that the gifts and calling of God did not require that one size fit all. The Conference President once laughed in his face when he had previously suggested that he would happily step into a more specialized role. Alas, the conference leadership were committing this very category error big time. Categorization of people often destroys people and their usefulness. Adventist leaders are not immune from this!

It is for reasons such as these that I am attracted to a paradigm of appointment to Adventist leadership that doesn’t categorize people into hierarchies. I pray for the day when Adventists will adopt a system where their leaders are fitted into an overarching scheme of lateral categories as I explain below.

Re-envisioning a New Paradigm of Appointment to Adventist Leadership, Mission, and Ministry

The following steps are necessary in order to create such a scheme:

1. Adopt a more united Adventist hermeneutic to help us as we seek to understand Scripture together. Darius Jankiewicz recently authored a paper in the Journal of Adventist Mission Studies that well illustrates the consequences of both helpful and unhelpful hermeneutical principles. See Jankiewicz, Darius (2016) "Hermeneutics of Slavery: A “Bible-Alone” Faith and the Problem of Human Enslavement," Journal of Adventist Mission Studies: Vol. 12: No. 1, 47-73.  Available here.

2. Re-envision the Adventist communion as a divine vehicle in the fulfilment of God’s kingdom mission in our world. All believers are called by God to serve Him by continuing the ministry of Jesus in our world through the blessing of the Spirit of God whom Jesus sends for this purpose. Adventist leaders are called to exercise their gift of leadership.

3. Study, understand, and more accurately define the role of deacon, elder, and pastor within our global communion.

4. Affirm and appoint biblically qualified individuals of both genders to specific leadership roles by the laying on of hands for the purpose of committing them to their present role. Such rites could be simple occasions and designed to be culturally sensitive and gender appropriate. Such rites would benefit from having the approval of the representative global body and be conducted at various transition points in the life and career of the individual. Procedures such as these would cultivate global unity while not demanding uniformity.

5. Authorized credentials containing a specific role description for present responsibilities could be offered to every deacon, elder, pastor, ministry specialist, educationalist, and institutional administrator, whether employed or voluntary. Such credentials would be globally endorsed and would need to be reissued as the individual undertakes new roles within the global communion. This global endorsement of the various lateral categories of service across the breadth of the various leadership ministries would create a united global scheme. It would ensure a reasonable degree of global standardization but not absolute uniformity within the plethora of lateral categories. The present scheme where the service of one tightly knit global, Adventist-ordained class could then be dispensed with.

6. The global system of interlocking Adventist entities would be preserved, and the free movement of individuals according to the needs of the field would be facilitated.

Conclusion

Adventists are caught in the midst of competing solutions to bring the present unease with regard to ordination to a satisfying conclusion. We still have a unique opportunity to adopt a theology of ordination and associated practical guidelines that seek to embrace all and promote unity among all. This could yet be a dynamic and Spirit-led model of mission and ministry such as the early Christians had. Adventist pioneers, following on from the work of the Protestant Reformers and their heirs, built their polity and gospel order in pragmatic fashion. For the most part, this has served us well.

However, the almost inevitable drift toward institutionalisation and clericalisation may well have created subtle, yet sinful changes, in attitude and modes of operation that are best addressed by a studied renewal and reformation. Cool heads and warm hearts must prevail at Annual Council 2016. Please Lord, help us to this end!

Image Credit: Brent Hardinghe / Adventist News Network

Peter Marks served in the Adventist ministry in Australia and New Zealand (1983-1995). He was a professor of English at Sunchon National University (2005 - 2007) and Sahmyook University (2008-2009). Both these universities are in Korea. He has an MA (Religion) degree from the Newbold College Campus of Andrews University (1989) and a Master of Information Management - Librarianship degree from the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia (1998).

Jon Davidson Interview.png

Singer and songwriter Jon Davidson, a graduate of Andrews University, has written and performed music from a variety of genres. He has appeared in Entertainment Weekly and on E! Television. Jon's music has appeared in everything from MTV shows to Fendi and Burgerville compilation albums to several feature films. He’s toured and performed in 45 states, six Canadian provinces, and five countries. On October 8, his latest solo album, HYMN, releases. In this interview, he tells us more about his projects and the impact music has on his life.

Question: Your fourth solo album, HYMN, comes out on October 8, 2016. What can listeners expect in this new album?

Answer: A heartfelt collection of hymns, in my pop/rock/electronic/acoustic style. Seven are classic hymns, four are hymns I've penned myself. It's been a long, two-year recording process, and I'm pretty proud of the final result.

You’ve described HYMN as, “the album I always wanted to record.” What makes this album special? What is your favorite thing about it?

Hymns have a way of evoking thoughts and feelings in people across a wide spectrum of belief systems. My life and faith have been changed by hymns, and I believe they, and the God they speak of, have the power to do the same for anyone. I've played hymns like "Amazing Grace" in bars and clubs to very secular audiences, and agnostics and atheists have come up to me after the show and told me how much they were moved.

I think what makes this album special to me is that I recorded it for me. Now that I'm a fully independent artist (no label, management, booking agent, etc.), I'm free to do whatever I want. So, I created the album that was on my heart, not the one that would sell the most copies.

You’ve recently recovered from a 15-month battle with Lyme Disease as well as a torn Achilles tendon. What kind of impact did this have on your career as a musician and your life in general? How did this experience help shape HYMN?

These two physical obstacles have had a huge impact on my life. You don't realize how much you take for granted basic abilities like walking, using your hands, and even being able to find the strength to get out of bed until those things are taken away from you. Lyme, in particular, left me thinking I was dying before I was diagnosed and sometimes left me wishing that I would.

In the midst of these storms, I was encouraged by the words to the classic hymn "It Is Well With My Soul," and I knew that if its author could endure the loss of his family and his fortune and still find the strength to praise God that I could do the same under less dire circumstances. As a result of the comfort this hymn brought me, I decided to record it while still on crutches and release it as a single. From the overwhelmingly positive responses I received from this one song, I decided to record an entire album of hymns that meant a lot to me.

What is your first memory involving music? When – and how – did you know music was the career path for you?

I grew up in a very musical family. My mom and sister are accomplished pianists, and my dad plays a myriad of instruments, some better than others. I grew up taking piano and drum lessons sporadically and taught myself guitar and bass. It wasn't until I was in college, in the midst of switching my major for the sixth time, that I realized music was truly the only career I was passionate about.

Are you able to make a living as a musician? What else do you do to make ends meet?

For four years, in the midst of my touring days, I made a living as a musician. Money from shows, album and merchandise sales, radio royalties, licensing placements, and more kept me afloat. Now, though, I play music part-time. I also write, do social media consulting, invest in real estate, and work at a restaurant. And, I pick up pennies off the street.

Why is music so important in your life, and what kind of impact do you want your music to have on the lives of others?

Music is important in my life because it speaks in ways that mere words can't. It speaks across time, across paradigms, across belief systems. It speaks directly to the soul. I hope and pray that the albums I've created over the years, and the songs I've written, are more than just entertainment, that they have made listeners think about the things that really matter.

Moments where the divine breaks through the mundane are what matter to me, not all the records I've sold, countries I've toured, or radio stations I've been on. I remember a girl who came up to me after a show in Spokane, Washington and told me that my song "Perfect Cliche" was the reason that she decided to forgive her father and reconcile with him after years of silence. Moments like those make everything I do worthwhile.

You grew up in the Adventist community, attending Andrews Academy and Andrews University, I believe. What was your degree at Andrews if not music?

I did! I was a music minor for a while, but Andrews' music program was fairly limited, specializing solely in classical music which I respect but never had an interest in. I ended up graduating with a BA in Communications and minored in Spanish.

Do you still consider yourself an Adventist? Why or why not?

I do, theologically at least. I love the church's emphasis on the Bible, on the infallibility of Scripture, and on serving others. I definitely disagree with the SDA church on a variety of lifestyle issues, though, and don't care for the church's propensity toward judgment and toward making trivial issues seemingly more important than the Gospel.

In addition to your solo work, you’re also the frontman in the alt/pop band Crown Point and the hard rock band Silversafe. How do the different musical genres you work within shape your overall experience with music? Do similarities and connections exist between hymns and hard rock, for example, that one might not expect?

I've always loved a variety of genres. Technically, both of my bands are currently on hiatus, so my solo projects have been my main focus for the past two years. Having said that, I think that similarities exist between all three acts I'm a part of. While both bands have never been Christian bands, I, as the primary songwriter, have always written lyrics for both bands that point to the things that matter: God, love, social justice, and authenticity. There's something more effective and passionate about screaming the lyric "Born dead as the Son that You're killing/Life out of the blood that You're spilling/This automatic heart will have a choice/And I am coming to life" over a thunderous wall of double kicks and distorted guitars than about whispering it over a soft acoustic guitar.

When you’re not writing, recording, or performing music, what do you like to do in your free time?

Travel. Climb. Hike.

I just got back from the Bahamas yesterday, and I'm leaving for Thailand in three weeks. I believe that experiencing different cultures is vital for a vibrant faith and for keeping myself outside of that comfortable American Christian box it's so easy to construct for myself.

What is your dream project?

I would love to collaborate with one or more of my favorite bands: Needtobreathe, Switchfoot, Thrice... . Well, I guess Thrice would have to get back together first, but hey, it's my dream.

What is a question you’ve always hoped an interviewer would ask, and what’s your answer?

Hmmm...that's a tough one! I'm a fan of wacky, off-the-wall questions, questions like "What's your favorite shape of pasta?" or "What's your favorite thing about your home state of Michigan?"

(The answers are penne and absolutely nothing, by the way.)

Also, I have always liked serious, legacy-oriented questions, too. Questions like "What do you hope people say about you at your funeral?"

The answer?

I hope they say that I was a guy who loved with all his heart, who gave when it hurt, and who lived for more than just himself. I fall short of these lofty ideals on the daily, but God's grace covers my stains, again and again.

Jon Davidson’s music can be purchased from iTunes, Amazon or wherever digital music is sold. For more information on purchasing, visit www.jondavidsonmusic.com.

Alisa Williams is Spirituality Editor at SpectrumMagazine.org.
Photo Credit: Kimberly Johnson / Facebook.com/JonDavidsonMusic

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

Heaven_And_Earth.jpg

October 7, 2016, in the morning:

I BELIEVE

* I believe in women's ordination because the Father is not a male, and the Triune God is not a hierarchy.
* I believe in women's ordination because the person who first saw and proclaimed the Son risen from the dead was a woman.
* I believe in women's ordination because the Spirit is being poured out on all flesh, on sons and daughters, especially on the daughters.
* I believe in women's ordination because of the circle of anointed women in Paul's life and ministry, Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, and Junia, to mention just a few.
* I believe in women's ordination because of the priesthood of all believers.
* I believe in women's ordination because of the promise -- come the day -- when they shall no longer say, every person to his brother and sister, "Know the Lord" because they shall ALL know me.
* I believe in women's ordination because the person wielding the highest teaching authority in my faith community was a woman.
* I believe in women's ordination because I have seen churches saved, lives transformed, and communities blessed by the ordination to ministry of women, given from above. 

And you, who are willing to traumatize and divide the church by your opposition to acts of God, what do you believe?

October 8, 2016, in the morning:

GOD, THE GENERAL CONFERENCE, AND THE UNIONS

The hubris of the General Conference is unbelievable. It is now reported that the GC will give the unions a year of grace in order to repent of what they have done. The proposal is quite amazing. The unions have not done much and are not easily in a position to repent. Let the GC direct their complaint to a higher authority. You must tell God to repent and do your best to bring God to order. The unions merely responded to acts of God. They saw women gifted, called, and anointed for ministry. All the unions have done was to acknowledge God's calling to pastoral ministry. They have practiced the reality of ordination -- a recognition of what God has done. Beloved GC: Bring your complaint to God, then let us know a year from now if you were able to get God to repent.

LETTER FROM HEAVEN

Heaven, October 2017 (not a mistake)

Dear General Conference, 

I have wanted to write to you for a long time, but there is a lot going on in the world, and I have been very busy. It is not that I have forgotten about you, but I have other sheep that are not of this fold, and I also need to shepherd them. Besides, you have kept up such frantic activity at the GC headquarters that I can hardly keep up. My, how you guys travel! It is not that I don't care, but I have my priorities. 

Did I tell you my idea about church? Church to me is Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Church is local and particular. What happens in the local church in Oslo interests me more than what happens in Washington,  D.C. I don't mean to offend you, but I like the local stuff better. The most important persons to me are the pastors and the members of the local churches, not the presidents and the vice-presidents at the General Conference. It says in the Bible that I never slumber or sleep. That is true--to a point. I do nap sometimes. I have an attack of somnolence when there is a board meeting in Loma Linda, and it is even worse at the Annual Council meetings in Washington, D.C. I just can't stay awake. My Son advised me to see a doctor about it, but I don't think that's the problem. Mindful that I can't stay awake, I sometimes stay away. I can't understand how you guys can stand it, sitting on so many boards, not getting any time to read or reflect or listen to what is going on in the world. 

It is now a year since you notified the unions that they have one year of grace to walk back their actions on women's ordination. I am not the type that is easily miffed. If I were, I would be extremely miffed at your actions, that is, for leaving me out. Why are you taking it out on the unions? What is their role in this that so vexes you? You should be taking it out on me. Worse than my somnolence at your endless committee and board meetings is my utter disgust over centuries of male chauvinism, male sanctimoniousness, and male self-importance. I have waited and waited to see if it would let up, but in some parts of the world, it is getting worse. Enough is enough in the world, but now we are talking about the church. Do you think these women put themselves forward for tasks to which they had not been called? I called them; that's what happened. They responded to my call even though you tried to block the door. Honestly, I am utterly sickened by your decision to deny seating to Sandra Roberts at your meetings. I am not going to deny you a seat at my table in the world to come, but you'll be surprised to discover where Sandra Roberts will be seated. Let us be specific. Let's do names. We are talking about real people who have feelings. 

The problem with your decision to unload on the unions is that the unions report to me. I called the women, and I instructed the unions to recognize what I was doing. This one is on me. I plan to continue calling women to pastoral ministry, and I hope the unions will not think that your demand for repentance has anything to do with me. 

I must go now. Other sheep are waiting, a full seven billion of them. But it has been reported to me that you are saying that my Son is coming soon. What do you know about that--or about my seven billion sheep that are not of this fold? Until you pay attention to how I am pouring out my Spirit on all flesh, especially on women, hold back on the "coming soon" mantra. 

This is it for now. Perhaps I will write again in a year if my Son has not come by then. 

Respectfully, 

God

______

Sigve Tonstad is Assistant Professor of Theology at Loma Linda University's School of Religion.

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

Working Policy.jpg

Why would anyone try to reinvent the wheel when a perfectly serviceable example lay in plain sight?  To do so would seem to indicate either a remarkable ignorance of the existence of the available wheel or more likely a desire to construct more than just a wheel.

Consider this proposition in light of the kerfuffle occurring last week over the efforts originating among the General Conference officers to have the GC Executive Committee, in its Annual Council, to approve a policy for dealing with union conferences deemed to be out of harmony with General Conference policy concerning ordination. It would appear that a ‘wheel’—a policy prescribing what to do in that exact situation already exists. Witness the following excerpt from the General Conference Working Policy:  

B 95 05 Discontinuation of Conferences, Missions, Regions, Field Stations, Unions, and Unions of Churches by Dissolution and/or Expulsion—If a situation arises where it is determined by the higher organization that the majority of members of a conference, a mission, a region, a field station, a union, or a union of churches are in apostasy, or that the organization refuses to operate in harmony with denominational policies and constitutional requirements, and is in rebellion, the higher organization has a responsibility to act for the protection of its loyal members, and the good name of the Church. Every effort should be made to avert the need for dissolution by counseling with the leadership and members, seeking to bring healing and reconciliation, and to preserve the organization as a witness for God and His saving truth. If conciliatory efforts fail and discontinuation appears to be the only solution, the higher organization shall have authority to act as set out under B 95 10 and B 95 15. 

B 95 15 Dissolution and/or Expulsion of Unions/Unions of Churches—If, in the opinion of a division administration, a union/union of churches appears to be in apostasy or rebellion, and the procedures outlined in B 95 05 have been followed, but have proved unsuccessful, the following steps shall be taken: 

1. The matter shall be considered by the division executive committee at a duly called meeting of the committee, at which time all the relevant data shall be shared. The division executive committee shall then determine whether or not the union/union of churches is in apostasy or rebellion. 

2. a. In the case of a union mission/union of churches with mission status: If the division executive committee determines that a union mission/union of churches with mission status is in apostasy or rebellion and should be dissolved, it shall take an action to dissolve the organization, and shall recommend to the General Conference Executive Committee the expulsion of the unit from the world sisterhood of unions. 

b. In the case of a union conference/union of churches with conference status: If the division executive committee determines that a union conference/union of churches with conference status is in apostasy or rebellion and should be expelled from the world sisterhood of unions, the division shall refer the matter to the General Conference Executive Committee with the recommendation for expulsion from the world sisterhood of unions and the reasons for it. 

3. The General Conference Executive Committee, in consultation with the division, shall use its discretion to decide whether another union conference constituency meeting should be called and, if so, at what point in the procedure. 

4. The General Conference Executive Committee shall consider the recommendation of the division executive committee at its Spring Meeting or Annual Council. If it approves the proposal for expulsion, the General Conference Executive Committee shall refer the recommendation to the next regular or specially called General Conference Session for consideration. 

5. If a General Conference Session concurs with a recommendation to expel and votes to expel a union from the world sisterhood of unions, the division shall exercise direct responsibility for the conferences and/or missions/regions/field stations affected by the expulsion and shall, through its executive committee, take an action to attach them directly to the division until a new organization can be established or a rearrangement of territorial boundaries effected. Disloyal conferences/missions/regions/field stations shall be dealt with in harmony with the principles set out under B 75 10. In the event that a union of churches is expelled from the sisterhood of unions, the division executive committee shall vote to take into the care of the division all churches of the union of churches until reorganization or a redistribution of boundaries can be arranged. The division executive committee, functioning in place of the expelled union of churches constituency, shall have authority to disband any local churches which prove to be disloyal and to redistribute remaining churches by territorial adjustment and/or reorganization. 

6. In the event of the dissolution of a union mission/union of churches with mission status and/or the expulsion of a union/union of churches with conference status from the sisterhood of unions, audits of the financial records of the union conference/union mission shall be conducted. All assets remaining after all claims have been satisfied shall be transferred to a legal entity authorized by the division, or dealt with as specified in the expelled entity’s constitution and bylaws or operating policy. 

7. If, with the passage of time and efforts toward healing and restoration, it seems desirable for the nurture of the members and for the mission of the Church to reorganize the union/union of churches, the process outlined under the relevant section of B 65 shall be followed. 

Now why, instead of initiating a near crisis, did ‘the brethren’ not simply reference this existing policy and proceed to implement it? Let’s return to the above-cited possibilities. Was it an incredible ignorance of the existence of this policy?  Given the cumulative knowledge of policy matters in among the GC Secretariat, that really does seem incredible. The more likely answer would seem to be that B95 wasn’t exactly what the initiator(s) of this episode wanted to do. Evidence pointing toward that answer is in B95.  Note: 

B 95 15 If, in the opinion of a division administration, a union/union of churches appears to be in apostasy or rebellion, and the procedures outlined in B 95 05 have been followed, but have proved unsuccessful, the following steps shall be taken: 

1. The matter shall be considered by the division executive committee at a duly called meeting of the committee, at which time all the relevant data shall be shared. The division executive committee shall then determine whether or not the union/union of churches is in apostasy or rebellion. 

Note that the procedure must begin at the division level, and that the language is mandatory—it shall be done following this procedure. If the division committee—not just its officers—decide a union should be disciplined, it refers the matter to the GC Executive Committee with a recommendation for further action. The GC Committee shall consider the recommendation at either a Spring Meeting or Annual Council. If the decision were to be for expulsion/dissolution, the matter shall go to the next General Conference Session. Note also that B95 makes no provision for what happens if the division committee decides that no problem exists.

B95 is mandatory, and its provisions are clear. Perhaps the problem is that it leaves little room for unilateral executive action other than informally making a division aware of a perceived problem—that, and the fact that the procedure mandated would take more that a bit of time to carry out. 

Perhaps the lack of attention to B75 reflects a little-discussed attitude: that GCWP is to be used to regulate the actions of “subordinate” organizations rather than the GC itself—and its officers. Over the past decades, two realities have been observed. First, discussions of policy conflicts often eventually lead someone to observe that ‘there’s policy, and then there’s policy,’ meaning that some policies are more important than others. As a practical matter, that’s true. But it also reflects the reality that the use of policy to influence the outcome of a discussion is optional, to be done if policy furthers the case of the person citing it.

The second observed reality is that although GCWP is the closest thing we have to a law code, it is not given that weight. When practice is seen to be in conflict with policy, the organization simply changes policy to reflect practice, when change in policy should rightly precede change in practice—at least if policy is as important as it is on occasion claimed to be. GC officers more than once have chosen to ignore policy if it seems the best thing to do, as though policy is optional, not mandatory. This is a bit like Richard Nixon’s position that if the president does it, it isn’t illegal. In hindsight, that was a most unfortunate argument. It still is, and not just in the setting of civil government.

SEE ALSO: Unions and the General Conference - What Happens Next?

Mitchell Tyner is retired Associate General Counsel to the General Conference.

If you respond to this article, please: 

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

Pastoral_Letters.jpg

The document voted by the General Conference Executive Committee on October 11, 2016 outlined a process intended to create conformity with the General Conference's oppositional stance on Women's Ordination. Part of the process outlined in that document is the writing of "pastoral letters":

"If after six months of discussion the matter has not been resolved, the executive officers of the next higher organization should write pastoral letters encouraging the executive officers and the governing body of the entity to lead their organization to be faithful to the biblical principles as expressed in the Fundamental Beliefs, voted actions, and working policies of the Church." 

While the document calls for "pastoral letters" from church administrators, pastors at every level of the church should be included in the process. The church is the people. The following letter was written by a pastor in the Pacific Union Conference the day of the vote. -Ed

Every time the General Conference comes out with another statement, or takes another vote against equality, my soul is damaged. I love this church and am saddened by the direction it is taking. I, and many of my family members, for multiple generations, have given their lives to serving God through the church. These votes and documents do not remotely reflect the faith of myself, or my family, and I wholeheartedly object to the decision today and at the GC Session in 2015. 

Each time these decisions are made I contemplate how much longer I can work for a denomination which blatantly practices discrimination. I know many of you are also wrestling with the decision of whether or not you can remain in the church. Let me share why I'm not leaving anytime soon but will remain a pastor and fight even harder for equality in the church. 

I am staying because of all the women in ministry who are still serving despite these repeated attempts to deny their calling. 

I am honored to have an amazing boss in Sandra Roberts who has exhibited grace (far more than I could) through this entire experience. She is a gifted leader and an amazing person who is clearly called by God. If she can stay (despite being the number one target of the GC) I surely can. 

There have been several amazing female pastors I have had the pleasure of working with at Azure Hills including Patty Marruffo, Danielle Marie Foré, and Marlene Ferreras. Each of them have done incredible pastoral work and stayed committed to ministry despite these decisions that take their toll on their hearts. Our new Senior Pastor, Tara VinCross, is incredibly visionary and has big plans for Azure Hills that I know will come to fruition with her deep commitment to Christ and leadership skills. If they can stay, I surely can.

Most importantly, my mother, Norma Osborn, served for 25 years as pastor before retiring. She continued to be a pastor despite receiving death threats at a congregation ( a whole other story not related to women's ordination) and stayed focused on helping kids and families learn about God. If she stayed, I can. 

My encouragement to all of us is to stay and model for the world how beautiful faith is when it is practiced in the context of equality and respect for all people. Instead of leaving, let's become even more focused and committed to teaching our kids that we are all created equal and no one is better than another. Let's serve our communities with even more passion, especially focusing on groups that society marginalizes because we know how damaging marginalization is to all of us. We won't change everyone's mind, but I believe there are many people in the middle who can easily be won over by seeing the fruit of our faith. 

In the future, there may come a breaking point and all of this may change. I don't know. But this is my commitment for now: I will continue to be, and now even more publicly and vocally, a voice for the marginalized in our church. If you are a woman in ministry, a member of the LGBT community, someone who doubts more than they believe, struggling with mental health challenges, in an interfaith relationship, or whatever marginalized group you may be part of, I will fight to ensure you are treated with dignity and respect. I will provide you with pastoral care in the best way I know how and hopefully help you experience a more abundant life. 

The delegates at Annual Council are no more "Adventist" than I am or you are. We are the church. Let's get to work and be the church. Our world needs us.

Trevan Osborn is Assocaite Pastor at the Azure Hills Church in Grand Terrace, California.

If you respond to this article, please: 

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.