Streets.png

The Harbor of Hope Church in Benton Harbor, Michigan, has just moved into its own building, and celebrated its grand opening Sabbath in the former county health building with a pancake breakfast. Millennial Taurus Montgomery talks about his passion for community service, reaching young men, his new book and unorthodox ministry.

Question: You recently hosted a grand opening for your Harbor of Hope Church in Benton Harbor, Michigan, as it has moved into a former Berrien County Health Department Building. Why did you choose such an unorthodox church building? 

Answer: We chose such an unorthodox church building because we wanted to do unorthodox ministry!

But we like to say God chose the building for us. It came out of nowhere. We wanted a facility that would be useful in serving the community and not something only condusive to sitting in pews. Our community is one of great need and it would have been poor stewardship to have a building that would limit us to only having worship services.

Question: Your grand opening included a Saturday morning pancake breakfast before the church service, according to an article in the local paper. That isn't a typical feature of an Adventist church! Why breakfast?

Breakfast because it is the most important meal of the day, of course! While there is truth to that, the other reason is that we wanted to do something at our grand opening that would symbolize our church's mission. We offer breakfast every week. A free breakfast not only meets a need, but it represents our desire to meet people's physical needs while providing an opportunity for fellowship before worship. We also wanted to make the connection that just a physical food is necessary to start your day, so is spiritual food, the word of God, necessary to starting your day off right! Christ did say that "man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).

How did the Harbor of Hope Church get started? Who are its main attendees? How big is your congregation?

Harbor of Hope was started by Andrews University students who felt a burden for the city of Benton Harbor in the late 1990s. They began walking the streets every Sabbath, inviting children to an afternoon program. And that outreach grew and grew. Their burden was fueled by series of messages by Pastor Dwight Nelson and in 2003 Chaplain Tim Nixon conducted an evangelistic series that baptized 40 people.

Our main attendees are families and youth of Benton Harbor, as well as Andrews' students and staff. Regular attendance is about 85 people every Sabbath.

Can you tell us about some of the community programs the Harbor of Hope Church runs? 

We have ministries that provide relief as well as ministries that provide development. 

Our weekly breakfast ministry has served over 100,000 meals over the past 14 years. Men from the local homeless shelter and kids from the community are the two reasons we started it. 

Our community service team is very active with coat drives for the winter, back to school dinners, school suppy giveaways, Thanksgiving food baskets for the community, and so on.

We also have an outreach initiative we call GOMADNOW (Go Make A Difference Now). On 40 Sabbaths throughout the year, we go out into the community to do intentional acts of kindness. 

The primary development-based ministry we do now is related to education and personal development. Since many of those we serve are not reading at their grade level, we recently started a tutoring program to address literacy issues. 

Man Up is a program we launched to address the need to help young men and fathers become all God wants them to be. 

[Watch a short video describing the church here.]

I have been told you have a particular passion for helping young black men to serve the Lord. What do you think is the biggest thing that they need? How are you helping to meet their needs?

We discovered that 89% of the households in our community do not have biological father-figures present. In my humble opinion, the greatest need of young black men in my community is a model of biblical manhood. This is why we launched the personal development program Man Up! We discuss faith, identity, relationships, education, dreams, serving, and perseverance. We are building relationships and challenging them to grow.

How did you become an Adventist?

I did not grow up Adventist. My house burned down and my family and I were left homeless. That is when an Adventists family took us in and allowed us to live with them until we got on our feet again. I later went to Oakwood because I felt called by God to go into ministry. I then went to the seminary at Andrews University.

Do you work closely still with Andrews?

I do. Students from Andrews come through all the time. We are presently gearing up for a major, major outreach initiative that will ignite Benton Harbor; Andrews University students and staff will play a key role. 

You wrote a book called Set on Fire. Can you tell us about it? When was it published? Did you write it yourself? It tells your story, right? Why did you decide to write a book?

Set On Fire is my first book and it tells the story of how God used one night of devastation to change my destination. I published it in June 2016. It's been a long time coming. God confirmed to me while I was in the seminary that a part of his plan for me was to write books. My purpose in writing this book was simply to share with the world what God has shared with me.

What reactions have you received to the book so far? How many copies have you sold? Where can people get it?

The target audience is both churched and unchurched young people ages 12-25. So far we have sold just under 500 copies. It's also for parents, youth leaders, coaches, educators, and pastors who desire to reach young people. In the book, I talk about the transition from living according to the ways of the world and then abandoning the world for Christ.The reactions have been all very, very positive. This has been humbling as well. When you write a book and put your all into doing it, it's really encouraging to hear readers give positive feedback.  One of the most consistent compliments I get about the book is how easy and simple it is to read. The book is sold exclusively at my website. 

Where do you see yourself in ten years?

Hopefully in the new earth by then! If not, I'll still be giving my all to make a difference on this earth. Specifically, I see myself traveling the world inspiring, informing, and igniting a fire within young men and women to live for Christ and His kingdom!

Taurus Montgomery grew up in Mobile, Alabama, and graduated from Oakwood in 2008 and Andrews Seminary in 2011. He runs the Harbor of Hope Church in Benton Harbor, Michigan.

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.

UN_Women_Girl_Child.jpg

October 11, 2016 was the day during the General Conference Executive Committee’s Annual Council that the committee voted a GC-initiated process for addressing compliance issues. As it happened, that day was also designated by the United Nations (UN) as the “International Day of the Girl Child.” A UN statement said:

The world’s 1.1 billion girls are part of a large and vibrant global generation poised to take on the future. Yet the ambition for gender equality in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlights the preponderance of disadvantage and discrimination borne by girls everywhere on a daily basis.

In the list of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, number 5 is to: “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.” 

The UN and the global community have a long way to go before this goal can be achieved. What about the Seventh-day Adventist Church? How far away is our denomination from offering our whole hearted support for gender equality?

The GC Working Policy’s Basic Principle of Non-discrimination
The Working Policy of the General Conference provides a basic principle that ought to make us better leaders in this matter:

The Church rejects any system or philosophy which discriminates against anyone on the basis of race, color, or gender. (GC WP BA 60 05 Basic Principles)

Have we succeeded in pursuing this basic principle by our example? What about educating new converts? Are we teaching our mature church members the basic principle of rejecting “any system or philosophy which discriminates against anyone on the basis of race, color, or gender”? 

What about our decision-making at all levels? Are we aware that gender inequality is an integrated part of the culture in many parts of the world where you will find Seventh-day Adventist Churches? Do we recognize that cultural bias will most likely influence decision makers? Are we looking out for decisions made on the basis of cultural understanding rather than biblical principles?

The UN on Gender Inequalities
The UN website offers this sobering thought:

Gender inequalities are still deep-rooted in every society. Women suffer from lack of access to decent work and face occupational segregation and gender wage gaps. In many situations, they are denied access to basic education and health care and are victims of violence and discrimination. They are under-represented in political and economic decision-making processes.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a fast growing church in many areas of the world where “gender inequalities are still deep-rooted,” to use the UN’s phraseology.

The 2015 GC Session, San Antonio
During the 2015 the General Conference Session in San Antonio, delegates voted on the topic of letting the division’s executive committees “make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.” Was the challenge of “deep-rooted” gender inequalities in “every society” taken into account as a factor that could make the vote void if such a cultural influence could be seen as the basis for votes cast? What about the reports of people being threatened if they did not vote no -– was that pointed out to be unacceptable? Is it possible to use a majority vote to decide in a matter of equal treatment of male and female when we know that “gender inequalities are still deep-rooted in every society”? Is it at all possible to think that such a vote expresses the will of God?

The 2016 GC Annual Council – October 11
On October 11, the 2016 GC Annual Council voted on how to handle unions deemed to be out of compliance with GC working policy. The focus was not on the Bible. Neither was the focus on the Fundamental Beliefs. The focus was on policy. 

Having rules and regulations are vital for any well-functioning organization. As Adventists we are well acquainted with the fact that God gave his people laws and regulations as they left Egypt, in addition to the rite of circumcision given them through Abraham. “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession.” (Ex 19:5). 

After Jesus’ resurrection, the disciples faced the tremendous task of evangelizing the whole world. New people groups and cultures would be met. This new phase of their mission was a tremendous challenge as they had to think differently. And God used different means to help the leaders of the church to move along in a way that made it possible for them to fulfill God’s call to them.

In the Jerusalem counsel they were gathered for a heated discussion concerning circumcision and the keeping of the law of Moses. Peter tells us why he accepted that the gentiles did not have to practice circumcision and follow the law of Moses, with a few exceptions:

"God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us" (Acts 15:8 NIV, emphasis added).

As the Seventh-day Adventist Church has struggled with the matter of equal treatment of male and female pastors, has anybody really asked if the Holy Spirit has been given to any female pastor? Have the numerous female pastors in China been given the Holy Spirit, just as male pastors around the globe have received the Holy Spirit? If the answer is yes, who are we to point to policy as an excuse for not being guided by the basic principle of GC WP 60 05?

Finn F. Eckhoff is Executive Secretary of the Norwegian Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

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

“A specter is haunting the world,” Miroslav Volf writes in his epilogue to Flourishing, “the specter of nihilism.”  By “nihilism” Volf does not mean widespread and explicit rejection of morality or religion.  He is concerned instead with what he calls a “stealthier kind of nihilism.”  Sometimes it “wears a clean, ironed, and buttoned-up uniform of moral order,” and sometimes it “romps around pushing against the parameters” of this order.  In all cases, however, it drains the world of meaning and leaves us “with the crushing burden of an unbearably light existence.”  Consider, for example, both the “passive” and “active” nihilisms recently on display amid the leafy suburbs of Silver Spring, Maryland—the nihilism, as startling as it may sound, of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s 2016 Annual Council meeting.

According to the nineteenth-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, the moral and spiritual trajectory of Western civilization has culminated in the rise of those he called the “Last Men”—mindless consumers incapable of heroic striving and entertaining themselves to death, all the while imagining themselves to be the highest exemplars of humankind.  We need not accept Nietzsche’s atheism to see that religious institutions and people are by no means immune from the malaise he diagnosed.  His indictment of our market-driven “herd-morality” offers more penetrating insights into the life of the church than we might care to admit.

Attending just one day of this year’s Annual Council as a lay observer, one would find it difficult to shake the feeling of being, indeed, in the presence of history’s “Last Men,” albeit not in the sense they themselves imagined.  The delegates sitting near to me grew most animated not when some of their fellow believers offered carefully reasoned and heartfelt pleas with them to pause in their rush to vote upon a vaguely menacing document just handed down from on high.  Instead, they came most alive during the sales pitches by representatives from two cities vying to host a future General Conference.  “St. Louis or Indianapolis?  Which will it be?  Watch these promotional videos about their entertainment and dining venues and then decide!”  Here was a group of men (for they were almost entirely men) blinking and voting in blocs on matters of momentous importance to the entire Adventist community.   But many of them appeared to care more about having two options of where to go shopping than they were with the fact that they had just been presented with a single option for understanding the church’s ecclesiology and doctrine of unity.

If the passive nihilism of the Last Men is one of the specters haunting our world, there is a second type of nihilism that Nietzsche did not diagnose so much as embody.  This is the active nihilism of those who Volf calls “today’s high achievers.”  “They work hard, they compete hard, and they walk over the bodies of the vanquished with smug indifference.”  For them, life is all about “bending the shape of the world to align with their needs.”  They are the ones who are not bound by the same rules that apply to others, for “nothing has authority over” them.  They decide on the exceptions to the rules.  Or, we might say in the language of a recent document from the General Conference Secretariat, they are the ones with “plenary power” over everyone who happens to be “lower” than them in the grand scheme of things.

Unfortunately, all of the perils of will to power—what St. Augustine called libido dominandi, the lust for domination—apply to Adventist officialdom no less than to any other fallible human institution, as anyone who has lived close to church politics and has any sense of realism knows.  It is possible for the General Conference president and all the president’s men to lead not by building consensus across differences but by consolidating and expanding their own power.  It is possible for those in the Inner Circle to attempt to bend the church to their own wills through procedural maneuvering, pressure tactics, and backdoor dealings.  It is possible for them to refuse to submit to the teaching authority and tempering wisdom of the church’s theologians and biblical scholars.  It is possible for them to forget that they have been appointed as valued functionaries with strictly administrative rather than priestly, apostolic, or ecclesiastical titles.  It is possible for them to mistake “winning” by sheer majoritarian votes with building actual unity in the body of Christ.  And it is possible for them to do all these things with blinkered confidence that God is always on their side. 

Perhaps the greatest evidence that even church officials can be active nihilists at heart can be found in the bold claim we now hear being made by some individuals that obedience to Christ is virtually synonymous with obedience to the Working Policy—the one book they themselves have the power to write and re-write.  Active nihilism might best be summarized as the notion, in Volf’s words, that “meaning lies with us.”  When we are parched for meaning, we end up projecting our own power onto others—whether this power appears in a secular or a religious guise—in an attempt to fill finite goods and fallible institutions with ultimate values.

When the passive nihilism of the middling managers and the active nihilism of the dynamic powerbrokers come together in the name of Church, the result is often a soul-crushing fundamentalism and—in the Adventist context—the worst of two possible worlds: endless speech-making and pro forma voting but without any of the robust checks and balances of a healthy democracy, combined with a religious hierarchy in which those at the top claim ever growing authority in theological matters but without strong theological qualifications or intellectual accountability.  The great virtue of an ecclesiastical as opposed to a managerial hierarchy is that at least a conclave of bishops carries with it the authority of hard earned erudition. Not so a conclave of bureaucrats.

Volf’s book is primarily addressed to those who have grown skeptical of the possibility of a generous and peaceful religious engagement with the urgent political crises of our age.  Yet many of his insights can also be applied to believers who are full of confidence in religion’s importance.  His answer to the challenge of contemporary nihilism—both in and out of the church—is a recovery of sacramental theology.  To see the world as a sacrament is to see it as a gift, and “To think of a gift,” he writes, “you must, of course, think of a giver.”  Volf freely acknowledges that this theological vision is entirely contestable.  However, he argues, the Christian narrative, if true, “makes possible a unity of meaning and ordinary pleasures.”  It frees us to encounter the world not as something to dominate and control but as a space in which we might still be surprised by joy.  It leads us out of the traps and masks of nihilism to a theology of Sabbath rest.  “On this one day of the week, a day toward which all days are aiming and from which they all gain meaning, human striving comes to an end, and the joy in the world as the gift and in God as the giver reigns supreme…. We come to experience ordinary things as extraordinary—as the Lover’s gifts—and therefore rejoice in them all the more.”  

For Adventist readers, Volf’s book comes as an essential reminder that our flourishing as individuals and as communities does not finally hinge upon whatever happens to be voted by men in dark suits at the General Conference.  Whether or not the church remains faithful in its visible, institutional forms, our flourishing remains anchored in God’s ongoing care for all of creation.  When nihilism seeps into even our church life, Christ still offers us the warmth of authentic human community at the margins and the peace of Sabbath rest.

___________

Ronald Osborn is a wandering philosopher and the author of "Humanism and the Death of God: Searching for the Good After Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche” (Oxford University Press, 2017).

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.

Chaplain.jpg

The day began as most do. I arrived at the hospital where I serve as chaplain, aware that I was praying, “Lord, make me willing. Keep me available. Give me a voice and hands to serve you faithfully.”  This particular day did not end as most do. Mid-day we welcomed into our Emergency Department a precious newborn baby boy, minutes old, born at thirty-eight weeks, perfectly formed and beautiful.  I stood by to support the team with prayer and comfort as they worked valiantly to save his life; they were not successful. As his time of death was called, mere minutes from time of birth, I stepped forward to pray over his tiny body. A prayer for his parents, a prayer for our Emergency Department team, a prayer that his little life that had tragically ended so quickly, would not be in vain.  I ended the day debriefing with the Emergency Department team, allowing them to express the pain that they felt, to think about the places their hearts went as they realized they could not save her, and praying with and for them.

A few days later, I worked with our hospital team to raise money to help one of our own whose extended bed rest in a difficult pregnancy had brought on financial crisis.  As always, our hospital employee team stepped forward to help with generosity of spirit and love for their co-worker.

In our hospital, we are working to bring support for members of our community who suffer from depression and anxiety. We offer church services within our hospital (multiple services in multiple languages) and are preparing to begin a church plant to extend the reach of our voice within the community.

This is my life as a hospital chaplain. It is my life as a credentialed, commissioned minister of the gospel in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The church that is my home.  The church that has been my comfort and place of belonging for my entire life. 

I did not come to ministry easily. It was beyond my imagination that I would ever stand in a pulpit, administer anointing, or perform the rite of marriage. In early mid-life as it began to settle upon me that I might in fact be called into ministry, I sought the advice of someone I respected as a minister and valued as a friend, sharing the anguish that I felt around a potential calling.  He responded with reassurance, “Donna, your heart has always turned toward God and the church with deep passion. I do not doubt your calling.”

Perhaps the deepest compliment I have ever received was the moment my young adult daughter said, “Mom, you are doing (as chaplain/pastor) what you were born to do.”

Hours after working to help our employee in need, I participated in a meeting in which we talked about decisions that are being made in my church around women’s ordination. I left that meeting wounded.  I was not wounded by a decision around ordination, rather wounded by the divisive and authoritarian need to discipline more than to love and bring us to unity.

Jesus words are clear, “...nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 NIV) 

I ponder the awe of Mary Magdalene being the first to encounter the risen Jesus. She was the first to carry the message, “He is risen.” There is no coincidence in her story.

I ponder a church body that has studied and studied the validity of women’s ordination and has come away without a theological “no”; yet we are preparing to pronounce far-reaching, divisive discipline on those who have recognized and affirmed the role of women within our church and are attempting to call that process “unifying.”

We need more ministers, not less. We need more people willing to say, “Here I am, Lord, use me.” In a time of deep divide and restless unease worldwide, we need to be the church of peace, of warmth, and of welcome. The church that offers hope.

In a moment of despair, I opened my Bible to the following passage: “But you, dear Jacob, my servant, you have nothing to fear. Israel, there’s no need to worry. Look up!  I’ll save you from that far country.  I’ll get your children out of the land of exile. Things are going to be normal again for Jacob, safe and secure, smooth sailing. Yes, dear Jacob my servant, you have nothing to fear. Depend on it, I’m on your side”. (Jeremiah 46:27, 28 The Message)

Unity says we are all equal. We are equal, male and female. We are equal regardless of ethnic origin.  We are equal regardless of socio-economic class. We are equal regardless of educational level. We are equal at the feet of Jesus.

My sisters in ministry, dear servants of Jesus, we are called.  We are chosen.  We are beloved of the Father.  We are messengers of the soon coming Jesus.  We are voices for hope and faith in a broken world.  We are voices raised without fear because God is on our side.  We are called to bring unity in a church that is desperately in need of true Christ-centered unity today.  

Donna Burske, MDiv, is senior chaplain at Winter Park Memorial Hospital in Winter Park, Florida where she leads a team of eight chaplains in dedicated hospital ministry. She has been a part of the Florida Hospital family for thirty-one years and is a commissioned Seventh-day Adventist minister.

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_In_Mission.jpg

Just as a prescription is as good as the diagnosis, solving an administrative problem depends upon an accurate understanding of what it is.  

My best guess at this time is that "Unity in Mission:  Procedures in Church Reconciliation" will fail. This is because it rests upon a misreading of the continuing tensions among Seventh-day Adventists about ordaining women in ministry. This document construes the problem in two related ways. On the one hand, it depicts the difficulty as tension between unity and individuality. On the other, it portrays the discord as tension between authority and nonconformity. Each of these accounts makes some sense but not enough.

Neither those who oppose the ordination of women in ministry nor those who favor it primarily account for their positions in these terms. Those who favor it disagree with the suggestion that they are excessively individualistic and defiantly rebellious.  Meanwhile, albeit less vigorously, those who oppose it would rather explain their position in the first place without regard to contentions about church unity and authority.

This deserves a pause. A process of reconciliation will not make much progress if one party feels that its position is misunderstood. If both parties feel this way, it will not even get started. This is where we are with "Unity in Mission." Although one party feels it much more intensely than the other, neither of them is totally happy with how it is being portrayed. This is an unpromising way to start.

Those who oppose the ordination of women in ministry want most of all to be understood as being faithful to Scripture. They have repeatedly studied it from cover to cover, discussed it thoroughly and respectfully, and prayed to be led by the Holy Spirit.  They believe that they have been blessed in this way and that now they are duty bound to be faithful to the conclusions that they have reached.

Their minds are not closed but they are settled. It is disrespectful to ask them to revisit these materials and to consider revising their conclusions. In any case, asking them to do these things will not work.They cannot in good conscience honor these requests and they will not.  They will not yield no matter what happens to them, even if they are fired or banished. For them, the issue is not primarily about unity and authority.  It is about integrity. Underestimating their moral resolve about this issue is a big mistake. After all, their very souls are on the line!

Those who favor the ordination of women in ministry want most of all to be understood as being faithful to Scripture. They have repeatedly studied it from cover to cover, discussed it thoroughly and respectfully, and prayed to be led by the Holy Spirit. They believe that they have been blessed in this way and that now they are duty bound to be faithful to the conclusions they have reached.

Their minds are not closed but they are settled. It is disrespectful to ask them to revisit these materials and to consider revising their conclusions. In any case, asking them to do these things will not work. They cannot in good conscience honor these requests and they will not. They will not yield no matter what happens to them, even if they are fired or banished. For them, the issue is not primarily about unity and authority. It is about integrity. Underestimating their moral resolve about this issue is a big mistake.  After all, their very souls are on the line!

Attempts to bring about reconciliation by seeing our current tensions as anything other than a tragic encounter of groups with equal integrity will make things worse. To miss this is to misunderstand everything.

 No amount of additional prayer, Bible study, discussion, and consultation on any other premise will make positive differences. Neither will any actual or threatened use of coercive power. The more of any of these there is, the more resistant and resilient the overwhelming majority on both sides will become.  To do anything else would be to compromise their integrity.

Our leaders can deepen and widen our denomination's wounds by continuing their misunderstandings of our situation and prolonging the use of their current methods. They have not worked. They are not working. They will not work. Nothing less than a better understand of the problem has any chance of healing them.

Every attempt at reconciliation must begin with genuine gratitude and much praise for the integrity of people on both sides of this issue. It must promise not to try to change anyone's mind about ordaining women in ministry. It must pledge not to use or threaten to use coercive administrative power. It must commit itself to respecting the decision made by the 2015 General Conference in San Antonio, Texas. The task is to find a way forward that keeps all three promises.   

Many will dismiss this way of understanding and handling things this way with a scoff that it is impossible. Others will be more cautious and want more time to think about it. Still others, recognizing that nothing else has worked so far, will be willing to give it a try at this point.

Much depends upon how many there are in the third group, who they are, and how effectively they share their enthusiasm for trying something very different.

This will require much administrative creativity; however, sparking the imaginations of people in all walks of life is one of the Holy Spirit's specialties.  Once again, Jesus said it well:  “Let those with those with eyes really see and those with ears actually hear!" 

David R. Larson is Associate Scholar at the Loma Linda University Center for Christian Bioethics and Professor of Religion and Ethical Studies 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.

Tell The World.png

Every year on October 22^nd, Adventists recall the events of 1844, the year when thousands of North American Millerites expected that the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 pointed to the “cleansing” of earth by the return of Christ. I too have started my own tradition at this time of year writing personal reflections about my church’s journey as it relates to 1844.

Millerites arrived at this date as the year of the Second Coming by applying a historicist-numerological interpretative method to the prophecies of Daniel, in particular to 8:14. Based on this numerological approach, Miller had no less than fifteen ways to calculate the coming of Christ for 1843.¹ Kai Arasola argues that while the other “proofs” helped determine the year of the Second Coming, Daniel 8:14 was attractive to Millerites because it could be used to determine precisely the date of the event.² 

When Oct 23, 1844 dawned, the hope of Millerites to meet their Lord lay shattered on the frozen ground. The profound emotional impact of such harrowing experience was formative to proto-Adventists. Ellen White would often refer back to those days with nostalgia, even calling 1844 “the happiest year of my life”.

The approach to Scripture that led post-Millerites to reinvent themselves after failure is fertile ground for students of the history of biblical interpretation, especially in regards to the power of personal spiritual experiences on one’s understanding of Scripture. In what Jonathan Butler describes as the “boundlessness” of antebellum America,³ Millerites were not hesitant to push the limits of biblical interpretation in order to validate their  bittersweet experience. They were convinced that the the time prophecies of Daniel could not be wrong and set out to find out why they had been disappointed. When they revised just the event and not the date, the image of an infallible God coalesced into the infallibility of prophetic timetables. Scripture had been finally vindicated. The 2300 evening-mornings had effectively become the key to unlocking the divine oracles.

But in their efforts to prove that time prophecy was infallible and could be understood absolutely, they were setting themselves up to be disappointed by the very Scriptures they meant to defend. Their disappointment happened not because the Bible was prone to some intrinsic inadequacy; the biblical text has stood the test of time and it is reliable. It happened because they pushed the limits of what the text could endure before protesting in waves of prophetic disconfirmation.

Tell it Like It Is
Very early on, attentive Adventists started noticing that the limits of biblical hermeneutics were being tested by the movement. And with no other passage of Scripture were these boundaries challenged as in the book of Hebrews. Contrary to assertions that Jesus only entered into the holy of holies in 1844, A. F. Ballenger pointed out correctly that Hebrews 6:19-20 places Jesus “within the veil”, i.e., inside the holy of holies at the time of his ascension. He showed as early as 1905 that nowhere in Scripture does the expression “within the veil” refer to any place other than the Most Holy Place. 

Ballenger wrote a detailed letter to Ellen White which she never answered directly to him but criticized to third parties.⁴ Ballenger’s conclusions contradicted Ellen White’s use of the expression “within the veil” in the Great Controversy⁵ as referring to the activities of the priests in the holy place of the tabernacle instead of the holy of holies.

In the early 2000’s, an article in the DARCOM series defending White’s position was refuted by Roy Gane and Norman Young in a series of articles in the Andrews University Seminary Studies.⁶ Both the Hebrew text and the Greek of the NT point undeniably that “within the veil” always refers to the Most Holy Place in the Bible. The author of Hebrews considers Jesus’ ministry inside the Most Holy Place immediately at his ascension as the Christian’s “anchor”. 

The Importance of An Intertextual Method
The limits of biblical hermeneutics were once again tested on the meaning of the 2300 evenings-mornings of Daniel 8:14. The easy answer is that v.14 simply answers the question of v. 13 of “how long” the daily sacrifices would be removed and the profanations on the sanctuary would last: 2300 evenings-mornings = days⁷ (likely a rounded number) and then the sanctuary would be restored. 

But by extricating Daniel 8:14 from its context Millerite Adventists suggested rather an allusion to the Day of Atonement rituals described in Lev 16 which in turn would point to an eschatological Day of Atonement commencing on Oct 22, 1844 according to their calculations. This was bold move characteristic of self-made revolutionary exegetes.

The matter of whether these two texts are related at all can only be properly addressed by taking an intertextual approach. Such intertextual (or inner-biblical) method looks first at verbal parallels between two or more biblical passages in order to establish an intentional dependence of one author on another. This establishes thematic and allusive relationship between such passages. Jeffery Leonard has proposed a method to identify inner-biblical allusions⁸ which I summarize here:

(1) Shared language is the single most important factor in establishing a textual connection
(2) Shared language is more important than non-shared language
(3) Shared language that is rare or distinctive suggests a stronger connection than does language that is widely used
(4) Shared phrases suggest a stronger connection than do individual shared terms
(5) The accumulation of shared language suggests a stronger connection than does a single shared term or phrase
(6) Shared language in similar contexts suggests a stronger connection than does shared language alone
(7) Shared language need not be accompanied by shared ideology to establish a connection
(8) Shared language need not be accompanied by shared form to establish a connection

In sum, inner biblical allusions need meaningful “shared language” in order to establish an allusive relationship. Based on the above method, we see that there is simply no relationship between Lev 16 and Daniel 8:14 because there is no “shared language” or meaningful contextual relationship. This impasse was insightfully articulated by Norman Young when responding to Richard Davidson:

Davidson’s study leaves me with a query. How is he able to see the Day of Atonement in Dan 8:11-14 where there is no mention of a high priest, blood, calves and goats, entering, sin offering, cleanse, annual (to the contrary, Dan 8:11, 12, 13 refer to the “daily” service, tamid), inner veil, or the burning of carcasses outside the camp? Yet despite their absence in Daniel, he is able to find the Day of Atonement in 8:14. However, despite their presence in Hebrews, he is unable to see the Day of Atonement in 6:19-20 or 9:11-12.⁹

Some have argued that because both the Day of Atonement and Daniel 8:14 deal with the cleansing/reestablishment of the sanctuary, they could be related. However, the Day of Atonement in Lev 16 deals with the sins of Israel which have soiled the sanctuary and jeopardized the relationship with Yahweh, while Daniel 8 describes the intrusive actions of the “little horn” which profanes the sanctuary for a period of time lasting 2300 evenings-mornings (2300 literal days) until the sanctuary is re-consecrated. Antiochus Epiphanes IV has been the prime suspect for most scholars and, although a flawed one, his actions in removing the daily sacrifices and desecrating the temple in Jerusalem for a period lasting roughly 2300 days seem closer to Daniel’s intention than relocating the fulfilment of such profanations to 2300 years away from Daniel’s time. 

Not surprisingly, the removal of Daniel 8:14 from its contextual moorings has led to a long string of assumptions that further complicate things. Some of these are: a day for a year in biblical prophecy, the connection of the 490 years of Daniel 9 with the 2300 evenings-mornings of Daniel 8, the replacement of the decree of Cyrus for the reconstruction of Jerusalem predicted in Isaiah 45 for Artaxerxes’ weaker decree to make dates “fit” and Jesus’ impossible crucifixion in “the middle of the week” in 31 AD. 

The Need for Timetables
One of the most disturbing features of the interpretative method used by both Millerites and subsequently by Adventist to set precise dates for the mechanics of celestial events is the disregard for Jesus’ warning recorded in Acts 1:7. When asked by his disciples for some hint of “when” the end would come, Jesus responded: “It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority.” It is for this reason that we do not find in Paul, Peter or John or any other writings in the NT any effort to decipher prophetic periods from the Old Testament. Paul warned the Thessalonians not to believe in “prophecy, report or letter” based on timelines (2 Thess 2:1-2) while Peter completely removed the temporal moorings from prophecy when he stated that God is not bound to act according to our human understanding of time (2 Peter 3:8). This analysis makes all the more jarring the notion, embedded in the traditional Adventist interpretation of 1844, that the activities of Christ in heaven would be regulated by the Jewish Karaite calendar!

The principle of the timelessness of prophecy sets important limitations on setting timetables for divine action. Not only does this principle prohibit future date setting by the church but also annuls past “fulfillments” which contradict this notion.

Below I summarize two points which feed the need for prophetic timelines:

1. The false assumption that apocalyptic prophecy can/needs to be fully decoded.  Current Adventist interpretations of apocalyptic prophecy implicitly assume that all biblical prophecy can be deciphered. The more one studies, the more one is close to finding the true meaning of a particular prophetic period.
   But the failures of historicism have caused modern students of prophecy to propose a more moderate view of apocalyptic prophecy, one that does not see the decoding fulfilments as prophecy’s primary goal. The reason is that the ambiguity of the language present in Daniel and Revelation does not allow for dogmatism in correlating prophecy with precise historical characters or dates. Doing so has brought much discredit to the Bible because it lowers it to the level of an Ouija board. It feeds shallow curiosity and sensationalism.
   New readings of apocalyptic prophecy see the small, peripheral details in the text (such as numbers or time periods) as the individual color strokes of a painting which form a larger picture that needs to be looked at from a distance in order to be properly understood and appreciated. Looked from this perspective, one could posit that the one overarching Leitmotif of all apocalyptic prophecy is: Evil wins for a time and God wins at the end and those who are on his side, will win too. Apocalyptic prophecy is like a complex puzzle missing half of its pieces; it gives you a general idea of what it it will look like when it’s done but you’re missing enough information to be absolutely certain.
   
2. The false assumption that God is obligated to confirm our prophetic interpretations. As a corollary of the previous point, Adventists feel a sense of interpretative entitlement, for our position as the remnant people of prophecy is confirmed by the Bible which leads to a confirmation of all our other positions because, since we are the chosen people, God would not allow his remnant people to spouse incorrect prophetic interpretations. This circular reasoning was precisely the argument I heard from a pastor who, despite all the problems I pointed out in the traditional understanding, still was not convinced because he trusted God would ultimately vindicate our interpretations. 

The pervasive notion that God has to miraculously rescue Adventism from erroneous interpretations was part of the post-1844 period. The pioneers believed that by earnest prayer and study, they could unlock prophetic mysteries. Ellen White writes that the new understanding of 1844 as they year of Christ’s entrance into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary providentially “explained” to the them the reason for the disappointment.¹⁰

But God is under no compulsion to supernaturally correct our exegetical shortcomings. All we have is the text of Scripture and if the history of Christian theology is an indication, the text is all we have. The litmus test of the doctrine of 1844 is whether is can be established in a self-evident manner from Scripture.

Revisioning Ellen White’s Role
The problem for individual Adventists and the church at large is that challenging the traditional interpretation of 1844 casts a shadow on Ellen White’s staunch defense of this doctrine. For most, her calling as a prophetess is indivisible from absolute infallibility in all matters. But it should be pointed out that White’s visionary/revelatory confirmation of 1844 was rather ambiguous. The closest she came to a direct, divine revelation on this matter is found in Early Writings where she describes a scene in which both God and Jesus enter the Most Holy Place in chariots of fire.¹¹ The header of this section reads “The End of the 2300 Days.”

But is it possible that this vision, if it meant to address 1844 at all, should be reinterpreted similarly to the vision of Dec 1844 that confirmed the shut door doctrine only to be “reinterpreted” later?¹² Notably, the vision of “the end of the 2300 days” conflates elements from the ascension of Elijah in chariots of fire (cf. 2 Kings 2), the ascension of Jesus in a cloud surrounded by angels (cf. Acts 1:9-10) and the day of atonement ritual inside the holy of holies in relation to Christ’s sacrificial death (cf. Heb 6:19-20). If this comparison holds, as the verbal parallels seem to show, then the vision is best interpreted as Jesus assuming his role as the heavenly high priest by going “within the veil” at his ascension as described in Hebrews 6 and 9 and not necessarily in 1844.

Further, Ellen White’s comments supporting Oct 22, 1844 as the date of Jesus’ passage into the heavenly Most Holy Place are meant to repeat and support the interpretations of Adventist authors of her day as she acknowledged in the introduction of the Great Controversy. Thus, at face value, the doctrine of 1844 could have been dropped as easily as Ellen White revised her understanding of the “shut door doctrine” which she had understood as having been shown to her in vision. 

More importantly, despite her continuous calls to maintain the “pillars” of the Adventist faith, including the doctrine of 1844, Ellen White also called for continued study, to the point that, if a doctrine was “shaky,” we should not be afraid to let it fall. In the aftermath of the 1888 law-grace debacle, she would write: “If every idea we have entertained in doctrines is truth, will not the truth bear to be investigated? Will it totter and fall if criticized? If so, let it fall, the sooner the better.”¹³

The Neutering of Prophecy
In The Neutering of Adventism, maverick Adventist historian George Knight argues that Adventism must continue with the same apocalyptic emphasis lest it lose its relevance and unique contribution to Christianity. Although I agree with the overall premise of the work that an apocalyptic outlook has helped shape Adventism’s mission, Knight has defended most of the traditional Adventist views, including 1844 and the Papacy as the beast which not only are questionable from a biblical studies point of view, but create the wrong “apocalypticism” in the church by stressing exclusivism, an “us-against-them” mentality and perfectionism. 

And there is an even more serious danger in this dynamic, that of neutering prophecy itself. By promoting a purported final and unassailable interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, we are in essence castrating the text because it no longer speaks to new readers. That is an even worse outcome than the concern about neutering our church. 

The warnings against adding or removing anything from the “word of this prophecy” (Rev 22:18-19) ultimately have to do with impeding its understanding. Does imposing a single fulfilment on prophecy fall into the same condemnation?

Conclusion
As part of the celebrations of the Great Disappointment this year, the Adventist Church has released Tell the World, a movie sponsored by the Adventist church in Australia which recounts the early Adventist experience.

I have enjoyed watching some of its leaked chapters on YouTube before its official release with my two young daughters. I took the opportunity to instill in them the sense that they are part of a long line of believers in Jesus’ Second Coming. We suffered with the pioneers as they waited and waited. We relived the struggles of Ellen White’s family as they were cast out of their congregation for their Millerite views and felt the sting of Joseph Bates’ financial struggles after having sold all he had to support the work. The movie is an emotional palette, depicting from the unbounded entrepreneurial spirit of 19^th century America, to the romantic love of James and Ellen, the death of their first child and the family quarrels of the Bates. I have come away from it with a conviction that, despite its shortcomings, God has a plan for the Adventist Church.

The only hope for Adventism is to keep the flame of the Second Coming alive. Our part as keepers of that flame is to make it relevant to 21^st century society without overstating our case.

NOTES:

1. See Kai Arasola, The End of Historicism available here.
2.  See Arasola, p. 128.
3.  Jonathan Buttler, “The Making of a New Order: Millerism and the Origins of Seventh-Day Adventism” in The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century, eds. Ronald Numbers and Jonathan M. Butler (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1993): 189-206.
4.  See Gary Land, Seeker of Light (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 200), 131-149.
5.  Cf. The Great Controversy, 420: “The ministration of the priest throughout the year in the first apartment of the sanctuary, “within the veil” which formed the door and separated the holy place from the outer court, represents the work of ministration upon which Christ entered at His ascension.”
6.  Cf. Roy Gane, “Reopening Katapetasma (“Veil”) in Hebrews 6:19-20,” Andrews University Seminary Studies Vol. 38, No.1 (Spring 2000): 5-8.
7. See Siegfried J. Schwantes, “Ereb Boqer of Daniel 8: 14 Re-Examined.” Andrews University Seminary Studies (AUSS) 16.2 (1978) Available here.
8.  Jeffery M. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case JBL 127, no. 2 (2008): 241-265.
9.  Norman Young, “The Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement? Background to Hebrews 6:19-20 Revisited,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 40, No. 1(Spring 2002): 66.
10.  Early Writings, 236; Evangelism, 222.
11.  Early Writings, 54-56.
12. See the helpful timeline of the “shut door doctrine” available here.
13.  Letter 7, 1888 – Written to William H. Healey, Dec 9, 1888.

_________

Image: Still from the film, "Tell The World."

André Reis is completing a PhD in New Testament Studies.

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.

Academic Freedom.png

The following in-depth look at academic freedom from one of Washington Adventist University's top academics was originally initiated for publication in Adventist Review. Excerpts from the article below have been printed, but the whole article has not appeared in print until now. -Ed

The concept of academic freedom at most religious educational institutions, including Adventist, is a complex issue. The main challenge of Adventist academia in relation to academic freedom is finding resourceful ways to stay true to both academic rigor, which involves free, progressive and scientific exploration of all dimensions of God's truth in Scripture and nature, and deep appreciation of and abiding in Adventist faith tradition. Adventist institutions adhere to the principle of continuing and progressive revelation of God and progressive understanding of God's truth, yet within the boundaries of the biblical context of the inspired revelation of the Word of God and the living faith in Christ. Faith and Science Council, Geoscience Research Institute, and Biblical Research Institute are among the main entities that assist the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and Adventist campuses in their efforts to meet the needs and challenges posed by the ongoing interaction between faith and science. So far, the main focus has been on careful dialogue and thoughtful interaction between faith and contemporary science and scholarship.

I believe that many Adventist scholars and students feel that this engagement should now include also constructive discussions about academic freedom, as the crucial imperative for both faith and science. The responsibility of the church administrators and academicians includes leading in collaborative efforts to generating a statement on academic freedom that will help Adventist campuses and professionals successfully engage their faith and academic standards and so maintain their reputation as institutions and individuals of faith and learning.

Adventist higher education has recently gone through major transformations. Our higher education has attracted many different cultural and religious groups, and so the number of non-Adventist students has increased on our campuses. This has given us new possibilities and responsibilities, and along with those, also certain new challenges. One of the challenges in this regard includes deciding what aspects of Adventist faith (doctrine, life style) and to what extent should be enforced on our non-Adventist students. Yet, we have to stay committed to welcoming all students to our campuses, regardless of their racial, religious, and social background, as a God-given value and requirement. Adventist higher education has to continually search for and implement new ways of sharing its unique values and standards with all students. We do not want any of our students to feel isolated, excluded, or even frustrated by the environment that we create and in which they have to live and study.

Another crucial role of Adventist higher education is offering education that is relevant to academic and spiritual needs. Our institutions have to be equipped to provide competitive academic programs that will enable students to be recognized and appreciated by the professional world. Finally, another role of Adventist education is to demonstrate the way of redemption through education. In other words, Adventist education should generate a sense of belonging to God and His people and foster love and service to humanity.

The theme of freedom rings loudly in the Scripture. God created human beings with the incredible gift of creativity and freedom of choice (c.f. Gen 2:15-17). Even after the Fall, God continued to uphold human freedom to such an extent that the only way God chose to eradicate evil from the universe and save humankind was through the death of His beloved Son. The plan of salvation in Christ is the utmost proof of God’s non-coercive and loving ways of dealing with His creation (see Deut 30:19; Jos 24:15; John 1:11, 12). Jesus of Nazareth always demonstrated full respect for human dignity and freedom. He directed people to use their freedom for God-given values in life, but He never violated the principle of latitude given to people by their Creator (e.g., John 8:2-11). The apostolic Church provides examples of how people can exercise differences in opinion and remain in Christian fellowship (Gal 2:11-14).

The First Apostolic Council demonstrates that the first church had some serious differences, but was committed to dialogue and prayer until the solution was found and accepted by all (Acts 15). It would have been much easier for James as the presiding over the council to exercise his authority and settle the matter quickly than to listen to a newly converted and ex-persecutor Paul arguing his point (v. 12). Yet for them fellowship, openness to truth and divine guidance, and love were much more powerful principles of securing the right path in which the church should go than institutional coerciveness and limitation of free expression and conscience. Having said this, however, we should not forget that freedom in the Scripture is exercised within the boundaries of the inspired Word of God and God’s law, which is called the law of freedom, namely the core foundations of Christian faith (c.f. Gal 1:8, 9; Jas 1:25).

The responsibility of the community of faith includes careful studying of the biblical message of God’s Word in its historical, literary, and theological context to ensure its correct understanding and proper application to the modern context.

We have to offer freedom for exploration of religious and other truths. If we want to become the competitive 21st-century, Christian higher education institutions, some latitude should be given to our teachers and scholars to investigate all aspects of truth in its progressive nature. Within this academic dialogue, I believe the Church will be greatly enriched and empowered. The Adventist colleges should be the places where the Church does its thinking. Adventist academic institutions need this space where non-coercive and cordial reflection and exchange of arguments and ideas within the broader context of Christian tradition and Christian character can be freely exercised. This principle was deeply embedded in our pioneers’ search for scriptural truth in Christ. Progressive and continual pursuit of truth, and so academic freedom, has been part of our tradition and history. Our movement would have never been created and sustained without these. In this sense, Adventist beliefs and academic freedom are compatible. Yet, each new generation has to find new ways of fostering the principle of freedom that will answer the challenge and need of their time. I believe that church administrators and academicians realize that we should be more deliberate in rethinking and defending the principles of academic freedom within the Adventist context. Only if we work together will we be able to consider all the relevant issues and find satisfactory resolutions.

If we seek to pursue scholarly inquiry and genuine expression of academic freedom in a way that extends and enriches academic disciplines, we need to have events in which the acclaimed participants who do not belong to our community of faith will express their views and engage in cordial conversation with our students, teachers, and staff. These events teach our students some of the core values of Adventist education, including freedom of thinking and expression, openness to learning through exchange of ideas and arguments, respect and appreciation of others, self-examination, tolerance, and other values.

When we invite speakers of different faith backgrounds, we also present them with an opportunity to learn something about and from us. We should always remember that the Advent movement was born out of different faith traditions. The Advent movement was not an isolated island nor should our campuses ever be. Hearing something different should not be perceived as an attack on our faith but as an opportunity to learn, grow, or be reaffirmed in our beliefs. The world and self test our faith every day. Our students have to learn to embrace the challenge and come enriched by it at the end.

Aleksandar S. Santrac is Professor of Ethics and Chair of the Religion Department at Washington Adventist University. He also serves as Extraordinary Professor of Dogmatics at North-West University in South Africa and as a visiting researcher in bioethics at Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

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.

IMG_3823.JPG

Tell the World, the largest media production in the history of the church, has just been released to coincide with the October 22 anniversary of the Great Disappointment. Filmed in a pioneer village with a cast of nearly a hundred professional actors, the movie tells the story of the beginnings of the Adventist church. Chester Stanley, former president of the Australian Union Conference, talks about why he wanted to make the film and how it all started.

Question: Tell the World, a major film about the beginnings of our church, has been released. How can people around the world watch it?

Answer: The General Conference officially released Tell the World on Sabbath, October 22,  The film is available as a digital download in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish — and the good news is that it is free! 

The version that initially is being offered is comprised of six episodes, but it will also be available as a regular movie.  We have also developed 23 minis – these are short clips that cover specific topics/events/characters as presented in the film.  The minis will be great for pastors and teachers.  For example, all the material that was shot regarding the Sabbath will be together in one mini. To create the minis we, have pulled together footage from the film, footage that was not used in the final edit, and in some cases, we filmed new material.  

To assist the deaf and hard-of-hearing, we have incorporated closed captioning.

The film will also be available on DVD in the North American Division and the South Pacific Division. The General Conference is committed to making Tell the World available everywhere. The official Tell the World website is telltheworld.adventist.org.  The film is up on YouTube and again is available in Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English. 

The film was a long-held dream of yours, I understand. As president of the Australian Union Conference, you were able to sponsor its filming and production. Where did the idea first come from?

It was an idea that I had been mulling over for a year or two, but I can’t remember any Damascus-road experience — just a growing conviction that it would be a great thing to tell our story via the medium of cinematic historical drama and to make it available to the world church.  I started to bounce the idea off people at every level of the church, and all agreed that it should be done.  So there was a lot of enthusiasm.  

I remember sharing the idea with Mark Finley, and he really encouraged us to go ahead although he did remind me of the pitfalls of movie-making and advised me to remember that film making is not for the fainthearted!  That warning has hung around in my head for the last few years and helped us to make sure that we did everything as carefully as we could. You only get one go at these things.

What made you want to tell this story?

The issue of the church and our identity is a matter that I have often reflected on.  As it ages, any organization needs to be very careful that it does not forget its reason for being. That is so true for our church. We must not forget who we are as a people and also what we have been called to do.  It is a matter of huge importance for just about everything flows out of the issue of identity. If we lose our sense of identity, that is the beginning of the end. Prior to the development of the film, the Australian Union Conference had chosen this issue as a preeminent areas of focus in our strategic planning.  I think that helped drive my thinking to do something quite special to address this vital issue.

Also I have a love for early Adventist history and simply felt that it was a great story that would make for powerful drama. You think of the drama, the pathos, and the conflict in the story of the beginnings of our church.  Here are a bunch of people who are predicting the end of the world — and on a specific day — and then it doesn’t happen! I mean, that is a pretty good start for a great story!

We were fortunate to have an executive committee that was willing to be brave, and we also had a chief financial officer, Kingsley Wood, who believed in the vision – really good quality movies do not come cheap.  The South Pacific Division and the General Conference were very generous with financial assistance, and so once the finances were in place, we were up and running.

The film is a collaboration between a number of entities, including the Australian Union Conference, the Hope Channel, and the General Conference. Does the General Conference now hold the rights to the film? Do you believe the General Conference is best placed to control the film and its distribution?

Yes, the project was an initiative of the Australian Union Conference. We underwrote the film. established a committee to steer the development of the film, and also set up a small group of advisers to ensure the film was historically accurate — to me this was really important.  For this task, we chose three of the church’s eminent church historians: Dr Allan Lindsay, Dr George Knight, and Elder Jim Nix. We also asked for these men to meet with the screenplay writer to give direction as to what significant events, personalities, and incidents should be incorporated in the film. They read carefully through the screenplay, and because Allan Lindsay resides here in Australia, he spent a huge amount of time working with the director and the writer.

The South Pacific Division Media Centre was the production house for the film.  We all agreed that we wanted the film to be done with absolute excellence. The media centre has lots of talented people, and the place has a fine reputation. We worked very closely with Neale Scofield, then CEO, Kalvin Dever who is now the CEO, and Kyle Portbury who was chosen to direct the film. They did a great job for us, and we worked together well as a team.  As you can imagine, there were many, many meetings of the team, thousands of hours of phone calls, innumerable e-mails, and myriads of decisions that had to be made.  It really was a huge production, and all those involved made massive contributions in terms of time, energy, and expertise. 

The General Conference made an initial financial contribution to the project. Then the day before the General Conference Session in San Antonio in 2015, a large group of General Conference leaders, including President Ted Wilson, had the opportunity to watch the film. They were deeply impressed. After the session, Elder Wilson e-mailed me and expressed appreciation for Tell the World. He said that the General Conference was very keen for Tell the World to be made available to the worldwide church as they believed in the film and its important message. He proposed that the General Conference secure the rights to distribute the film and offered additional financial assistance to secure those rights.  The Australian Union Conference agreed to grant the rights, and then I had the job of drafting a Tell the World memorandum of understanding between the GC and the AUC so that we all would remain friends!

So yes, the General Conference has the rights to distribute the film, but the film remains the intellectual property of the Australian Union Conference. And yes, I do believe the GC is well placed to distribute Tell the World.  The development of the Tell the World project at the world headquarters is cared for by two capable leaders of the Communication Department: the director Williams Costa and associate director Samuel Neves.  The General Conference sees this as a missionary/evangelistic project that will nurture the church and provide it with a fantastic evangelistic resource.  I must commend the General Conference for having a big vision for Tell the World.   

How many languages is the film being dubbed into?

The General Conference has already dubbed the film into Spanish, Portuguese, and French, and, along with English, these comprise the four major language groups of the world church.  Apart from that, the GC has plans over the next three years to subtitle the film into an additional 30 languages.  So Tell the World has become a huge international project. 

Prior to the film’s release, I received e-mails from church members in many parts of the world, asking if I could send them the screenplay so that they could translate the film into their language and so hasten the process of dubbing and subtitling.  It has been quite amazing how the news of the film has gone out around the world and to hear how keen members are to watch it and share it.

How do you envision the best way of watching the film? Do you advise churches to organize screenings, show the film in sections, followed by discussions, something like that?

I wanted Tell the World to be a film that would not only nurture and inspire church members young and old but that it would also be a powerful evangelistic tool, and, praise the Lord, I believe the film achieves both those goals. Actually, one day at the General Conference Session in San Antonio some of us from the Australian Union Conference and our media centre were invited to meet with a group of General Conference leaders to think about ways we could utilize Tell the World— we came up with a long list!

I think first you need to simply watch the film with your family but be sure to have some tissues available — you will need them!  

People will watch a movie when they might not come to a Bible study. Here in Australia some churches have plans to hire a cinema for a night and then invite friends to come and watch the film with the churchmembers.  It is a perfect way to introduce someone to the Adventist church. And as people watch the film they are subtly but surely introduced to Adventist teachings such as the Sabbath, the Second Coming of Christ, the ministry of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary, the importance of scripture, the pre-eminence of Christ, and the love of God. 

Some churches are organizing screenings, some pastors are using the six episodes to run a series of sermons on the beginnings of the Great Advent Movement.

Consideration is being given to developing a number of collateral materials that will help viewers to be able to dig a little deeper, both in terms of our teachings and also our history. Here in Australia members are simply giving it to friends and former members. 

Tell the World is already being incorporated into Bible curriculums for our schools here and in North America.  I pray, if not beg, that our youth leaders will make sure that all our young people get to see the film. Also it has been proposed that every new Adventist believer around the world be given a copy of Tell the World at the time of their baptism — a great idea!  The sky is really the limit in how the film can be used.

I should add that many are thrilled with the wonderfully positive pre-release articles and statements that are being made about Hacksaw Ridge, the movie that tells the story of Desmond Doss.  There is a growing conviction that tens of thousands of Adventists around the world are going to be asked about their faith by neighbours and work colleagues who have seen Hacksaw Ridge.  What a wonderful opportunity to simply offer a DVD of Tell the World– a movie that tells the story of the beginnings of Desmond Doss’ church.

So you are already sending out DVDs of the film? How many DVDs have been produced?

Given that the film was produced in Australia and many here have been anxious to see it, we requested that the General Conference allow the South Pacific Division to have a limited earlier release of the film on DVD. That has happened, and the sales are amazing.  We produced 40,000 DVDs, and the majority have already been sold even though we have not yet heard from our biggest union, Papua New Guinea, with nearly a quarter of a million members!  We are not attempting to make money on the film and are selling the DVDs for $5 to simply cover costs. This has meant that many are buying multiple copies of the DVD — 10, 30, and even 50 —  so that they can give them to friends, neighbors, and former members.   

How much did the film cost to make? How was it paid for?

The film cost close to six-million dollars Australian. 

It was a significant investment, but when you remember that the film will be seen by millions of people all over the world, resulting in many of our members having their faith strengthened and large numbers of people making decisions for truth, I think it is money well spent.  Apart from underwriting the project, the Australian Union Conference contributed around a million dollars. The General Conference and the South Pacific Division were also major contributors, and the New Zealand Pacific Union and the South American Division generously contributed.

I believe that the production team and the director, Kyle Portbury, disagreed about some aspects of the film. What were the disagreements and how were they resolved?

Kyle and I have always been good friends, and we worked well together in the development of Tell the World.  He was out here in Australia recently, and we talked on the phone at some length.  I think that Kyle did an outstanding job directing Tell the World.  He always expressed appreciation that we put our trust in him to be the director of Tell the World as this was his first assignment as a director of a historical drama.  I also know the actors really appreciated him and found him great to work with.

In terms of the editing of the film, after some time, we eventually came up with two cuts. It was decided that the five executive producers would make the call on which cut should be the final cut. We chose the cut that is now being used for the official release of Tell the World.  Kyle felt that the other cut was preferable, but he respected the fact that the producers have the final say. The reality is that both cuts are great, and in the big picture, the differences between the two cuts were minor – after all, both cuts use the same footage. The major difference is that the official cut is longer than the other cut, which uses a different method of pulling the story together.

How involved were you and the Australian Union Conference with the actual filming which was done in an operating pioneer village in Ottawa, Canada? Did you help to choose the cast? Did you supervise the script?

No, we were not involved in the actual filming — we left that to the professionals. As executive producers, we did visit the shoot for a few days, and I went back for a special winter shoot to get some interviews with the leading actors.  

No, we were not involved in the selection of actors for specific roles. That was done by Kyle, and along with Kyle's wisdom, I think the Lord led in this matter. All of the leading actors seem to me to be perfect for their roles.

Interestingly, the screen writer was a Jewish woman, and I was amazed by how quickly she got the feel of the story.  She read a lot, had a good research assistant, met with the historical advisers, and dialogued at length with Kyle.  

Yes, as executive producers, we were certainly involved in going through the various editions of the screenplay.  Our wonderful producer Neil Allan did an amazing job in making sure that our deadlines were strictly adhered to.  We had deadline after deadline in terms of the development of the script —  in fact, the whole of the production process was very professionally done, and consequently, we were able to screen the film at the time of the General Conference Session, which had always been our deadline for the completion of Tell the World.

The pioneer village was a real godsend.  We were originally going to shoot the film in Ireland, but that fell through, and then we found a village an hour’s drive south of Ottawa. It was perfect.  All the buildings in the village were original, authentic mid-eighteenth century and every type of building that we needed was there: a working farm, shops, school, churches, houses and even working flour, woollen, and timber mills. A few scenes in the film were shot in these mills.  Finding this place was a huge answer to prayer. I believe we would not have been able to make the film if we had not found this village.  It would have been much too expensive for us to transport a crew of 140 and the 95 actors and hundreds of extras from location to location. 

When you were developing the film did you have any big ideas or themes that you wanted to get across to viewers?

Yes, we did.  When casting, we had the choice of choosing older actors and trying to make them look younger where needed, or younger actors and ageing them as needed.  We chose to use younger actors. We wanted our young people watching the film to see just how youthful those early leaders were! Hopefully, this will challenge them to realize that God can use them in a mighty way today.  Ellen was 17 when she had her first vision, and James was amazingly young when he was elected to be the president of the church. I think that is a hugely important message for our youth today.

Another big theme that we wanted to stress was that these were a group of people who had a deep and abiding love for scripture and wrestled earnestly with the Bible in order to discover truth. We wanted people to see that our Adventist pioneers were passionate Bible students and believers. These were people who loved Christ and were committed to following him.

Also we wanted all to see the absolutely sacrificial commitment our early pioneers had to the cause of the Great Advent Movement. We need to be reminded of this sort of dedication to the cause. 

And finally and obviously, we want viewers to see the providential leading of the Lord in the life of the young church.  We want people to be able to say: “the Lord was in this thing; this is not of man’s doing.”

What has been the reaction to the film so far?

At the General Conference Session last year, we had a booth associated with the Hope Channel, and thousands were thrilled by the clips and trailer that they saw. It has been exciting to hear reports coming back from members all over Australia – young and old – who have been reminded and touched by the power of the film’s message. Many young people, who had no idea about our heritage, have expressed their deep appreciation for the film and how it has inspired them. Again and again, people tell me that they have been moved to tears as they have watched the film.  I think that one of the major reasons the film has been so well received by so many is that it is telling our story — your story and my story. This is about us and our community of faith. 

Excuse me for boasting just a little, but leaders and media professionals have also been deeply impressed by the film.  For example, Dale Galusha, President of Pacific Press, saw the film while on assignment here in Australia and, upon returning home, wrote to to say: “Truly this film is going to have a positive impact both on members and the public.  It is undoubtedly the most important media contribution to the church this millennium.”  Likewise, Samuel Neves, General Conference associate communication director, said: “The power of this film is unprecedented. I don’t think that we have ever witnessed a project with such power and potential.”

How long have you been working on the film? Now that Tell the World has been made and is being distributed, do you have another project you are working on? Are you retired now?

I believe it has been seven years since we started to first share the idea and take some initial actions at the Australian Union Conference Executive Committee.  Since my retirement as president of the Australian Union Conference late last year, I have been coordinating the Tell the World project. When that is finished, the only projects that I am aware of are a long list of house projects that my wife has been compiling over the last few years!  

Interestingly, the question about Tell the World that I am asked more than any other is: “When are you going to tell the second half of the story?”  The film ends with J. N Andrews going out as our first foreign missionary in 1863. So there is some great material that would make for interesting viewing from 1863 on.

Top photo: Chester Stanley is pictured on set in Canada with actors Teri Rata Loretto and Guy Buller, playing Otis and Mary Nichols.

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.

Luther.jpg

Five hundred years ago, as of 31 October, 2017, Martin Luther wrote his famous Ninety-five Theses to his ecclesiastical superiors in the university town of Wittenberg, Germany. He hoped to invite debate concerning the abusive practices of the church. It was his invitation for the church to reform according to the Scriptures. The document got Germany talking. And the Protestant Reformation was born.

Luther became a courageous Bible scholar. Three and a half years later in April 1521 at the Diet of Worms, he provided Christendom with a case study of the nexus between conscience, the Word of God, church policy and Councils. Here, in his reply to the demand of the Diet that he recant his reformed beliefs and teachings, he asserted his need to be “convicted by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes or councils, for they have contradicted one another - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.” Notice for a moment the emphasis Luther makes on the fact that his conscience was captive to the Word of God and must be educated by the Word of God! Unfortunately, the princes and the prelates in Luther’s day did not take him up on this challenge.

Two current happenings in the Adventist world and beyond shine a more contemporary light on the sacred nature of individual conscience and of individual religious freedom. The first of these happenings has to do with the upcoming release of the blockbuster movie, Hacksaw Ridge, about Desmond Doss. This movie promises to be a positive and sympathetic portrayal of the most famous and most decorated military conscientious objector of all time. He just happens to be Adventist. If the rapturous reception at the Venice Film Festival given this movie means anything at all, it may mean that many in society will pause, perhaps for the first time, to reflect on the sacred nature of individual conscience and of individual religious freedom. 

The other reason to focus on issues of conscience and religious freedom arises from the current stalemate in many Adventist circles concerning the ordination of women. Perhaps if we choose to see this issue through the particular prism of conscience and religious freedom, we may yet see a greater consensus emerge on this topic. That is why I urge the Adventist communion to give serious consideration to the idea of designating 2017 as the Adventist Year of Conscience and Religious Freedom! 2017 should then be used to highlight these sacred features of our faith to our Adventist members and society at large. Also, Adventist members should focus their efforts on educating themselves in the Scriptures on matters of conscience and on achieving a Spirit-led unity and re-formation as we do this. There is much for all to do!

Theological & Ethical Convictions Are Matters of Conscience 

The live ordination issues within the Adventist communion are issues where the minds of many, though not closed, are settled. Many of these people have settled on the theological high ground, believing that the Scriptures prohibit women from being ordained. Others have settled on the ethical high ground, believing that the Scriptures teach that it is less than ethical to continue to deny women ordination.

The attempt to solve a conundrum of this nature by majority vote will always be destructive. A majority vote should not be allowed to quash conscientiously held theological convictions. Nor should it be allowed to quash conscientiously held ethical convictions. However inadequate and incorrect these theological and ethical convictions may prove to be in the end, they must be respected. And both these theological and ethical convictions are believed to arise from Scripture. A stifling of minority dissent on such issues is not countenanced by Scripture and for good reason. 

TOSC in all of its study did not reach a consensus on whether women could be ordained. In the end, they handed down three approaches to the issue. The 2015 San Antonio GC Session specifically rejected a proposed change in church policy to allow each of the thirteen world regions to decide for themselves whether to ordain women or not, thus creating their own selection criteria for ordinands. The vote in San Antonio did not concern the Scriptural stance on the ordination of women though people may have used their own understanding of the issue to guide their vote on the specific proposal before them.  But the bottom line was that TOSC was unable to make a consensus pronouncement on women’s ordination. 

Keeping Individual Conscience Captive to the Word of God While Maintaining Unity In the Adventist Communion

This is our twin task! These are our twin priorities! First, we will seek every opportunity to educate our conscience according to the dictates of the Scriptures. Such study can never be solely individual study. It must always be complemented by the input of our fellows, globally. We must never imagine that the heavenly gifts of knowledge, wisdom, and discernment are only operational in America, or in Africa, or in Europe. We must press together in this regard! Second, our growing, corporate understanding of Scriptural truth and of the will of God for His church and its practices will have as its aim a mission-driven unity. In my humble opinion, Adventists cannot hope to avoid turning again to the Scriptures, seeking thereby to educate their consciences and to maintain unity. It is to be an ongoing process. 

Understanding Our Need of a Reformed Paradigm Concerning Adventist Leadership and Ordination

The TOSC process was a helpful and much needed process in seeking to engage each corner of our global Adventist communion in searching for a united understanding of the nature of ordination and what that means for the potential ordination of women. People from various areas of the world field came to understand something of the importance of these issues for others in other parts of the world. Some pled for more time to get on board and for more answers to their questions. Many in other places just wanted action without further discussion. There are certain features of the discussions of ordination that have not been highlighted to any significant extent in any discussion or study. This task is undertaken below.

It is easy to believe that in the Adventist world ordination means the same thing the world over. However, this is not the case. Our understanding of ordination and our practice of it is colored by our culture. For example, for many in America, to be ordained in the Adventist ministry is to be granted professional endorsement. For many in Africa, to be ordained is to become an ecclesiastical chief of sorts. In China, it may be that Adventist ordination is a pragmatic pledge that the ordained individual will co-exist in some sort of working relationship with the civil powers.

However much our specific culture may color our understanding of ordination, it is also true that the wider religious world can also colour our understanding of it. Much of the Christian world understands ordination according to a sacramental model to some degree. Adventist theology, at its best, does not! Hence, Adventists cannot import arguments for or against the ordination of women wholesale from other Christian bodies. There are several pointers to this fact.

First, Adventists who have been ordained are not regarded as a reverend clergy class with a special connection with God and separate and distinct from the laity class. Adventist ordination does not impart the dominicus character, enabling the ordained person to act as a mediator between God and humanity. Adventist leaders are an important part of the laos, the whole people of God.

Second, Adventist ordination does not create additional bridegrooms of the bride of Christ, other than Christ himself. We do not believe in male headship in the ecclesial context. Some Christian clergy wear a ring symbolizing their marriage to the Bride of Christ. Many wear vestments and dog collars signifying their membership of the distinct clergy class. Adventist leaders do not for they understand, in their best moments, that they are part of the laos, the whole people of God.

Thirdly, Adventist ordination is not the sole identifying mark of those who have been “called” by God to serve and minister in His name. The New Testament emphasis is that all saints are “called” by God to serve and minister in His name. The “calling” by God of every individual saint to serve him is enfolded in the specific spiritual gifting of that believer. God’s saints are all his believer-priests serving him in His temple. Adventist leaders are an important part of the laos, the whole people of God. 

Protestant Reformers undid some of the accretions of power and lordly spiritual authority that had accrued to the priestly/clerical class in the centuries before them. Adventist pioneers, in their turn, built their polity and gospel order in a pragmatic fashion, borrowing much from other Christian groups around them. This polity and gospel order has, for the most part served Adventists well. However, the almost inevitable drift toward institutionalisation and clericalisation may well have created subtle, even sinful changes in attitudes and modes of operation which are best addressed by a studied renewal and re-formation of our gospel order.

“Ordination,” if we like that term, has an important theological character we can derive from the Scripture. However, we must also acknowledge that cultural elements have also been overlaid on the theological core of this rite.

Toward a Consensus on a Reformed Paradigm of Adventist Leadership and Ordination

At San Antonio on 9 July 2015, Pastor David Ripley, then the Ministerial Association Secretary of the Northern Asia-Pacific Division, spoke to the assembled delegates in the aftermath of the ordination vote. He stated that “one of the things that it [the vote on ordination] showed us is that we have a world church looking at the same Scriptures and coming up with very different interpretations. I think that points out that this church has very divided hermeneutics or rules of interpretation.” Ripley wants to make a motion to the effect that “the world church will take time to study and to help us come together what our hermeneutic really is because we’re using two very different ones.”  The following day word came from the Steering Committee of the General Conference Session that this request had been received favourably and that action would be taken through the BRI to address the issue. We are yet to see how comprehensive such a study on Adventist hermeneutics will be. It may be little more than the publication of their findings in a revised second edition of the book currently available on biblical interpretation. Ripley was calling for something more. In essence, he called for the application of newly refined hermeneutical principles as Adventists globally search for a biblical solution to our present impass concerning ordination.

In my prayerful study of the issues involved, if this study of Adventist hermeneutical principles is to have any positive impact on creating greater understanding and unity concerning our theology and practice of ordination, the following two elements must feature in the study.  First, the question as to the relationship of freedom of conscience to the whole hermeneutical enterprise must be addressed. How are the conscientiously held theological and ethical convictions of others to be allowed to impact the expression of my own convictions? How can these varying convictions be refined and made to contribute to unity among believers?  Second, the relationship of culture to biblical interpretation must be studied. Principles that guide our understanding of the impact of culture on biblical interpretation must be defined. In these things the input of both Adventist religious liberty experts and Adventist missiologists should not be overlooked.

Concrete Steps Toward the Creation of a Reformed Paradigm of Adventist Leadership and Ordination

A greater consensus on the theology and practice of ordination can yet be reached through employing a streamlined, global study process of helpful hermeneutical principles. Such a study process need not detain us long, but it must be pursued with real purpose! A renewed and more biblically adequate paradigm for the theology and practice of Adventist leadership and ordination can yet be devised as Adventists reach for greater global unity on this issue. In the end, it may be agreed that absolute uniformity is neither achievable nor desirable. Agreement may be reached that cultural sensitivity in the design and implementation of ordination rites will be a blessing to the global Adventist communion. Such cultural sensitivity may assist the expression of the core principles underlying our theology of ordination and its practice.

Here, in brief, are the four concrete steps toward the creation of a reformed paradigm concerning Adventist leadership and ordination:

• Seek a more united and a more biblically adequate Adventist hermeneutic that can help us understand more of the religious freedom and cultural dimensions associated with the theology of Adventist leadership and ordination.

• This would provide a really helpful foundation for a comprehensive theology of Adventist leadership, ministry, and mission as well as the theology and practice of “ordination.”

• Foundational ecclesiological principles guiding our practice of Adventist leadership, ministry. and mission including “ordination” could be established from such a theology. (I have critiqued the currently accepted foundational principles underlying the theology and practice of ordination elsewhere).

• With the above three steps in place, Adventists may move confidently into a renewed phase of policy development concerning ordination and credentialing.

Conclusion

I dream that one day soon the Adventist communion which I love will awaken to the potential of a new paradigm for Adventist leadership and the practice of ordination. There is good promise that we will leave aside a hierarchical, elitist paradigm of Adventist leadership, ministry, mission, and ordination. And there is every hope that we will embrace a new culturally sensitive, lateral, and role-oriented paradigm of the same. Let us move creatively into God’s future empowered by his Spirit. The proposed Adventist Year of Conscience and Religious Freedom could well serve to focus our attention on this possibility lying within our reach.

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).

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.

IMG_2888.JPG

On Sabbath (October 29), I attended church at the Spencerville Seventh-day Adventist Church in Maryland.  The day before, I attended the North American Division Year-end Meeting in the General Conference building. Just a few miles apart as the crow flies. I might as well have been on two different planets. 

The Spencerville church is special to me. I started attending there in the mid-1940s as a pre-school child. We met in a plywood shack. Today it is a beautiful facility and a beautiful congregation. The organ music soared. The space and the stained glass windows created an atmosphere of worship. I felt blessed. The speaker was a new, young, associate pastor, a graduate of the Seventh day Adventist Theological Seminary. A woman. 

Andrea Jakobsons is the daughter of Jiri Maskala, Dean of the Seminary (He was there and beaming – as he should have been). This is her first pastoral post, and she has only been on the job a few months, but I’m guessing the apple does not fall far from the tree. Her sermon was a blessing to me, both by its content and its source.  

Pastor Jakobsons told the story of how she came to be at Spencerville. She was on a different career track, planning to study for her Ph.D. Then came the invitation to Spencerville. She was not inclined to go. Through a series of events and interventions by family and friends, she became convinced she was being called by God and accepted the invitation. She actually sounded shocked that she had wound up being a pastor. 

On Sabbath at Spencerville, I heard Andrea Jakobsons tell the story of being called to the ministry by the Holy Spirit. It just appalls me when antagonists think they know the will of God and what the Holy Spirit will and won’t do in the quest for souls. I think I heard reality from a young woman called by Holy Spirit.

I liked visiting this planet. Very much.

I attended the NAD Year-end Meeting the day before because I was a member of the NAD Education Taskforce. We gave our final report. I stayed around for the discussion of the action by the General Conference Executive Committee to adopt a process to achieve unity with (bring into line) those union conferences that are ordaining women. 

Clearly, I was on a different planet on Friday. 

What I say next is my own perspective, based on observation and conversations with many people attending the meeting. This may sound like a bit of stream of consciousness. 

The atmosphere in the General Conference auditorium was palpable. The predominant mood in the room was to just say “no” to the GC. Some were ready to put a motion of the floor to tell the GC right now that there was going to be no backing up thus avoiding dragging out the reconciliation process for a year. Had such a motion been made, I believe it may well have passed. 

Actually, some other unions are said to have explored whether to begin ordaining women in solidarity with the Pacific and Columbia Unions. 

The conference presidents were invited to the Year-end Meeting this year to gather their views. They don’t usually attend. The word on the street is that collectively they are deeply disturbed and in opposition to the GC action. 

NAD President Dan Jackson, in my opinion, got it exactly right when he said yesterday that while the General Conference says their action is about “policy,” Jackson believes their initiative against certain unions is precisely and unequivocal about the ordination of women, not policy. Amen! I firmly believe that. 

Further, I fear that the term “policy” is actually a Trojan Horse for advancing the alien Headship Theology in our midst under other terminology. This is disingenuous, at best. Headship Theology is not a part of our belief system. Those who believe in it are actually outliers in our midst – anywhere they are found. 

It is not coincidental that Headship Theology believers are also big on authoritarian hierarchies. That concept is part and parcel of Headship Theology. So those believers would be delighted by an authoritarian attempt by the GC. 

I want to publicly thank Dan Jackson for his leadership in this situation. He handled the meeting last Friday with transparency, grace, good humor, steely grit, and frankness.  We should be thankful for his presence.  He is in a lonely place. We should pray for courage, wisdom, prudence and discretion for him. He sits in a very difficult spot, between the proverbial rock and hard place. He is technically a GC employee as Division President. He says he cannot and does not advocate for policy violations within North America.

Yet he stated openly, based on his knowledge of the situation – but not his advocacy of such a position – that if the unions are asked by the GC to “repent” and roll back prior ordinations of women, and to discontinue future ordinations of women, he knows the answer will be “no.” He is convinced that if the GC were to come to the NAD Executive Committee to ask them to dissolve the Pacific and Columbia Unions, he knows the answer will be “no.” He openly also stated that such a series of events would lead to a crisis, about which no one can predict the outcome.

I am convinced personally, based in part on conversations with those in a position to know the back-story, that this looming confrontation is the work of one man, the President of the General Conference. I believe there are many GC people who are opposed to the proposed course of action. They got steamrolled. While the proposed process has been adopted on a split vote of the GC Executive Committee, I believe it is one man’s initiative and he owns it. Yes, it was voted by a majority, by those Divisions who oppose women’s ordination. But I believe the initiative came from the President. I believe his motivations are theological, political (in terms of world church dynamics), and personal.  It is baffling to me why he would precipitate a crisis, especially with policy as pretext. There must be something deeper. There must also be an antidote.

I think I saw at work on Friday a determination on the part of leaders and laymen from across the NAD to protect a principle enshrined in our structure since 1901. The principle is that when times arise where there is an overreach or a power play by one or a few people, our organizational structure will allow us to just say “no.” I believe we are at just such a point in time. The principle may be tested. My reading of the tealeaves is that when the test comes, the union conferences in the NAD will stand in unity against the overreach. I could be wrong.  I hope not. I want to belong to a fellowship, not a hierarchy. 

The planet I visited Friday felt dark. There was tension in the air. There were a bunch of people meeting in a room who were feeling aggrieved by the man upstairs a few floors. It was like the meeting was occurring in alien space. (I got a tour of the new NAD offices while in town.) They were sensing the darkness too. It was like being in a threatening atmosphere, a place of coercion. 

I believe in my heart that most of the NAD delegates to the meeting Friday would prefer to be on the planet I visited Sabbath. 

The planet I visited Sabbath felt light. I felt blessed by a women minister who appeared to be in awe of the fact that God called her. She appears to want to respond with her best contributions in His service. Let us not stand in the way of her reaching her full potential in God’s calling. 

Edward Reifsnyder is a healthcare consultant, president of The Reifsnyder Group, and senior vice-president of FaithSearch Partners. He and his wife Janelle live in Fort Collins, Colorado, and have two daughters.

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.

image3.JPG

Hacksaw Ridge, the much-anticipated Hollywood film starring Andrew Garfield as famous Adventist soldier Desmond Doss, comes out this weekend. In an exclusive interview with Spectrum, filmmaker Terry Benedict, who produced the film, talks about his relationship with Doss, his 2004 documentary The Conscientious Objector, and why Adventists should take a trip to the cinema.

Question: Hacksaw Ridge, a Hollywood film about Adventist World War II hero and congressional medal winner Desmond T. Doss, is released in the US on November 4. Have you been pleased by the reaction to the film so far? Is there Oscar chatter?

Answer: The response has been overwhelmingly positive. And yes, I think there are people who are talking about awards. In fact, I haven’t actually seen a negative review yet. (Not to say there isn’t one out there, I just haven’t seen it.) I’ve been doing several mini preview screenings including the Q and A’s afterwards, and people are really impacted by the film.

One of the things Desmond and I really wanted to see was people leaving the theater evaluating themselves, as in: “Maybe I should look at my own lifestyle and how I am living.” 

Obviously the film is intense. Mel [Gibson, who directs the film] did a terrific job of walking the middle road of balance: he gave a proper context to the story of a medic, which deals with the carnage and graphic nature of what happens on the battlefield, while also understanding and appreciating what Desmond’s heroics were all about. 

You mention finding the balance between telling the story of a medic and the violence of the film. I also noticed the balance between the religious aspects of Hacksaw’s Ridge and the rest of Desmond’s story. Was there a lot of discussion about Desmond’s religion and how it should be depicted in this film? 

When I was in post-production on the documentary [The Conscientious Objector], I was talking to producers and production companies around town, and one of my criteria was to find a producing partner who understood the magnitude of Desmond’s story and the essential need to keep the core of Desmond’s journey of faith and how that played out in his training and on the battlefield. It was important to keep that intact and pure. 

Bill Mechanic, who was president of Twentieth Century Fox during the Titanic and Castaway days, got it. I really felt he would do everything he could to protect the core of Desmond’s story. He really became the champion and was the primary producer over the ten-plus years of development [of The Conscientious Objector], and he was the one who got Mel [Gibson] to come on board. 

Mel, being a believer and a patriot, understood the faith journey of Desmond. And being an incredible filmmaker, he was able to find that balance and proper context for the film, and I really think he achieved it. 

I’m really happy, and I know Desmond would be happy with how it turned out.

How involved was Desmond in The Conscientious Objector?

Desmond was very involved in terms of participating. He had no involvement in terms of editorial control or anything like that. He trusted me to make those choices about what was important in telling his story. He was very much hands on, but he also let me be a filmmaker and tell the story the way I felt would be best. 

Desmond was incredible; he became very grandfatherly to me. We had a very, very close relationship. We were able to create an environment where he and the other soldiers felt comfortable telling about things they had experienced on the battlefield but had never talked about before. 

We’ve heard about that with the “greatest generation.” Those guys always kept everything stuffed inside. But the men we talked to were able to let it out. They knew their sands of time in the hourglass were running out, so they let their story out, and their families benefitted greatly as a result. 

Their families had never known what their grandfathers, brothers, and uncles went through. This was a real side benefit to the film. 

Why did you feel there needed to be another film in addition to the documentary The Conscientious Objector? 

That’s a good question. Documentaries obviously, in terms of distribution, don’t see as wide an audience, unfortunately. Having said that, TheConscientious Objector is about to get rediscovered on the tails of Hacksaw. 

I felt that a dramatized narrative would be worthwhile in the sense of helping people understand and feel and get a taste of what that experience must have been like. And again, that’s why I was very happy when Mel came on board. 

In fact, we’ve had the military community present at almost all of the preview screenings. They come away very moved, saying that it’s the most accurate depiction of what happens on a battlefield that they have seen. They are very supportive of the film. 

Last week, at Gary Sinise’s Sky Ball event for the veterans that he puts on every year, we screened Hacksaw, and everybody fell in love with the story. The generals I spoke to had been in the service long enough that they had heard of Desmond — some of them had even met Desmond — and so they couldn’t have been happier about how his story was depicted. 

How did you become so interested in Desmond’s story? 

That goes back to when I was ten years old. I read books – a lot of books. I needed something to do because my parents wouldn’t buy a TV until I was 12, I think it was. They just felt it wasn’t a necessary thing in the house. I had to do something, so I read a lot. And like a lot of boys, I was attracted to war stories and heroes, and so I read a lot about World War II. Then I came across this book called The Unlikeliest Hero, which was the story of Desmond Doss. 

It was unlike any other story I had ever read: a guy who stood up for his faith in face of great obstacles in the military. All he wanted to do was be a combat medic, and they abused and harassed him for two-and-a-half years. Then, he saved many of them who were injured and wounded up on this cliff and couldn’t get down on their own power. He saved 75 of them — lowered them down on a rope. They recommended him for the Medal of Honor. He was the first conscientious objector to ever receive the Medal of Honor. 

As a kid I was very impressed, trying to wrap my brain around how he did that and the magnitude of him standing up for his faith. The fact that he wouldn’t work on the Sabbath and yet found ways to still be a benefit in serving his community had a big impact on me. It helped form parts of my moral compass and how I wanted to live my life. 

I came to meet Desmond a couple of years later at a church summer camp. He really loved talking to youth and sharing his story. And then, when I met him again in the late 1990s and talked to him, it was just like when I first met him when I was 12. He was that same loving, unassuming, humble individual. I sought his advice on many occasions; he was a very wise man. 

He didn’t want his story told. He was too afraid that he would be glorified, and he wanted that honor to go to God. He was afraid that his character might be compromised, so I made him a promise that I would do everything I could to preserve and protect the essence of his character. I promised him that: “I’ll answer to God first, you second, and everyone else can get in line.” He laughed and he said, “Okay, let’s do it.” 

What do you hope that people take away from Hacksaw Ridge?

That’s something that Desmond and I actually talked about at one point when I was explaining the importance of the universal themes of his story. One of those universal themes is that there is always an opportunity to serve your community and your fellow man — or God and country. 

Maybe the military community has taken notice of Desmond’s journey and understands better now how diversity can work to their advantage. 

Certainly we should all come away being inspired. 

In the faith-based community, Desmond epitomized what it is to be a Christian and to be Christ-like. That makes Christians feel uncomfortable at times, but that’s the definition of a Christian: to be Christ-like, to demonstrate the actions the ultimate role model for Christians: Jesus Christ. 

Desmond was not an evangelist; he did not try to win people over to his way of thinking. He simply was impressed by God not to kill, and he translated that into not carrying a weapon. But he didn’t go around saying, “Hey Buddy, you shouldn’t do that either!” 

He actually said, “Listen, I support the war’s purpose and I understand and respect that others have been convicted to carry and weapon and to take life.” (There are plenty of examples of that in the Old Testament, obviously.)

I thought I was going to have a theological discussion with Desmond about that at the end of the documentary, but that’s what he simply said in 60 seconds. He said, “That’s how I believe,” and that was it.   

Our readers are Seventh-day Adventist or come from an Adventist background, like Desmond. What would you say to our readers who are thinking about seeing the movie but are not quite sure about watching it?

First of all, I am taking my fourteen-year-old daughter and sixteen-year-old son to see the movie. They knew Desmond as little toddlers. When Desmond passed away, my son was six and my daughter was four, and they still remember him. That’s how important he was. 

If the question is about going to an R-rated film: there is nothing gratuitous in this film. The R rating is there because of the graphic nature of war. Mel did a nice job of keeping the violence in the proper context of the heroics of Desmond. It’s all organically motivated. 

My personal feeling is that we tend to live in a sterilized world where we don’t always understand things beyond our own experiences. There is a disconnect today where we probably don’t know what our military men and women go through in serving. 

I do think that this is an epic cinematic experience that would be worth going to see in a theater. You don’t get the same experience at home. But that said, I think it’s an important film to see, even if you wait for it to come out on streaming or pay-per-view.

Adventists should know that this film, in very clear terms, points out that Desmond was a man of faith as part of his Seventh-day Adventist church and that he lived his faith every day. I would encourage Adventists to go see it because they can see how Desmond did this, and what he had to go through in doing it. 

Whether you are an Adventist or not, I think you will come out of the theater with a tremendous appreciation for who Desmond Doss was, what he went through, and what he believed in. 

But I would think Adventists especially would want to see this film to be able to talk about it. People are going to ask Adventists: “What did you think about the film? What do you think about Desmond’s story?” 

How are Adventists going to talk about it if they haven’t seen it?

Rachel Logan, a 2015 writing intern for Spectrum, attended a preview screening of Hacksaw Ridge in Los Angeles.

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.

Dare_To_Be_Desmond.jpg

The following sermon was preached by Jeff Gang for a worship service at Southern Adventist University’s Homecoming weekend in the Collegedale Seventh-day Adventist Church on Sabbath, October 29, 2016. The Sermon was originally titled “He Is Our Peace.” 

Most of you are probably aware that Mel Gibson’s film Hacksaw Ridge opens in theaters this weekend, based on the true life story of U.S. Army medic, Desmond T. Doss, a Seventh-day Adventist conscientious objector who refused to bear arms during World War II. Doss would eventually be awarded the Medal of Honor by President Harry S. Truman for saving the lives of over 75 soldiers during the Battle of Okinawa in 1945—one of the bloodiest battles of World War II.

Desmond Doss is a heroic figure for many of us, especially in this community. He lived many years near Lookout Mountain, Georgia. His memorial service took place here in the Collegedale Seventh-day Adventist Church. And he was laid to rest nearby in Chattanooga’s National Cemetery. My wife, Gina, and her sister Julie still remember Mr. Doss visiting their class at A.W. Spalding Elementary School here in Collegedale. I am sure many of you had the privilege of meeting Mr. Doss over the years as well. Maybe you even knew him personally.

One reviewer of Hacksaw Ridge has described the film as one of the most violent war films he has ever seen. It is rated "R." So whether or not you decide to see it (or you just wait for it to be released on DVD or Netflix), Desmond Doss is a fascinating story of faith, courage, duty, and heroism. I still remember by father reading The Unlikeliest Hero to me as child. I was mesmerized by Doss’ life. and he still inspires me today. The most compelling part of Doss’ story was not only his devotion to God but also his devotion to his his fellow soldiers even when many of them mistreated him. 

And while the film is mainly focused on his heroic actions in one of the bloodiest battles of the war, we must not forget that Desmond Doss lived by his convictions for years under extremely difficult circumstances. So one question that comes to my mind as I think about his story, I wonder, are there anymore Desmond Doss’ today in the Seventh-day Adventist Church? And if so, what would that look like in our time and place? 

You may recall the story in the Gospels where one day the religious leaders asked Jesus to identify the greatest commandment: "He answers them, saying: ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets'" (Matthew 22:37-40, NRSV). The commandments of God are two sided. One side is directed toward our relationship with God. and the other side is directed toward our relationship with others. Jesus said it all comes down to those two actions, loving God and loving people. This is Great Commandment Love.

In Desmond Doss, I see an individual who exemplified that kind of love, love for God in his commitment to keep the fourth commandment: Remember the Sabbath day. And love for man, in his commitment to keep the sixth commandment: Thou shalt not kill. While honoring the 4th commandment has always been a part of our heritage as a church, some may forget that honoring the 6th commandment has been part of our heritage as well. What do I mean? As far back as the Civil War, our church encouraged conscientious objection, not only because of the fourth commandment but also the sixth. 

During the Civil War, the General Conference Seventh-day Adventist Executive Committee in Battle Creek, Michigan, sent a letter to the Governor of Michigan, appealing that Adventist young men be granted exemption from serving in the Union army. In part they wrote:

“The denomination of Christians calling themselves Seventh-day Adventists, taking the Bible as their rule of faith and practice, are unanimous in their views that its teachings are contrary to the spirit and practice of war; hence, they have ever been conscientiously opposed to bearing arms. If there is any portion of the Bible, which we, as a people, can point to more than another as our creed, it is the law of Ten Commandments, which we regard as the supreme law and each precept of which we take in its most obvious and literal import. The fourth of these commandments requires cessation from labor on the seventh day of the week; the sixth prohibits the taking of life, neither of which, in our view could be observed while doing military duty.”

Ellen White expressed a similar conviction during this time period when she wrote these words: “I was shown that God’s people, who are His peculiar treasure, cannot engage in this perplexing war, for it is opposed to every principle of their faith. In the army they cannot obey the truth and at the same time obey the requirements of their officers. There would be a continual violation of conscience.”

The practice of conscientious objection continued to be the position of the church for many years. However, in 1914, at the outbreak of World War I, a crisis occurred in the church. The Seventh-day Adventist Church in Europe encouraged their members not resist their nation’s call to arms and willingly submit to their government’s demands. The decision was pragmatic. Submit to the state in order to prevent persecution, loss of the church’s institutions, and protect their Adventist way of life. This was especially the case in Germany. The crisis occurred when a group of Seventh-day Adventist members in Germany opposed the official church position. In their protest, they were labeled fanatics, and many of them were disfellowshipped, resulting in the formation of the Reformed Seventh-day Adventist Church. Twenty years later during War War II, when most Adventists in Germany embraced Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, the Reformed Seventh-day Adventists resisted, and many of them died in concentration camps.  

After Word War I, Adventist leaders in Europe recognized the errors they made and apologized to the world church during an official denominational meeting in Gland, Switzerland, in 1923. However after their apology, church leaders reverted to their earlier position that an Adventist member had “‘absolute liberty to serve his country, at all times and in all places, in accord with the dictates of his personal conscientious conviction.’”  The denomination would eventually adopt a similar position. In 1972, the Autumn Council of the General Conference Committee released a statement titled “The Relationship of Seventh-day Adventists to Civil Government and War.” The statement encouraged members to not bear arms and, if necessary, serve as non-combatants in the military, but it stated:  “This statement is not a rigid position binding church members but gives guidance leaving the individual member free to assess the situation for himself."

Maybe, in part. this is why Desmond Doss never wished to be referred to as a conscientious objector, rather a conscientious cooperator. He chose not to bear arms yet felt called to serve his country during war. This was based on his conscience.  But we should not forget the many Seventh-day Adventists around the world who refused to serve in the military at all! And these men did so based on conscience as well, and many of them suffered for their decisions.

During Word Was I, a report from the military prison at Fort Leavenworth reveals that ninety-two conscientious objectors were imprisoned there, almost all for religious convictions. Seventh-day Adventist are among the prisoners on the list. Their reason for refusing to bear arms?  Because the Ten Commandments say, “Thou shalt not kill.” One of those young men was Albin Conrad, a young German immigrant who had become a Seventh-day Adventist. When drafted into to Army, Albin refused to bear arms saying, “I’m sorry, but I cannot do as you ask. I must obey God rather than man.” Albin was eventually court-martialed and sentences to ninety years hard labor. It was reported that while in prison Albin was severely mistreated and eventually was moved to Alcatraz, a prison from which he was released after the war.

Earlier we read these words from the Letter to the Ephesians: “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.”  We do not need to look far to see that we live in a world of dividing walls between people. We see it in our country; we see it in our community; we even see it in our church. The hostilities that exist in our lives are palpable. All of us are in desperate need of His peace. But the good news this morning is that according to these words of Scripture, Christ Jesus has already done his work  Through his blood, through the Cross, he has made it possible for all people to experience reconciliation. There no longer needs to be dividing walls. There no longer needs to be hostilities. He is our peace not only in the future but in the present, amidst all the darkness of our world. And if we believe these words to be true, what does that mean for us today? What does this mean for Seventh-day Adventists living in the twenty-first century? For me the answer is clear. If Christ Jesus is truly our peace, we, in return, are called to be His people of peace. We are called to be His peacemakers. 

Our world is desperate for more courageous followers of Jesus like Desmond Doss. In a world of fear and hatred, in a time great division, not only in the world but in our church, we need Desmond Dosses. We need contentious objectors; we need people who contentiously object to injustice and hatred and evil in all forms. We need followers of Jesus who claim his promise:  "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." We need people who live out the commands of their Lord who once said,  

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you."

Or 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.'"

We need people who take seriously the words of the Apostle Paul who once wrote to the church in Rome: 

"Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Seventh-day Adventists have thought of themselves as a remnant people. In part, we see ourselves as a community of people who who stay faithful to God. We are a people who keep His commandments, especially in the earth’s darkest days. One of the texts we like to claim is Revelation 14:12: “Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” But being a remnant people means far more than just the people who keep the Sabbath. Being a remnant people means we are to be a people of the Great Commandment to love, people who seek to not only love God but love people, all people, friend or foe. We are called to be a peacemaking remnant. 

This is not easy to do. We live in a sinful world, and the ethical decisions we are confronted with in life are often difficult. We wish the Bible was more clear at many of the situations we find ourselves in; we wish there were more “thus sayeth the Lords.” But its not always so! Our world is complicated, and we must do our best to do the right thing with God’s guidance and following our consciences. That’s what Desmond Doss did. He choose to serve his country in war and yet sought to be true to his beliefs, to obey His Lord according to his conscience no matter the consequences.

Here is where Seventh-day Adventist community, especially Adventist education, is vital to our church today. People like Desmond Doss do not just happen. Desmond Doss did not wake up and find himself one day on Okinawa with mortar fire raining down on him and machine gun bullets flying past his head and decide he was going to save life rather than take life. It just did not happen by chance. It was fostered by a community of people who were trying to take the commands of Jesus seriously and taught him to do the same. Are we able to say we are to say our Church is capable of shaping another Desmond Doss today? Or an Albin Conrad for that matter?

As we confront the many dividing walls and hostilities in our world in the twenty-first century, we find ourselves in between two unreconcilable options. In the face of injustice, hatred, and evil. We can do nothing. We can remain quiet, a silent church. Or we can be caught up in the ways of the world, using the world's methods and tactics. But Jesus has told us we are to be in the world but not of the world. And so we find ourselves needing to make difficult decisions. But our children will not just figure that out on their own! They need a community of people who show them what that looks like through word and deed. They need to see our peacemaking in action-- in our homes, our schools, our churches, our communities, and our world.

When I observe history, especially the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I see many courageous people like Desmond Doss who have sought to follow Jesus no matter what it meant for their lives. These men and women found themselves in what German theologian Helmut Thielicke called borderline situations (Grenzsituationen). These are situations that are not normal or ordered, where people cannot make easy decisions to follow God and keep His Commandments. In these borderline situations, ethical principles collapse when tested by extreme circumstances. However these borderline situations are helpful to us, especially as we can see how obedient followers of Jesus chose to respond to the ethical challenges of their day.

One who reminds me of this is Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  While not a Seventh-day Adventist, Bonhoeffer was a committed follower of Jesus Christ during the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Bonhoeffer was a German theologian and pastor. He was part of of a group of Christians called the Confessing Church, who resisted the Nazis and the German Christians who supported them. He was eventually imprisoned by the Gestapo and executed just days before the end of the war. Bonhoeffer chose to engage in the ethical complexities of his time.  He refused to stay quiet while at the same time refusing to be caught up in the evil that surrounded him. Like Desmond Doss, Bonhoeffer was a conscientious objector (but would have refused to be conscripted into the German military). Some believe he was even a pacifist. Earlier in 1934, Dietrich Bonhoeffer had delivered an address In Fano, Denmark, to a group of Christian leaders from various denominations around the world titled "The Church and the Peoples of the World":

“How does peace come about? Through a system of political treaties? Through the investment of international capital in different countries? Through the big banks, through money? Or through universal peaceful rearmament in order to guarantee peace? Through none of these, for the single reason that in all of them peace is confused with safety. There is no way to peace along the way of safety. For peace must be dared. It is the great venture. It can never be made safe. Peace is the opposite of security. To demand guarantees is to mistrust, and this mistrust in turn brings forth war. To look for guarantees is to want to protect oneself. Peace means to give oneself altogether to the law of God, wanting no security, but in faith and obedience laying the destiny of the nations in the hand of Almighty God, not trying to direct it for selfish purposes. Battles are won, not with weapons, but with God. They are won where the way leads to the cross. Which of us can say he knows what it might mean for the world if one nation should meet the aggressor, not with weapons in hand, but praying, defenseless, and for that very reason protected by ‘a bulwark never failing’?"

May the memory of Desmond Doss, and so many other like him who have gone before us, serve as a reminder of our invitation to follow Jesus despite the costs. May we, too, take up his call to be peacemakers, throwing safety aside.  May we in faith and obedience trust in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the bulwark never failing. Amen.

Jeff Gang serves as Assistant Professor of Ethics in the Loma Linda University School of Religion. He is also a board member of Adventist Peace Fellowship. 

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.

Voices.png

In an experimental series for Spectrum Media, Alexander Carpenter has produced a series of videos titled Young Adventists Speak.

The series highlights the voices of Adventist students, scholars, musicians and others highlighting the intersections of faith, history and politics.

 In conjunction with the opening of the Desmond Doss biopic Hacksaw Ridge, the series began with Ronald Osborn's overview of the shifting history of Adventists and war. 

The second in the series featured the first of two student-created reports from college campuses. Spencer Sherwin and Gabrielle Piry and assistant professor of communications Jerry Hartman recorded nine Walla Walla University students sharing their brief views on the U. S. presidential election, their voting choices, and what issues matter to them.

The third installment featured Pacific Union College students discussing the U. S. election, who they are voting for, and what issues matter to them. The segment was directed and edited by Ben Josse with the assistance of faculty members Rajeev Sigamoney and Tim de la Torre.

In Part Four, Geoffrey Nelson-Blake​ and Sterling Spence​ performed three reflections on contemporary culture and politics. The three readings—"American Holy Days,""Housing Rest,""Boycott Church"—are intercut with three songs—"Coal Heart Bound,""All the Winners,""And it Goes."

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.

SylviaHordosch_October2016__LB_9420_1.jpg

Sylvia Hordosch tries to reconcile her work for the United Nations pushing for gender equality and her heritage in the Adventist church where women are still not given the same opportunities as men.

Question: You work for UN Women, the United Nations entity working to promote gender equality, based in New York City. What do you do in your job?

UN Women was created in 2010 with the goal of strengthening the work of the United Nations on gender equality and the empowerment of women. We work under three pillars: development, peace and security, and human rights.

UN Women works with governments to develop new norms and policy recommendations on a wide range of topics. In the last few years, I have supported a process that has led to the adoption of a set of global sustainable development goals and worked with government delegations to ensure that gender equality is a key element of these goals. 

UN Women is present in about 90 countries. Our priority areas include women’s leadership and political participation, economic empowerment, ending violence against women, the role of women in peace and security, and gender-responsive planning and budgeting. 

Why do you work to promote gender equality? Why is your job important to you?

I am passionate about issues of equality and justice. My commitment to human rights and gender equality comes from my religious upbringing. God calls on us to defend the orphan, the widow, the foreigner. This call has become even more meaningful to me in recent years. 

My interest in women’s rights issues started when I discovered sexist language in a class at university — that is, language that takes male forms as the norm, as in “the man in the street,” the “chairman,” or “mankind.” The impact of such language is, of course, more obvious in languages that have grammatical gender, such as my mother tongue, German. Of course, it didn’t take much to discover that sexism is not limited to language but is a dominant feature of politics, economies, research priorities, or the way institutions such as parliaments, or churches are organized.   

Discrimination against women and girls takes many forms : 

• Child marriage, affecting 15 million girls 
• In 2013, nearly 800 women died every day during pregnancy or child birth. Almost all these deaths would be preventable.
• Women constitute two-thirds of the world’s illiterate people.
• Globally, only about 22% of parliamentarians are women. 
• In all the countries of the world, women and girls risk experiencing violence in their lifetime — at the hand of their fathers, husbands, or strangers in peace times and during war — in their homes, schools, on college campuses, at work, in refugee camps, and in churches. 
• The fact is that in many countries women do more work than men — when we count all the work that women do, paid and unpaid. This work is insufficiently recognized even though the work to raise children, take care of the sick and elderly, and do domestic chores is the basis for societies and economies. 

Since its creation, the UN (meaning the governments that are members of the UN) have developed an impressive set of legal norms on civil and political rights; on economic, social and cultural rights, and on eliminating discrimination against women. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women calls on states parties to take legal and policy measures to eliminate discrimination, including modifying social and cultural patterns, prejudices, and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women. 

A major challenge of my line of work is the tension between the commitments made by governments to global norms and policies on gender equality and their actual implementation at the national level — the gap between rhetoric and action. Countries may advocate for strong measures to end violence against women at the global level but cut funding for women’s shelters nationally.  Discussions around women’s rights remain contentious around issues of family; equal rights to property and inheritance; violence and sexual and reproductive rights.

How does it feel to be working every day toward promoting equality for women and belong to a church that does not officially ordain women, thus not treat them equally with men?

To be honest, for a long time the discrepancy between my work and the actions of our denomination did not bother me that much. I compartmentalized my life. Work here. Church there. But increasingly, this has felt rather schizophrenic. And the bitter irony is that we hold up Ellen White as our prophet, as one of our founders whose guidance is still very much sought out for, but we refuse to equally recognize the leadership of other women.

Adventist women study theology, they invest much time and energy in their congregations, yet they are asked to hold back, their calling is denied, and they remain invisible for the male decision-makers. My sister is one of these women.

You are a third-generation Adventist — rare for an Austrian. What was that like growing up? 

My grandfather was a minister, one of my uncles was a minister, my father and his brother were elders for many years, and my mother was a local church treasurer. So church and family have always been very closely intertwined. 

But growing up Adventist in Austria meant that I was considered a member of a sect by others — this came up when I did not go to school on Saturday as the other kids did. This being an “other” continued when I became a liberal arts student at the university where everybody was assumed to be secular. 

My memories of my home church are mixed. There are very fond memories of children’s Sabbath school, Bible studies, performances in church plays, summer camps. But there was also a strong focus on rules of behavior and “us vs. them” thinking. I remember as a young person with mostly non-Adventists friends that I did not understand the distinction between “us” and “people in the world.” Where were we if not in the world? When asked what Adventists believed, I talked about how we differed from Catholics (the majority in Austria). It was important to think that we had the “truth,” that we were right. I remember that asking questions was discouraged.

Were you surprised by the vote in San Antonio? Or by the recent actions of the GC in threatening to discipline unions that have ordained women? Have you considered leaving the church? Why do you stay?

I was in Utrecht in 1995 [at the General Conference session], just a few months before I attended the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. I remember clearly how I arrived for the last few days of the session and learned about the vote against the ordination of women. I quizzed the two Austrian delegates who told me that they had voted "no"— which may have been an accurate reading of the Austrian church at the time, but there had certainly been no serious discussion or assessment of the views of members.

Before the San Antonio vote, I debated what I would do in the case of a “no” vote. I felt that I had to follow my conscience and leave the church if there was a vote against women. In the end, I did not leave, but my loyalty to my church is very shaken, and my sense of belonging is very much linked to my local congregation, the Church of the Advent Hope, in New York.

Not long ago, you preached a sermon at your home church suggesting that Jesus broke rules of his time for women, making them more visible. What lessons can we draw from his actions today?

My point was that Jesus violated cultural practices and the laws of his society in the ways he engaged with women. There are many women around Jesus in the Gospels: his mother, his sisters, his close friends Martha and Mary, and many unnamed women. As a Jew, he was not supposed to speak to a Samaritan woman, but she was the first person to whom he outed himself as the Messiah.

In the case of the woman who was accused of adultery (note the absence of the adulterous man), Jesus stood with the woman and protected her life. And more importantly, Jesus did not judge her and did not condemn her. We Christians have a bad reputation for being judgmental and of condemning others. How would Jesus act today? With whom would he interact? Who would be his friends? I think he would talk with the homeless, the undocumented migrants, the young LGBT people — the people who need him. 

The ways Jesus interacted with women should encourage us to recognize the humanity of all while uncovering the sinfulness of sexism and racism, of unjust conditions and relationships. 

Why do you think some parts of the church are so against ordination for women and for letting the different divisions make their own choices?

We mistake uniformity for unity — even though we are not consistent in our practices. Consider how Adventists look at military service differently across the world. Some Adventists volunteer for military service in some countries, such as the U.S., while other Adventists are firm conscientious objectors. 

In my view, the opposition to women’s ordination is linked toefforts to maintain male privilege and power, to social norms that are based on male superiority and female subordination. And if you look back at discussions during the last few years (TOSC), differences regarding women’s ordination are not limited to certain parts of the world. There were hostile voices in North America. 

And of course, arguments — nicely embedded with Biblical texts and interpretations — are not limited to our church. In reality, it is really sad that we have had these discussions for decades when the word “ordination” does not even appear in the New Testament. The Bible is clear that we are all equally created in the image of God, equally redeemed by Christ, and equally sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 

In light of these clear teachings, what is the purpose of hierarchy other than maintaining power? How can we justify the loss of talents when we marginalize women? 

If we read the Bible from the point of view of all those created in the image of God — women and men, created in the diversity of our identities— we discover male-centered aspects of Christian theology. We must ask who benefits from this theology, including the theology of ordination and headship. 

How we talk about God shapes our understanding of God individually and collectively. We are told not to make images of God, but if we exclusively use male terms for God, this becomes a form of idolatry.  If God is male, then the male becomes god-like. Religious patriarchy — not at all limited to Christianity — presents itself as divinely established and leads to the belief that God, as a male, delegated power to men. And so God can only be represented by men. The problem is not the male terms we use for God — the father, the son, the king, the warrior — but that we use these terms exclusively, making maleness an essential part of the divine being.

When we challenge the male lens of looking at the Bible, we come across many unnamed characters, many of them women; we can find new ways of seeing and understanding, new ways of being liberated and becoming whole. Looking at Jesus allows us to address the contradictions between the theological identity of women and the actual lives of women, faced by discrimination, violence, and inequality. 

Jesus lived in a patriarchal society, but he came to transform his community, and I believe, the world. As followers of Jesus, we are called to challenge unjust structures and distorted symbols in our fallen world. This must begin in our own church community. 

How do you think the Adventist church will change in its treatment of women in the next decade? How do you see the church as a whole changing?

I am actually encouraged by the unions here in North America and in Europe who are standing up for the equality of women and men in church.  I keep hoping that we will move toward more representative structures of governance. It is a shame and injustice that women are the majority of church members but a small minority in decision-making within our denomination. 

In times of bigotry, racism, and sexism — not only in the U.S., but also in Europe — I would hope that we learn to focus on the two commandments that Jesus highlighted: love our God and love our neighbor. What does love your neighbor mean? Does it refer only to my family? Maybe also my church friends? Or does it include people in a much broader sense? I have a dear friend, who does not call herself a Christian, but in my eyes, she lives out Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 25. She has opened her house to strangers, spent many days volunteering after the huge damage that Hurricane Sandy caused, and has visited a man in prison for years. I want to be more like her, and I want my church family to act like the Good Samaritan and become true neighbors to the people around us.

Sylvia Hordosch is a policy adviser in the Intergovernmental Support Division of UN Women. Her current focus is the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 

Do_You_See_Me.jpg

My two-year-old daughter interrupts me from my keening at the computer to say, "Please read me a book." She has selected Rotten Island by William Steig. We have tried reading it before, but it was a little complex for her and she lost interest. This time, she sits, riveted by all those colorful monsters.

I read one book and then another, and then, too distracted by politics, I turn on Hillary Clinton's concession speech. My daughter climbs up my back, curious. We watch very little television in our house. When Hillary gets to the part about daughters, my eyes fill with tears.

It hasn't been a good season for mothers of daughters--for Adventist mothers, for American mothers. Last night, the United States elected a man who bragged about sexually assaulting women. The nation was shocked for one news cycle and then shrugged. It felt, somehow, inevitable.

Trump began his campaign by promising to build a wall. He said that before you immigrate to America, you must pass a religious litmus test. He questioned the integrity of an American judge because of his Mexican heritage. Trump also, incidentally, questioned whether Seventh-day Adventists were really Christians--this was before Ben Carson dropped out of the race. Trump's version of America was divisive and hateful.

While Mr. Trump had no credentials beyond a flair for the dramatic, he was running against a woman with all the credentials. She was every girl who sat at the front of the class, did her homework, raised her hand, and then got called "bossy" or a "nerd." Secretary Clinton once said "women's rights are human rights," and many of us realized that we had never really internalized that: We mattered.

But did we? Do we? Do you see us?

Several weeks ago, I was at home with my daughter, again distracted. I was watching a live stream of the General Conference Annual Council. Ted Wilson, the General Conference president, had presented a "unity" document. At the 2015 General Conference session, women's ordination was voted down, but some unions, like mine, were ordaining women anyway. The unity document was about finding a way to punish these unions. The ordination of women was this threatening.

I watched a room of men speak.Where are all the women? I wondered. We are more than half the church. Do you see us? Do we get to attend meetings in equal number? Do we get equal votes?

Nearly everyone who spoke, spoke out against the document. They measured their words. They told jokes. And largely, they affirmed the value of women. If you had only listened to the discussion, you would have thought the document would be defeated.

Of course, you are reading this, and you know what happened. The document passed easily. Nearly everyone who voted was a man. They were voting for unity, but they were also signaling to Adventist girls that they mattered less than Adventist boys.

How do I raise my daughter in America? How do I raise her as an Adventist? These are real questions.

Back at my house, my daughter asks about monsters. I tell her they aren't real, but she persists. She wants to be a friendly monster. She chases me through the house. She is laughing and laughing. Then, I chase her.

I want to tell her the world is beautiful. I want to tell her that we will protect the planet. I want to tell her that her church believes that one day she could be either president of the United States or president of the General Conference.

Today, I can't tell her much of anything. So, I chase her. I tell her that she is silly. Then, I tell her that she is strong and smart. Then, I tell her that I see her.

Sari Fordham is Associate Professor of English at La Sierra University.

210603_10150554403265714_2368909_o.jpg

Terry Rice, hospice chaplain in Walla Walla, Washington, finds his career on hold because the Adventist church has so far refused to acknowledge his calling through ordination.

Question: You are a chaplain for a hospice in Walla Walla, Washington. How long have you been working as a chaplain? 

Answer: I’ve been a healthcare chaplain since 2008, and before that, I was a Chaplain/Bible Teacher in Seventh-day Adventist academies.  A chaplain is a pastor who ministers in a community impacted by a non-congregational institution.  After I “came out” as gay, I moved from the educational setting to the health-care setting where I minister to hospice patients, their families, and our own staff as they desire. When someone comes on hospice,he/she is given a prognosis of six months or less to live. A hospice team providing comfort can include a nurse, NAC [certified nursing assistant], social worker, chaplain, and volunteers if desired.  

What does your job entail? What does a typical day look like for you?

While the hospice is a non-faith-based nonprofit, spiritual support is highly valued in our community. Thus, I am one of two full-time chaplains who travel to farms, log cabins, assisted living centers, and the state penitentiary in our counties of northeast Oregon and southeast Washington state. I empathize with patients/families and administer spiritual practices congruent with their faith as they engage in soon-coming death. I serve the bereaved in many grief groups we offer or through funerals when there is no reference to a pastor. Baptisms, communion, prayer, scripture reading, and guided meditation, are among the many rituals I might be asked to perform for such a diverse religious population. 

Were you a theology major?

I graduated with a BA in Religious Education from Southern Adventist University to become an academy chaplain. After teaching for a couple of years, I took a year to train as a literature evangelist in Florida in a program called SOULS (east) at that time. Right after that, I trained at Andrews University in the seminary, graduating with a Master of Divinity. Then I returned to teaching religion at our academies. Throughout this training, I served in Beijing, China, as a student missionary in and Taipei, Taiwan, in the founding teaching team and summer camp director for what is now Primacy Preparatory Academy.

How did you decide to become a chaplain?

I had a heart for spirituality at an early age. But it was after talking to Chinese students desiring Bible studies in Beijing that I followed my heart for learning and sharing wonderful things about God.  

Have you belonged to the Adventist church all your life? What was your upbringing like?  

I was born into a missionary heritage. My grandfather was president of Spicer Memorial College in India.  He and my grandmother started a community service center in Cooranbong, Australia. My oldest brother was born while my parents were serving in Papua, New Guinea.  I grew up within this culture while my father was a professor at what is now Southern Adventist University. I am an Adventist to the core! Growing up near the colleges, I experienced a collegiate-style Adventism. 

Does the hospice you work for require that you be endorsed by your church?  

I’m glad it hasn’t as it would have caused more stress in the matter. But my employer does assume that we chaplains do what it takes to grow professionally. And the Association of Professional Chaplains requires that I have endorsement by the national agency of a denomination before I engage with the committees that lead to Board Certification. Being board certified puts me in an interfaith network of chaplains to collaborate and explore best practices and accountability to a code of ethics and continuing education. As a pastor, acknowledgment of my calling through ordination (within a denomination) would also be my next step. 

I understand that the North American Division refuses to permit Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries to endorse you because you are gay. What have you been told about that decision and the reasons behind it?  

Last August, I went to support my chaplain colleague Jaci Cress who was being ordained (commissioned) at an Adventist hospital in town. The North American Division team performing the service took me aside. I was told that my “endorsement is in process.” When I asked for how long, the answer was “indefinitely” and that I “had no choice but to wait.”  During the service, the NAD team called all pastors to come to the front to lay hands on Jaci Cress. 

“Why aren’t you going up there? Aren’t you ordained?” a social counselor sitting next to me asked. “I’m ordained by Jesus Christ,” I said. But when the NAD team prayerfully laid hands on my colleague, she asked for me to come to the front with the other local pastors to join in the laying on of hands. "It was the right thing to do," Jaci told me later when I asked her why she had made a point of my participation. The wait for endorsement has required a lot of patience on my part since I fulfilled my requirements many years ago. My experience with Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries has been very supportive until I reached the committee that includes pastors of other NAD entities. 

The chaplains who head up Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries have spent years serving the general, non-Adventist population, and some have an awareness of the social injustice gay people face. Their experiences of gay Christians in the military is well informed. But I can imagine communicating this viewpoint is very difficult to those whose perspective on LGTBQ people is informed solely by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I really feel for them as they try to find the “right moment” when a committee of well-informed pastors see my being gay as a non-issue to the hospice community I serve. This moment never seems to come.  I wonder if they are worried that I am believing the strong faith of the loving, committed, same-sex Adventists that I see God bless. I wonder if they are puzzled that one can be called to celibacy and still be unashamedly gay. Whatever their reasons, they don’t understand that waiting prolongs a climate of oppressive injustice for me.

Is there any chance that the Division could change its mind and decide to allow you to be endorsed? Is there a specific person or committee that is responsible for the decision? 

Apparently a committee chair noticed my name and removed it before the committee could vote on it. Unfortunately devoted, godly men with good intentions are taking action to keep the church “pure” from people like me. But the only person feeling this action is me.  Some sort of accountability must be introduced in the NAD to make sure well-trained chaplains are not dismissed without discussion. Messing with the ordination/endorsement process should put their own ordination status at risk. But I see no accountability there nor any real communication. I am told by both retired/current Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries members that people don’t want to vote against the person stonewalling me as he has lots of political influence in the NAD. And my career is stuck in this political game “indefinitely.”

After four years of keeping this issue silent, last year I started to get vocal. Realizing my chance to voice this, I was flown out to the General Conference in Silver Spring this year to answer questions about my being gay and Adventist. Still today, ACM has not voted on my name “yay” or “nay” nor made recommendations as I was promised. If I’m at fault for misunderstanding, I’m sorry. But no one is continually clarifying with me anymore. Whenever I am discriminated against by my church, this pattern of silence always happens. Thank God this is a non-issue at my hospice, and there any hold-up based on one’s sexual orientation is seen as a case of discrimination, upheld by law. But in religion, people can discriminate. 

I take responsibility for putting myself at risk to stay Adventist. I know my beliefs are more affirming. I realize this can be a scary issue for people who feel they must protect the church from “condoning sin.”  I sin; we all do from time to time, regrettably. My question is this: Where have I sinned on this matter? What does this have to do with hospice ministry? I wonder if they aren’t happy simply because I am not ashamed of being gay.

How does the lack of endorsement affect you professionally?

As I said, it holds me back from networking with other colleagues in the Association of Professional Chaplains. And I think my hospice deserves a chaplain who is ordained after so many years.  

How does it affect you personally?  

When you’ve dedicated yourself to the church you love and see yourself as nothing other than a Seventh-day Adventist; when this church puts you “in process” with no reassuring guarantees because of your sexual orientation — I feel very dehumanized. I start to question my own abilities. I feel less confident. My tendency is to beg for affirmation, until I discover my best affirmation is found in Jesus who created me utterly amazing. I can’t expect them to understand, let alone advocate. You see, I’ve been in this position waiting many times — most frequently when I am dealing with the Seventh-day Adventist church. The whole experience is really gut-wrenching. Must I choose another denomination even though I feel so connected to Adventism? Being gay and Adventist is who I am. 

Would you consider leaving the church? Or your job? What are your plans? Why do you stay?  

We all are making choices. The church is making a choice to not do anything and stay silent. And this means “Go away." It took me six years to learn this. Even if I believed the best and I got a “Yes,” would I want this kind of endorsement backing my hospice ministry? I’m here on this earth to serve the Lord and minister. I love my church, but I love my Lord more. I love what He calls me to do more. If this means leaving my church to do His will, I will do it.

Interacting with thousands of patients of other religions tells me that God is very alive and present out there.  Right now I’m told by pastors of another long-standing denomination that they’ll not only consider ordaining my hospice ministry but also ordaining me to the people I serve in the Adventist Church, having a dual identity with them. And there is some friendly competition between pastors of local congregations Sweet Life Church and First Congregational Church about which of them might back my hospice ministry. I love their grace toward my Adventist beliefs and being gay. Both say that joining their denomination doesn’t mean I must leave the Adventist Church unless a local Adventist church enforces a narrow membership policy on me. That would be their choice — not mine — and I’ll respect that. 

How and when do you think the church's attitude toward gay members might change?

It will never change in my lifetime if we keep a need for a global consensus to bless what we say and do locally.  In North America, it has changed for the better over the years. A few more Adventist churches are becoming not only welcoming but also affirming. 

What is there about the Adventist church that makes you feel hopeful?

I know of many Adventist pastors who tell me privately that my orientation is a beautiful expression of God’s diverse creation. It starts with humbly learning God’s love and realizing “sola scriptura” doesn’t mean “sola hermeneutics.” 

We Adventists also have an imperfect social justice history that has eventually sided in favor of inclusion. Our expression of Christianity is different enough for many progressives to remain in the church to some degree. Also, millennials teach us that sometimes we need not leave one tribe for another. So long as one Christ-serving tribe fills the soul with strength, we can identify with many and make a difference everywhere.

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.

Judicial_Dilemma.jpg

At the outset of a study of church structure it is good to recall some facts as to what the church is and where it comes from. It is God who calls the church into being. It is made up of those who respond to His call, who then become the church. We neither create nor form the church. Rather we become the church. Thus, the structures we may form around the functions in which the church engages, are not the church. Rather, they are structures and institutions which assist the church in doing what God has called it to do, and as such are human institutions.

The early Adventist believers were firmly resistant to the notion of institution and structure, seeing it as the slippery slope to “Babylon” as they called it. They stoutly rejected the notion of creedal statements, maintaining that the Bible was their only creed. But the demands of dealing with such matters as property ownership and the proper handling of funds, tended to move them to recognize the need for institutional structure and the calling of a “general conference” of all members of the church. This term and the structure it took – borrowed largely from the Methodists – became the basis of early institutional design.

Unfortunately, the multiple use of the term “church” to cover such things as buildings and services and institutions, frequently leads to confusion as to what the church really is. In this context, we recognize that only the local congregation has members, and only members have funds which support the church. No other segment of the institutions of the church have either members or significant sources of funding. Thus, it follows that anything done by such segments is for the purpose of enabling the local congregation to function as the actual membership of the body. That is the reason for such structure to exist. The local church does not exist to sustain the other segments of institutional structure. Rather, the other segments exist to sustain and enable the local church.

A second unfortunate word usage is the term “levels of church organization” as if they exist in a line relationship of higher and lower power and authority. In actuality, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is structured as four separate constituent groups which do not have line authority over one another, but rather operate in a mutually agreed upon cooperative arrangement. Thus, the real power of the institution is in the local congregation, as it is the only group which has members and is the source of funding.

As familiar as we are with authoritative, top down, pyramid style leadership and governance, this is not the way the church is structured. Rather, it is designed to function cooperatively as four separate constituent groups that agree to function together. These four constituent groups have authority over specific functions of the church that belong only to them and may not be taken or countered by the other constituent groups.

The local church is the only constituent level which can take action regarding who may be a member, personnel for church officer election, appointment and ordination of elders, deacons and deaconesses, local church budgets and finance, and other such local church functions. The church in a Business Meeting serves as the constituent group of the church and it is this body that governs all membership and leadership matters of the congregation. The Church Board is appointed by the Church Business Meeting and is designated to handle matters delegated to them by the church body. The local church does not operate with a constitution, but rather is directed by the Church Manual.

The local conference is the only constituent group that can take action regarding the sisterhood of churches, its employees, institutions and finance. It also votes to recommend individuals for ministerial ordination to the union conference. The constituency of this segment of the institution is made up of representation from the local churches and meets as called for by its Constitution and Bylaws, and it elects its leadership and establishes a Conference Executive Committee to oversee its work between sessions.

The union conference also operates under the direction of its Constitutions and Bylaws and a constituency which is derived from the sisterhood of the local conferences in its territory. It has authority over the employees and institutions in its jurisdiction as well as the determination as to who may be ordained to ministry. As an exception to this ordination assignment belonging to the union, the divisions and the General Conference do not have to seek authorization from unions regarding whom they wish to ordain, but are allowed to authorize the ordination of their employees through action of their executive committees.

Divisions are not constituent groups, but rather are segments of the General Conference assigned to direct the work in given geographic territories. The General Conference Session, which currently meets every five years, is the constituency of the world group. There are four primary documents which guide the overall cooperative relationships of the various constituent groups. These are the 28 fundamental beliefs, the Constitution and Bylaws, the Church Manual and the General Conference Working Policy. The 28 fundamental beliefs, the Constitution and Bylaws, and the Church Manual are determined and modified only by a vote of the General Conference in session. The General Conference Working Policy is determined and modified by vote of the General Conference Committee.

These documents, which are under the jurisdiction of the General Conference, give direction to such matters as criteria for membership, leadership, finance, ordination, and institutional operation. However, the application of these criteria are not within its jurisdiction. For example, even though the criteria for membership is provided in these documents, the General Conference may not take action regarding individual membership. This authority resides in the local church only.

Institutional Operation

Generally speaking, the institutions of the church seek to operate in a democratic form of governance. But there are some glitches in this concept. As generally understood, in democratic governance there are three interrelated but independent branches of authority. These are the executive, the legislative, and the judicial functions. While the institutions of the church do have both executive and legislative branches, there is no judiciary. Furthermore, its legislative branch is weak and is not independent, given that it meets only once every five years for about ten days, and its executive committee meets only twice a year for about five days. But more significant than the infrequency and length of its meetings is the matter that at its legislative sessions, both its agenda and chair functions are controlled by the executive branch.

Given that control of the legislative body is under the executive branch, and given the absence of an independent judiciary, the function of the institution falls almost entirely into the hands of the executive branch for its ruling on issues. Thus, answers to questions of the interpretation of policy and procedure are given by administration, and the control of meetings and agenda are likewise under the direction of the executive leadership. Such is not really a democracy, even though operations are done under the guise of democratic process. Rather, it is a recipe for the “kingly power” which Ellen White firmly opposed in the early 1900’s and which was a major factor in the restructuring of the institution of the church in 1901, creating the union conferences.

For the most part, the individuals in the executive branch have the best of intentions and seek to know the needs of the world church. But it is not always so, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It is this issue which is protested by Ellen White in the days leading up to the 1901 General Conference Session. She says, at the opening meeting of that session, “God has not put any kingly power in our ranks to control this or that branch of the work. The work has been greatly restricted by the efforts to control it in every line . . . There must be a renovation, a reorganization” (GC Bulletin April 3, 1901, pp. 25, 26).

As a remedy for this problem, the structure was changed, introducing unions which were to serve the church in regional areas. “It was in the order of God that the Union conference was organized in Australasia . . . Those who are right on the ground are to decide what shall be done” (GC Bulletin April 5, 1901, pp. 69, 70). In the context of the 2016 Annual Council meeting, it would appear that there is a concerted effort to reverse this arrangement with the General Conference asserting its executive authority in an attempt to discipline unions that it sees as operating out of policy.

Opinions and Rulings

Prior to the convening of the 2016 session, GC Secretariat released two lengthy opinion papers making serious charges against those who understand policy in a different manner and act accordingly. What must be remembered and emphasized here is that these expressions of opinion are just that – opinions. The papers of Secretariat are not doctrine, nor policy, nor voted judicial rulings. Likewise, expressions of opinion by presidential representatives are also just opinions. While it is good and proper to hear the opinions of such executive members, they remain just that, opinions which may or may not be accurate. Being elected to executive office at the General Conference does not convey accuracy to all one’s thoughts and expressions of opinion.

But it is not just these released opinions that bring the church to its present situation. The current matters have been brewing for months, as indicated by the appointment of retired Vice-president Michael Ryan as an Assistant to the President, charged with preparing a document to be presented and voted at the 2016 Annual Council, dealing with unions deemed to be out of harmony with policy.

While the process of bringing in the proposed paper to the Annual Council was presented as an appeal to unity, and not as addressing the ordination of women, this was recognized as a thinly veiled excuse. It is difficult to comprehend why such actions would be conceived in order to discipline a union for doing what is in its authority by policy to do. The ordination issue has repeatedly been recognized as being neither a biblical nor theological matter. It is not a Fundamental Belief of the church, and is not against policy, which assigns selection of individuals for ordination to the unions. Furthermore, the minutes of the 1990 GC session record that we “do not have a consensus as to whether or not the scriptures and the writings of Ellen G White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry …” (GC Session Minutes 1990).

It is significant to note that the ordination policy was not changed after the General Conference Session votes in 1990, 1995, and 2015. As Ted Wilson stated after the 2015 vote, nothing has changed. This makes it all the more incredible that punishment of the unions would be undertaken over an issue that is at best shrouded in confusion, while ignoring the fact that the discrimination of women being attempted in various actions is not only a violation of policy BA 60 05, but also a violation of Fundamental Belief #14. In fact, BA 60 10 clearly establishes that such a matter is discriminatory, and so becomes a policy to violate the Fundamental Beliefs and the statements made earlier in the policy.

The paper that was finally presented to the 2016 Annual Council session was not the first proposal on this issue to be processed. Prior to the beginning of the full session, the presidential council, which consists of the presidents of the divisions and the vice presidents of the GC, considered and voted as their consensus, a paper which was given to the group, but it was picked up before the close of the meeting to prevent it being circulated outside the room. Consideration of the paper was then passed on to the expanded executive group which includes presidential, secretariat and treasury officers. Following this presentation, it was determined that the paper needed to be made into more of an appeal in a pastoral approach to the unity matter, prior to its presentation to the full Annual Council.

By the time the Annual Council convened, word was out that a significant document addressing unions accused of operating out of policy, would be coming up for a vote. But the document was not made available until this agenda item was brought to the floor, giving no time for reading and understanding its implications prior to its introduction. At that point, the three-page document titled “Unity in Mission: Procedures in Church Reconciliation” was distributed. This occurred on the last full day of the session. It was scheduled to be presented at 2:30 in the afternoon, but the preceding items on the agenda ran over so that the document was not introduced until nearly 3:00 o’clock, thus allowing about two and one half hours for the matter to be presented and discussed prior to the scheduled adjournment time set for 5:30. The session was a text book example of how to manipulate a meeting in order to stifle a thoughtful and democratic process.

A short break was called after the previous agenda items were completed and Tom Lemon, serving as chair of the session called the meeting to order. The introduction of the “Unity in Mission” document consumed considerable time as the document was read aloud and supported by lengthy speeches by both Ted Wilson and Michael Ryan. The delegates, who had just seen the document at the beginning of this session were struggling to understand its implications, and no time was given for a studied response, even though it was clear that there was considerable reservation regarding its acceptance.

What appeared as odd to many was that procedures for addressing such matters already existed in policy. Why was this document being advanced as a way to address what was clearly related to the ordination issue, despite the multiple assertions of both Wilson and Ryan that this was not related to ordination? Being presented as a method of resolving conflict matters in general, and not specifically for the ordination issue, was demonstrated to be nonsense by document itself, given that it called for resolution by the 2017 Annual Council. If indeed this was a general resolution procedure for all time, all places and all issues, it makes no sense to have such a terminal resolution date in it.

In addition to this discrepancy, the document not only ignored, but also was in conflict with policy already in existence, namely B 75 and B 95. The first of these, B 75 addresses the process of changing the status of a union conference to that of a union mission. In this action, the union conference is removed from the control of its constituency and placed under the direction of the General Conference, who then assumes ownership of its assets and institutions as well as appointing its leadership. The second, B 95, addresses the process for the discontinuation or dissolution of a union. In this case, the union ceases to exist.

In an article responding to the “Unity in Mission” document, Mitch Tyner, a retired former attorney for the General Conference asks “Why reinvent the wheel” when policy already exists to deal with such matters? And the answer seems to be that the existing policies do not give GC administration an avenue to accomplish what it wishes to see done. The strange conundrum of this whole matter is that the document which appeals for unity in abiding by policy, is actually in violation of the policies already in place to deal with such matters.

Both policy B 75 and B 95 call for a lengthy process which is to begin with the division leadership and Executive Committee, a scenario not likely to deliver the outcome desired and threatened by GC administration. Recognizing these discrepancies, as well as the potential for bypassing the procedures outlined in existing policy, there was considerable objection to proceeding to a vote without considerable additional time and study of the implications of the document. But the chair was determined to move the matter ahead, saying at one point that the vote needed to be taken by the close of the meeting that day, as he already had a plane ticket to fly out the next day.

After about an hour of talk by GC administrative leadership, the chair opened the floor for discussion without any opportunity for a studied presentation of opinions questioning the provisions of the document. Having received the document only at the beginning of its presentation to the floor, there was not adequate time allowed for such a counter study either to be developed or presented. Delegates were left scrambling to listen to the presentation from the advocates of the document while trying to read and understand its implications.

With about ninety minutes left before the scheduled adjournment time, the chair ruled that those wishing to discuss the matter should line up at the provided microphones where they would be given two minutes each to express their views. This is a frequently used ploy to control the length of time allowed for such discussions, even as it was used at the GC Session in San Antonio. While such a ruling does limit the rambling on of irrelevant speeches, it seriously inhibits the ability of anyone to develop and present well thought out objections to the matter under consideration and it continually disrupts the flow of ideas being presented.

Questions asked and significant points made were largely ignored by the chair who became in effect merely a time keeper of the two-minute limit. Dr. Jiri Maskala, Dean of the Seminary at Andrews University, expressed the need of more time to address the Theological and Ecclesiological implication of the document, but his request was passed over without response, as were other observations of conference, union and division leadership requesting clarification and additional information.

As the scheduled adjournment time arrived and passed, the chair ruled that the twenty or so speakers who were already standing in line to make their two-minute comments, would be allowed to speak, but no others would be added to the line. Thus, the meeting extended on until about 6:00 o’clock, at which time the vote was called and the document approved. Such a sham and manipulation of democratic process is an embarrassment to the church, which leads to foolish and contradictory actions and decisions being taken without adequate input and study.

Reactions

In reaction to the vote accepting the Unity document, leading university theology departments and faculty, including Andrews University, Loma Linda University, Walla Walla University, Oakwood University, Washington Adventist University and La Sierra University, weighed in expressing concern over the implications and discrepancies in the document. GC executive officers, rather than rushing through this action, would do well to give time for and listen to council from the leading theologians of the universities. As Dr. Keith Burton of Oakwood University puts it in his article “A House Built on Sand,” Indeed, many confuse orthodoxy with orthopraxy. However, in a church that is led by the Spirit of God, there is no room for dictatorial edicts that stifle conscience.”

Ted Wilson, in an on-line response, expresses his opinion in answer to a cogent question from someone named Bill who asks, “When Unions were established, God saw to it that they had final authority to determine who gets ordained. How is it that when they exercise that authority they are rebellious? Has the GC decided that they know better? How does this (what absolutely appears to be) exercise of kingly authority promote unity? – Bill, from the U.S.A.”

In his attempt at an explanation, Wilson states that GC Policy specifically outlines the “Qualifications for the Ordination to the Ministry,” found in Working Policy L 35. And indeed, it does. There are fifteen such criteria listed. But what Wilson omits from this explanation is that not one of them refers in any way to gender as a qualification. If gender were to be such a requirement, it would seem reasonable that it would be first on the list, because all the rest would be irrelevant to women if they were excluded.

What he builds his case on is the use of male pronouns and the word “men” in other portions of the policy, as well as a reference to “wife” as being part of ministry. But these are not part of the listed qualifications. Quoting policy, he also refers to the term, “man of God” in 1 Kings 12:22 as being an ancient biblical term used to describe ministers. However, this reference is rather strained in this setting, as Shemaiah, who is being referred to, is not ordained and is actually a prophet in Judah during the reign of Rehoboam, not minister in any New Testament or modern sense of the word. Wilson also brings in the notion of Israelite priests, which truly were all male. But they were also all Israelites. And even more specifically, they were all of the tribe of Levi. So how does that in any way relate to who may be selected as ministers for ordination today?

If we really seek to go down this road of male gender references in Scripture, we will have to deal with the 10th Commandment which is addressed exclusively to men. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife …” This poses the question, “Does the 10th Commandment then not apply to women?” But, we say, that was a patriarchal society, and the use of such terms included both genders. And so also it is used in the same way today. In one of her most famous comments, Ellen White says, “The greatest want of the world is the want of men. Men who will not be bought or sold …” (Education p. 57). Would we be so narrow as to say that the principles expressed in in this comment exclude women?

Language has, from ancient days to the present, used generic terms such as man and mankind – as well as male pronouns – to refer to the entire human race, as in Job 12:10, “In his hand is the life of every creature, and the breath of all mankind.” Such usage of the term “mankind” is here intended to refer both to men and women. Unfortunately, such usage of terms often slops over into cultural perspectives where male dominance and patriarchal notions take on supposed religious authority.

Recognizing that the matter is a cultural issue, the minutes of the 1990 GC Session record, “In several divisions there is little or no acceptance of women in the role of pastors, ordained or otherwise. In other divisions some unions would accept women as pastors, but the indications are that the majority of unions do not find this acceptable.” With this discrepancy in understanding of the issue it is cogent to ask, “Why is it acceptable to impose the opinion of one cultural group on the other?” Those seeking to move ahead with ordination as gender neutral are not attempting to impose their views on others. But those in opposition seem determined to force their opinion on the entire church. It is a fallacy to maintain that forcing the opinion of one group on the other will alleviate dissention.

Judicial Authority

Seeking to support their position, GC Officers have released contradictory opinions on the matter. In a document released by the General Conference Officers on August 9, 2012 responding to the action of the Columbia Union on ordination it is stated, “policy itself is based on Seventh-day Adventist principles found in Scripture and the writings of Ellen G. White.” This statement is in interesting contrast to one made in a June 29, 2012 letter of the General Conference Officers and Division Presidents, addressed to the Officers and Executive Committee Members of the Columbia Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. This letter states, “Decisions (1975, 1985, 1990, and 1995) to withhold ministerial ordination to women have been made on the basis of negative impact to unity rather than on the basis of compelling evidence from the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy.”

It can’t be both ways, and attempts to use opposite arguments to support opinions and rulings on policy in different settings is disingenuous at best. The question asked by Bill, as quoted above, serves to bring into sharp focus the dilemma which arises from the conflict of understandings reflected in the variant reading of policy by unions and GC executives. Who is to judge between these differing interpretations. Rather than resolving the conflict of opinions between the unions and GC executives, the Unity document has instead brought into focus the judicial dilemma.

When centralized authority exercises control over all the legislative, executive and judicial functions of governance, this is by definition “kingly power.” In the day of kings – and/or dictators – not only did the king act as the executive, but also as judge and law giver. And while such rule may have been accomplished in a benevolent manner, the potential for despotism was ever present.

The judicial dilemma the church is now facing is the conflict of interpretation of both General Conference Policy and Fundamental Beliefs. Unions, to whom administration of the selection of individuals for ordination is assigned, see themselves doing so in harmony with the fifteen criteria in the ordination policy, as well as in harmony with both policy and Fundamental Beliefs forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, national origin or gender. GC administration, on the other hand, see the unions as being out of harmony with policy voted by General Conference Sessions

The dilemma is, who is to decide in this conflict of opinions? While there may be a tendency to see opinions and rulings on policy by GC Secretariat or Presidential as being the final arbiter, this is not so. These individuals, or even groups and committees of officers, may express their opinions. But they remain just that, opinions. Perhaps then, votes of the General Conference Committee or the General Conference Session may be seen as the final judicial determination. But this option is fraught by the fact that both the agenda and process of such meetings is controlled by the executive group as well.

Solving this judicial problem is not an easy matter. However, it would seem wise not to move ahead in making an issue of things that are recognized as not being biblical, not being theological, not being clearly delineated in Ellen White comments, and not itself being a stated Fundamental Belief, while being in conflict with another Fundamental Belief as well as with GC Policy.

Summary

Opinions regarding issues under discussion are just that – opinions, no matter who expresses them. They are neither policies nor judicial rulings.

1. The lack of independent judicial authority and the control of legislative function by executives leads to the potential of executive overreach.
2. The development of procedures designed to bypass policy, and which violate existing policy, is not a valid route to resolution of unity issues.
3. Imposing the cultural differences of one segment of the world church on another does not resolve disunity. Rather, it exacerbates it.
4. Imposing drastic measures of censure on segments of the church over issues that are admittedly not biblical, not theological, and not Fundamental Beliefs, makes no sense.

Dr. Gary Patterson is a retired field secretary of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He served as senior pastor of some of the largest congregations in the denomination, a conference president in two conferences and assistant to the president of the North American Division.

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.

CTP_MG_7924-2.jpg

Gary Blount, psychiatrist-turned-producer, has created a remarkable new film about the last days of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in a Nazi concentration camp, told through the eyes of a British broadcast team.

Question: You have just produced a film about influential theologian and anti-Nazi dissident Dietrich Bonhoeffer, after years of studying his work. What has kept you so interested in Bonhoeffer?

Answer: Since first hearing the story more than 50 years ago, I’ve never hit a roadblock or detour.  (That is, once I got used to my Christian hero being a chain smoker.)  

As with all of my heroes, I’ve constantly tried in one way or another to relate to Bonhoeffer, and I suppose this has gotten a bit easier as I’ve become acquainted with a few members of his family in Germany and England.  

From the beginning I’ve loved his hard-core faith and courage, but I confess I’ve also been increasingly wowed by his good taste:  Bechstein piano, Audi (okay DKW), and pet Saint Bernard.  And it was easy to relate to his need to move back in with his parents and his willingness to accept an adult allowance.  Dare I mention his eagerness to marry a girl half his age who was possibly smarter than him and a lot better looking?

You work as a psychiatrist in Minnesota. Do you have a particular interest in theology? Does your expertise in psychiatry give you particular insights into Bonhoeffer and his still-discussed ideas?

It seems to me there is a kinship between theology and psychiatry.  Many people seem convinced that neither one requires a degree or even specialized study.  

Seriously, I love theological insights and in fact really look forward to hearing them occasionally from the pulpit.  

You know, Bonhoeffer said some harsh things about mental health treatment, but some of his actions in prison reveal a more open stance.  For instance, recently I read that when he would learn from a fellow inmate in Tegel that a family member might benefit from a psychiatric consultation either to address a condition or simply mitigate what otherwise might seem to be a hopeless forensic situation, Bonhoeffer would find a way to refer the person to his father, the recently retired psychiatrist Karl Bonhoeffer.  I would put that in the practical theology column. 

I recall a legendary professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota who would tell his residents and students:  “With this new patient, I don’t care who does the physical exam, I’ll do the history.”  That’s what I want to continue doing — focus on the dynamic story.

What is your film Come Before Winter about?

Our story is about the final chapter in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s life and what must have been the aching for deliverance by the Allies, who were rapidly closing in.  We felt our time frame might extract something of the essence of his life and the perspective which he seemed to seek — “the view from below.”  This view now includes more uncertainty, wartime cruelty and vengeance. 

Bonhoeffer had long been an outspoken foe of Hitler and we chose to tell the story with the help of a couple of other anti-Nazis: seriously broken vessels Sefton Delmer and Otto John.  The latter has been called “the living link” between Bonhoeffer’s last days and the storyteller in England. 

Is the film more focused on the events of Bonhoeffer's life, and his work in trying to bring down Adolf Hitler ending with his execution in a camp, rather than his theology and his ideas?

The short answer is yes.  We wanted to travel with Bonhoeffer the last miles, in the company of his fellow prisoners.  As much as possible we wanted to rely on the people who were there and took notes, you might say.  Most of them survived the war, as did many in Bonhoeffer’s family, though they were deeply implicated in opposition to the regime. 

For instance, Dietrich’s best friend drove Dr. Karl Bonhoeffer’s Mercedes carrying the bomb to the train, which would transport it to Hitler’s plane. We sought to embed Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the German resistance, at first ridiculed abroad and reviled at home.  

In true affection for a hero, I think most of us would want him or her to make it — and Dietrich Bonhoeffer came close.  

How close? I’d been skeptical of the standard answer, which was that on April 9 the Allies were within 50 miles of Flossenbürg. For an answer I prefer, watch the American P-51s buzz the prisoners at Regensburg hour after hour on April 6 and fellow prisoner Alex Stauffenberg’s wife crash land her plane practically in the backyard of the schoolhouse where the prisoners were staying the day Bonhoeffer was picked up for Flossenbürg. 

As for the backstory, I hope there are unmistakable echoes of [Bonhoeffer’s books] Discipleship and Life Together.

What made you want to make the movie in the first place? How long have you been working on it?

Martin Doblmeier inspired me and my wife encouraged me. Doblmeier’s film about Bonhoeffer a dozen years ago hit the bull’s eye for accuracy and ignited tremendous interest in public showings. Ten thousand students saw it over a week or so at the University of Minnesota.  

I began ruminating about an angle and shared my fantasy with Ferdinand Schlingesiepen, dean of the European Bonhoeffer scholars. Our brief conversation ended with him bellowing, “You’re right Gary, those characters Bonhoeffer ended up with would make quite a story!” Or something like that. 

One such character was Dr. Waldamer Hoven, Buchenwald Camp medical officer, who got himself thrown into the dungeon where Bonhoeffer and other prisoners lived. While practicing, he was known to finish his euthanasia rounds (IV phenol) and stride out of the building whistling When You Come to the End of a Perfect Day.  

I’ve never been much of  a joiner. I wasn’t in the Boy Scouts and I’ve never attended an alumni reunion.  I played only one “season”(fifth chair, French horn section) with the Newport Harbor Youth Symphony and I pay professional dues mainly so I can continue to do my job. Doblmeier got me thinking about my aloofness about a dozen years ago. We were talking about how we had gotten hooked on Bonhoeffer.  He seemed to have a vivid memory of sitting by himself in his high school baseball dugout during practices and games and reading Letters and Papers from Prison.  He then observed mellifluously and mysteriously:  “We always seem to find one another.”  Later he added that throughout his adult life, he seems to have been drawn, unknowingly, to fans of the Bonhoeffer story.  “Me too, and Amen.” 

You are the movie's producer — were you also intimately involved in the making of the film (writing, casting, editing, etc.)?

As the producer, my main role was to divert the invoices to my wife, Lee. I also did a little writing and shaping of the story. 

Actually, I was intimately involved but not in the technical details. 

How did you choose Kevin Ekvall to direct the film?

My friend Carl Wilkens recommended Kevin. They were finishing up I’m Not Leaving (a riveting telling of a story about duty amidst mayhem — a documentary about the ADRA worker’s refusal to leave Rwanda during the 1994 genocide) and Kevin signed on, agreeing to accept 10 Bonhoeffer books to be read in the next 10 days.  

The story that I found him sitting under a palm tree at the Loma Linda Hill Church bearing a sign reading, “Will work for food — vegan preferred” is apocryphal.

Who are the actors in the film?

In order to swell the ranks of our Inland Empire actors with speaking parts (Scotty Ray and Kelly Reed), Kevin initiated several Hollywood casting calls. Two or three of our choices were fairly fresh off the boat from the UK. 

One of these guest workers is a recently retired Lt. Colonel from the Royal Marines.  The first day of filming he came roaring up on a  Harley, dressed in the skins of animals.  

The actors, including extras, ranged in age from three years to late 80s.  Eventually, there were over 150 people involved.

I believe Come Before Winter was filmed in locations in Germany and around Europe. Were you on set? How was the film funded?

The first interview was filmed my old stomping ground, Santa Fe, New Mexico.  

I missed the most compelling site, the German island of Rügen, where Bonhoeffer and Moltke debated for hours the propriety of killing the head of state. 

I was present on the death march at Buchenwald when our German partner, writer, and supervising producer, Hellmut Schlingensiepen, could not bring himself to breach the posted warning to visitors not to remove anything.  

The rest of our crew (Americans) shouldered a 20-foot steel pipe arriving a half hour later at our destination: the special prisoners’ cellar, on the edge of the camp.  

Our cinematographer, the 95-pound Tanya Musgrave, did not flinch.  She and Kevin had agreed they needed this heavy pole for a couple of shots.

On the funding question, we stop well short of the amount for The Recordkeeper.

I understand the film was shown recently to great acclaim at the Bonhoeffer Society. What feedback did you receive?

There are those who have interpreted the crowd’s silence at the end of the film as responding with deep emotion. Upon reflection, I have decided to include an advisory in all marketing:  “Before viewing the film, make sure you are well rested.”

How will the film be distributed? How will people be able to watch it?

I hope the film will get around to churches and schools.  We will also try to find a way to have real Bonhoeffer experts lead discussions in person.  Otherwise, discussions might default to me.  

We’re working with a couple of marketing experts on normal distribution channels such as selling DVDs and streaming on Amazon and through our website. 

I would also like to find a way to just listen to a few parts the story starting with FDR’s astonishing five-minute prayer broadcast across the land on the night of D-Day.  Don’t miss a snippet of that in the first few seconds of the film. The listening experience would end with Ariel Quintana’s beautiful composition, our theme music, mixed by a celebrated technician in Hollywood.

What wisdom do you feel Bonhoeffer can still offer people more than 70 years after his death? What is the main message you hope that viewers of the film will take home?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s whole life is an answer to his own question: “Who is Christ actually for us today?” 

The world stage always seems crowded with evil, vengeance and greed and as individuals we often react in extremes or not at all.  For example FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., wanted to convert Germany after the war to a giant potato patch. At the other end of the spectrum, Pastor Martin Niemöller, highly regarded opponent of National Socialism, proposed taking all of the Nazi war criminals out — and forgiving them. Punish them not at all. 

My premise is that Bonhoeffer was part of a movement, the German resistance, made up mainly of Christians and not nominal ones, who stepped knowingly into the treacherous world of “regime change,” which involved overriding their mores and sometimes their consciences.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a gentle soul who demands now as much as ever to be taken seriously.  

That said, I’m fairly sure he would caution us about inflating our individual value.  I think one of Bonhoeffer’s most coveted assets for the resistance was his ecumenical contacts. 

Assume for a moment one of his contacts for the resistance was the top British diplomat at the Vatican during the war who might sum up Bonhoeffer’s life.  Credited with saving the lives of thousands of Jews and escaped Allied airmen, Francis D’Arcy Osborne said of himself: “I reached the grave conclusion during the mass that I am nothing but a penciled marginal note in the Book of Life.  I am not in the main text at all.”

Do you have the bug now? What other movie ideas do you have?

This is a delicate matter.  I’ve floated an idea with a couple of people.  Remarkably, both of them suggested I check in for an extended stay at the Gland Sanitarium outside Geneva.  Should that happen and while I am away, if a film is released called Dead Man in the Dock: The Trial of General Remer, I’d appreciate learning of it.

Gary Blount, a long-time Spectrum supporter, works as a psychiatrist in Minnesota, where he lives with his wife Lee. 

Top photo: Gary Blount, left, with director Kevin Ekvall on site in an airplane hanger.

See a list of numerous Spectrum articles about Bonhoeffer here.

Thank you.jpg

It's Thanksgiving in the United States today, my third as the Spectrum Website's managing editor, and I want to share my thanks today.

I'm grateful for all the staff members who make this website what it is through original reporting, curating the news, editing and posting timely, thoughtful articles and providing website development and maintenance. Thank you, web team members. I'm grateful for you.

I'm grateful for contributors, the columnists and guest writers whose articles and news stories make this website a reliable source for the best in Adventism. Thank you, contributors. I'm grateful for you.

I'm grateful for readers, who value being informed and connected, who share articles on social media and in print, and who hold us to high standards of honesty and openness. Thank you, readers. I'm grateful for you.

I'm grateful for those who comment, turning articles into conversations in ways both forseeable and unanticipated. You provide valuable feedback to writers and valuable community to one another. Thank you, commenters, I'm grateful for you.

I'm grateful for all Spectrum's financial supporters, from the members of the board to the organizations that have provided generous donations, from the thousands of subscribers to the journal to all who have made donations of all amounts. Your generosity sustains us. Thank you, supporters. I'm grateful for you.

Finally, I'm grateful for the Adventist Church, the faith community into which I was born, where I received my education, and which has provided lifelong friends and mentors. It has been a rough patch recently for Adventism as the church struggles to sort out what it will be. And yet that tension of a people simultaneously being and becoming is, perhaps oddly, what I appreciate most. Thank you, Adventist Church. I'm grateful for you.

I wish all of you a cheerful Thanksgiving best, with gratitude for the unique thing we have created all together. 

Happy Thanksgiving!

Jared Wright,
Managing Editor
SpectrumMagazine.org

image.jpg

In this wide-ranging interview, experienced educator and administrator Andrea Luxton tells Spectrum what it is like to sit in the president's chair at Andrews University.

Question: You are partway through your first year as the president of Andrews University. What do you like most about the job so far?

Answer: Definitely the people.  I love being on campus with students from such diverse backgrounds.  Each person brings a richness to the campus, and we are the better for it.  

Then I work with a wonderfully professional and committed team of administrators, faculty, and staff who are here at Andrews because they believe in what we can do together.  

And I also am privileged to have a strong and yet supportive Board of Trustees.  

Each of these elements means that I come to work each day energized by the possibilities.  Of course, that doesn’t mean we always agree on everything; but the different perspectives are vital to the strength of the university.

You are no stranger to Adventist higher education, having served as president of Newbold College and Canadian Union College (now Burman University), as well as working in church administration in the area of education. You have served as Andrews' provost since 2010. So how is being the president of Andrews different from your previous roles?

In some ways, being president of one institution is the same as another, but every institution is also unique, and that outlines the difference in the positions.  

At Andrews, the worldwide constituency of the university means I must spend considerable time connecting with the world church, and global engagement is critical to the mission of the university.  Compared with being provost, the president’s job is less demanding on an everyday basis. A provost makes hundreds of decisions daily (literally).  As president, while my work is more strategic and I must engage with more external as well as internal groups, I have more time for reflection and thoughtful consideration of directions.

What are the most important things you have learned in your previous jobs? Would you say that your leadership style has changed over time?

I will just pick two things.  I have learned that the people you work with, as well as students, have amazing creativity and talents and they want to use them.  Taking a team approach to leadership, and encouraging the talents of others, is by far the best way of developing an engaged and successful campus community.  I have also learned that the “presence” of leadership is as important or more important than efficiency and strategy.  

I am not sure my style has changed significantly over time.  I think I do better now at dealing with issues that need to be dealt with, rather than “bridging” challenges and moving on without dealing with the cause of the challenge.  I think I also do better at looking after myself nowadays, as perhaps I understand better what I need to do to remain positive and focused.

What do you find the most difficult about serving as Andrews' president?

Nothing specific.  I have a wonderful group of people to work with.  Higher education as a whole, however, is in a challenging environment, so finding the best way to respond to the current situation is probably the most difficult.

Your undergrad and Master's degrees are in English with a Ph.D focusing on early modern literature. How has your English-major training helped you in your job?

I learned early in my career that it is critical to know your own “voice” and to be authentic to that voice.  That understanding came, I believe, from my English background.  

I also believe strongly in the power of story, whether of an organization or of people within an organization.  Story is dynamic, with a range of possible endings, and is not scared by complexity.  I think I am helped in finding solutions and in understanding the team I work with when I approach my work through the eyes of “story.”  

And then early modern literature.  My period was the Renaissance, and in that period, there is a lot of writing that is fundamentally religious.  Literature explores faith in a very natural way.  That has become a good model for me as I look at ways of integrating faith and biblical (Adventist) beliefs and values into the life of a university.  Oh, and by the way, I also completed an undergraduate degree in theology.  That has additionally given me a strong foundation of biblical understanding and interpretation.

What are your major plans and goals for Andrews? What would you like to accomplish that, if successful, would “change the game” in some significant way? What could the university do better?

The answer to this could take up several pages. Conceptually, I would say that my goals and plans would require us to become even more flexible, innovative, and responsive. It is not always easy to say what particular idea is going to be the game-changer, but I do think it has to do with looking at education K-doctoral level in a more fluid way.  

It also has to do with finding the sweet spots between marketing our strengths and our mission.  Right now that likely means continuing to expand our health professions and increasingly support programs that are in high demand.  It will also mean creating demand such as we are seeing in our new department of Visual Art, Communications, and Design or in our unique programs for students undecided on their academic path.  

Finally, collaboration — that is what we could do better and, I suspect, will be vital to changing the game for us, and maybe others also.

Andrews University has faced financial challenges in recent years. I believe that enrollment has declined and budgets have been cut, leading to faculty and staff lay-offs. What plans do you have to increase financial stability? What is your current enrolment (FTEs)? How can Andrews increase this number?

We have had some struggles in recent years, along with many other institutions.  We certainly face challenges, with less students in Adventist academies, a move to cheaper community colleges, a desire by students for more flexible options for education, and many other things. 

We now have around 3,400 students, about evenly split between graduate and undergraduate.  On the whole our graduate numbers have remained strong, our online courses and programs have seen growth, and regular undergraduate numbers have declined.  This last year, however, our freshman numbers increased nicely, and we saw a retention rate of 87%.  So there are some good signals there for growth.  

Creating seamless transitions between K-12 and undergraduate and between undergraduate and graduate is one good way of building numbers.  Putting resources into areas of growth such as health professions, engineering, and computer science (to name a few) also is likely to bring growth.  And, of course, really ensuring we just do an outstanding job and that Andrews is irresistible!  

Where are your main recruiting efforts focused? Do you focus on recruiting undergraduates? Are non-Adventist potential students a part of the equation?

We recruit quite widely, both on our own and working with other Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities.  There is no shortage of places to recruit; what stops us doing more is only our limitations of time and money.  We do recruit non-Adventist students, both through partnerships internationally and through local Christian college fairs.  However, because we are rural and residence-based at undergraduate level, undergraduate non-Adventist students do sometimes feel intimidated by the Adventist campus lifestyle.  It is often easier to recruit students to our graduate programs. 

Adventist colleges were started as a way of training students for service in the church. Do we still need church-trained church workers? Or church-trained church members? What do you see as the primary function of an Adventist college?

We absolutely still need church employees who have received an education at an Adventist college.  We also need educated laity who have also experienced Adventist higher education.  Why?  Adventist education is fundamentally about priorities and wholeness: priorities in that it encourages a mindset of service to God and others; wholeness in that it encourages students to see their spiritual commitment as an integral part of their discipline, their professional life, and their relationships.  

No education is delivered in a vacuum.  The underlying philosophy and its impact on students is huge — so the choice of studying in a place where that underlying philosophy jives with personal values and perspectives is very important.

What plans do you have around changing methods of education delivery? Is distance education growing at Andrews? What other methods are you trying?

Yes, there has been considerable growth in distance education at Andrews — online, blended learning, some delivery by video, and some through cohorts that meet in different venues in the U.S. and internationally.  I would say we are becoming more and more flexible according to need. We are also piloting some programs that would have us delivering degrees collaboratively between institutions. 

The seminary at Andrews is the Adventist church's flagship institution for training ministers. How involved are you in creating policy and deciding how theology is taught? Statements in recent years from the seminary have not necessarily harmonized with the statements from the General Conference. Is it the job of the seminary to advise the world church on policy and teachings? 

We are fortunate at the seminary to have some of the greatest theological minds in the church and individuals who are also very loyal to the church. 

The major role of the seminary is, of course, to teach students.  However, the seminary has also traditionally taken a leadership role in the church when it comes to theological issues, believing that this is a responsible way of sharing its gifts and opportunities with the wider church.  

In recent years the seminar has put out a number of statements on difficult issues, and most have been well received.  I hope that when these conclusions have not always mirrored the conclusions of all church leaders that the seminary's statements can be taken for what they are: an honest (and often passionate) sharing of perspectives and beliefs on issues not part of the fundamental beliefs of the church.

Do you find that there is a constant struggle at Andrews between conservative and progressive elements?

No, I haven’t sensed a struggle.  Not everyone always agrees, and that you would not expect, or even want, in a university setting.  But I have experienced a very strong ethic on campus of dialoguing respectfully and listening to the perspective of others. 

I believe that, on the whole, the campus is pretty unified in its underlying goals, and that unified core means that there is a high degree of synergy across the campus. Faculty and staff are then highly committed to making a difference in the lives of students so that students leave campus ready to face the professional world as committed Christians and Adventists.  

That doesn’t mean other issues become irrelevant, but they certainly are seen in this broader context.

As the Adventist church becomes increasingly international, what challenges does this bring for Andrews as it educates future church pastors and administrators for very different parts of the world?

I am not sure this is a challenge as, to some degree, that has already happened.  Andrews has always had a mission edge and has educated multiple pastors, educators, treasures, and administrators throughout the world. 

Of course, education does not do its job if it doesn’t teach individuals with sensitivity how to live out their profession in different environments.  Some of Andrews’ most successful distance education experiences is teaching, say, a Doctor of Ministry degree in an international context where students work on projects in their own environments.

What changes do you see Adventist colleges and universities undergoing in the near term? Does Adventist higher education have a future?

I strongly believe Adventist higher education has a future.  Without it, I am convinced the church would be much the poorer, and we cannot afford to do that.  However, we do need, in my view, to become increasingly collaborative and flexible.  We need to think outside the box a lot more often.  So “watch this space” on that one.

Read an interview with previous Andrews University president Niels-Erik Andreasen 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.