3-28-17 Article.png

If Jesus had a roast, it would be Matthew 23.

It is sometimes called “The Seven Woes” because when Jesus roasts you, it clearly has to come in historically relevant numbers. Reading the chapter is like watching everyone get burned by Eminem in the end of 8 Mile.

So who’s He Roasting?

Jesus has some more than caustic words for the religious leaders of the day, identified in the chapter as the scribes and Pharisees. These were the people most involved with religious ceremonies, and they knew the minutiae of Moses’ law. They knew when to stand and sit in synagogue, they knew the prayers like the back of their hand, and they could quote any portion of the holy books from memory.

What’s He Roasting Them About?

The story of Jesus is, in short, the story of salvation. Man falls from grace (thanks, Adam and Eve), and God has to fix it. He sends his son as a sacrifice for humanity.

To me, this might signal something important about Jesus’ sermon choices. He wouldn’t waste time talking about stuff that doesn’t matter, right? So what does Jesus care about?

“But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.” (Verse 5)

Jesus notes that the works of the pious are often done for the adoration of others, not out of a spirit of true service, and that it shows. Remember, this is a guy who repeatedly healed people (cough, for free, cough) and told them to keep quiet about it (a little unfair, to be honest, because if I was blind and got new eyes, EVERYONE WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT. Dogs in neighboring towns would know about it.) What else does Jesus say?

“They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues…” (Verse 6)

We haven’t even gotten to the woes yet, but this calls to mind Jesus’s musings on the hierarchy of power that will be transformed in heaven, where those clamoring to be first will be last, and those believing themselves undeserving will be given the best seat at the table. (Matthew 20:16)

For context, just a chapter before, he told a story about a guy throwing a wedding, and none of his rich, stuck-up friends would come, so instead he got a bunch of homeless people together and had a BLAST. (Matthew 22)

Remember, Jesus has only got 33 years with us, and what is he choosing to talk about? The abdication of power, the sharing of wealth, the defense of the defenseless, piety for its own sake and not in trade for adoration…what’s next? (Not clamoring to hang out with billionaires, probably.)

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.” (Verses 13-14)

So Jesus is saying that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the kingdom of heaven is sometimes those with the most knowledge about the kingdom of heaven, but with no interest in serving others.

Not only this, but Jesus is saying that:

            Because of their position,
            because of what they represent,
            because they are the bearers of a religious identity…

…that if they fail morally to serve the people they’re charged to serve, they receive greater condemnation than people who fail to follow them. 

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” (Verses 27-28)

If you “clean your room” by shoving everything into your closet, it’s still not clean. Just like a tomb isn’t “clean” just because you wash the outside of it. Jesus is arguing that hypocrisy, contradiction, and an insistence that others follow a law that you don’t is wrong, and much more important than shining tombstones.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith…” (Verse 23)

This is the bottom line. Jesus’ overarching message to the religious people of his day was, “You have no idea what is actually important, and what is not.”

These are the same people who harassed him when he healed people on the Sabbath even though no work is allowed on the holy day, or when his disciples failed to do ritual cleansing before eating, or when he let a prostitute run off with NO STINKIN’ PUNISHMENT, HOW DARE HE.

The phrase “the weightier matters of the law” implies that Jesus believes there are weightier matters of the law, as in, “things that are more important than other things.”

One can only wonder how thousands of desperate families fleeing civil war (incalculable risk to others) would fare against such excuses as, “national security” (almost infinitesimal risk to ourselves) on Jesus’ scales. Which might qualify as a “weightier matter” to someone who began their life as a refugee? (Matthew 2)

What Does This Teach Us?

We could probably guess from the fact that his name is Jesus Christ, and there’s a whole religion about him…that anybody that doesn’t act like what he’s describing isn’t really a Christian, right?

If his own words are any indication, he would have some pretty withering condemnation for the kind of people he was addressing in Matthew 23.

And if Jesus only had 33 years with us here, and we know what he chose to say, we could probably infer that he only spoke about the most earth-shatteringly important stuff to him. And he did. It was serving others.

I think he was an alright guy, but I’m not sure he would think that about us.

Timothy Hucks is a blogger/author who graduated from Andrews University in 2014 with a Bachelor's of Art in English Literature. This story first appeared on the author’s blog, Now That We’re Here, and is reprinted here with permission.

Image Credit: Bernd Schwabe in Hannover – Wikimedia Commons

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.

2017-03-31.png

The April 3, 2017, issue of Time has a cover that, if not for the changing of one word, is the exact replica of the one on the April 8, 1966, issue of the magazine. The one published fifty one years earlier had in red letters on a black field the question, “Is God Dead?” The one published this year with the same colors and the same font asks, “Is Truth Dead?” It would seem that if the answer to the first was in the affirmative the second question should have been asked much sooner. In any case, given the way things have been going on these last five decades, no matter how the first question was answered, the second was to be expected. The twenty first century, so far, has been an exhilarating toboggan ride down the path to relativism for many.

Back in 1966, the cover story dwelt on the value of theology and the state of the church. Several theologians had published books in which they reflected on the problem faced by theology when the word God becomes meaningless. Already in 1950, Anthony Flew had published an essay titled “Theology and Falsification” in which he gave a new dress to a known parable. Two explorers come to a clearing in the forest. One of them, greatly impressed by the loveliness of the place, tells the other that surely a gardener is taking care of such an awesome spot. The other agrees to the unusual beauty of the clearing but argues that it is the result of the wonderful workings of the natural world. It does not require a gardener for its existence. To decide who is correct, the explorers carry out a series of tests to provide evidence of the gardener. Watch dogs, fences, sound detectors, seismographs and other instruments are installed to reveal the presence of the gardener who works on the clearing. As these tests give negative results, the explorer affirming his existence starts qualifying the nature of the gardener. He is invisible, intractable, inaudible, etc., etc.

In sum, the parable teaches that even though the explorers are not able to prove the non-existence of a gardener who takes care of that beautiful clearing in the forest, the assumed gardener had died “the death of a thousand qualifications.” The death of God discussed by theologians in the Sixties did not filter down to the masses in the way in which they discussed it. Popularly, it had to do with the absence of God in the lives of most people. It was made a part of the cultural phenomenon called secularization. The theologians, however, were concerned with the fact that logic demands that sentences be able to stand against “falsification.” The problem for them was that the word God had lost its referent. What had died was the word God. They were not concerned with the being of God.

Besides, many things that had previously been ascribed to the workings of God could no longer be so described on account of the way in which scientific investigations were explaining the ways in which nature works. Little by little, the space where God could act, if God’s acts are thought to be interruptions in the cause and effect continuum, was becoming smaller. The process had begun with a major blow when Isaac Newton, a staunch Christian, discovered what has come to be known as the law of gravity: apparently God is not the one who drives the sun, the moon and the stars in their orbits, after all. Gravity keeps them in their orbits. The traditionalists of his day heatedly denounced his teaching as unorthodox.

The consistent denial that scientific advancements are part of an attempt to take God out of the picture has, no doubt, made a strong impact on a significant number of people in these United States to this day. As university education reached a larger segment of the population, scientific and philosophical sophistication have opened the minds of many to a wider horizon of meaning, and these developments have demanded that theologians be more aware of the frames of meaning in the minds of the people they try to serve. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, humanity has come of age. These days even three-year-olds know that their parents are the ones who give them their Christmas gifts.

On account of these developments, theology has been going through a period of transition marked by small fads of one type or another. There are no contemporary theologians attempting to come up with a magnum opus. The twentieth century saw with admiration the impressive work of Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, and Karl Rahner. They were very different in their approaches and their conclusions, but those who disagreed with them recognized their efforts and respected their points of view. Today, theology is taking a back seat to theological ethics and spirituality, disciplines that focus on the internal and external aspects of the lives of human beings. It has become difficult to speak of what God does or is in se. Fundamentalists who claim to know God’s mind and how to interpret faithfully what, according to them, God himself/herself wrote in the Bible only communicate to their kind, whether or not they belong to the same religious denomination.

In his classic little book The Dynamics of Faith (1957), Paul Tillich makes a distinction between scientific and historical truths and the truth of faith. It is essential to recognize that not all true statements are of the same kind, and Tillich gives a clear definition of these three types of truths. To confuse one type with another is to create mental havoc and speak nonsense. A “scientific truth” is subject to scientific rejection or modification by a new discovery that passes peer review. This means a scientific truth is inherently conditioned by time. While it proves effective to predict what may be the case in related phenomena, it has practical value, but its standing is in permanent jeopardy. That is, its certainty is transient. New scientific discoveries will replace it. Even the law of gravity has recently been modified.

Academic history, the only one with standing today, was born when it adopted as its object the reconstruction of the past “as it actually happened.” Histories written before the middle of the nineteenth century were interested in using the past for contemporary needs. Their authors did not evaluate their sources critically, and they chose them according to predetermined agendas. They were not concerned with the reconstruction of the past to advance human knowledge.

Of course, this kind of “history” continues to be written to this day. All history writing, it must be admitted, is an activity carried out by individuals who are themselves within the stream of history and have opinions about its wellbeing. This means that scientific norms of objectivity can never be met by historians. In spite of very determined efforts to tell what actually happened, academic historians only achieve different degrees of probability for their efforts.  Peer review among historians never comes up with exactly the same results because, unlike scientists who can repeat experiments in order to check results or review evidence in situ or in a lab, what happened yesterday is no longer available. Historians who aim to reconstruct the past can never be certain that they have actually done so. Different historians giving an account of a past event attain only approximations to what “actually happened.” Readers of their accounts are free to judge the percentage of probability attained by different historians. Unlike scientific truth whose certainty is transient, even the best historical writing does not attain to certainty. It can only have a high degree of probability.

The truth of faith, on the other hand, cannot be modified or proven wrong by new discoveries or be sustained by a high degree of probability. It requires total certainty. This means that the truth of faith is neither scientific nor historical, and that no scientific or historical statement can claim to be a truth of faith. Their truth is that of scientific and historical statements, period. Statements about history and nature found in the Bible are not truths of faith. Neither are they scientific or historical because the Bible was written before the establishment of science and academic history. The Bible is a testament to the faith in the Creator God of the Hebrews and the faith of the followers of Jesus, both Jews and Gentiles, in God’s re-Creation by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

Within the Bible, we find that several events are told more than once and that the various accounts differ in significant details, at times contradicting each other. The explanation for this is quite simple. The authors were not historians whose aim was to reconstruct the past “as it actually happened.” They used the past for a contemporary need. That is what all historians of antiquity did. In modern times, many have attempted to reconstruct the life of Jesus “as it actually happened.” So far, there have been three Quests of the Historical Jesus. Each was pursued by several scholars using different presuppositions, and each has ended in open failures. The criteria being used to evaluate the authenticity of different sources according to degrees of probability fail consistently to attain a consensus. What Albert Schweitzer said in 1911 of the first quest, I think, is true of all three. Each attempt says more about its author than about Jesus of Nazareth.

The fact that science and history fail to confirm the truth of the Bible, however, should not be a problem for the faithful. Whether the Bible is or is not a good book of science or history, according to modern cannons, is not something that should disturb those who share the faith of the writers of the Bible. The truth of the Bible is a truth of faith, and as such, it rests on the certainty provided by the Spirit that moved over the waters to bring about God’s Creation and that raised Christ from the dead to bring about a New Creation. To express their faith both the ancient witnesses and the present witnesses of the work of the Spirit depend on the language at their disposal. But their expressions never reach the reality of what God is doing. Besides, their expressions make it clear that their language is to be understood in reference to a reality they can never know. Human language can only speak the truth of faith analogically or metaphorically.

The gospel According to John speaks of signs. They are markers on the road leading to a destination, but they should never be confused with the eternal truth. Their significance is bound to their function as pointers to what is actually Significant. Tillich in his little book insists that the really outstanding thing about Christianity is that it has a cross as its central sign. Given all we know about crucifixions, it is impossible to make an idol out of a crucifixion. It is, therefore, somewhat astonishing to see superstitious distortions of the cross of Christ. As an event of the past the crucifixion of Jesus may be reconstructed with all the characteristics of historical reconstructions that achieve various degrees of probability. Not too long ago archaeology proved that all crucifixes are visually incorrect. As the truth of faith, what God did in Christ can never be reconstructed by any historian or artist.

The certainty required by the truth of faith can only be had on God the Creator. Faith can only be placed on a person, never on information of any kind. Information belongs in the realm of science and history. That is the difference between faith and hope. Paul already realized the difference and said that we are saved by faith (Rom. 3:22) and in hope (Rom. 8:24). Hope functions in the imagination where scenarios that become information are created. That is why what believers hope for is not even close to the reality that they will encounter at the consummation of all things (1 Cor. 2:9, paraphrasing Is. 64:4). The scenarios hope envisions only have various degrees of probability. The truth of faith is certain because it is fixed on God. When certainty is fixed on descriptions, it is not a truth of faith but a superstition dealing with idols.

Time’s question “Is Truth Dead?” was prompted by what is happening in the public square in the United States. Its relevance is in the context in which the cover article deals with it. It has to do with the turmoil being experienced in the United States because spin, alternative facts, hyperbolic truth, and, as Stephen Colbert famously put it, truthiness, what science and history prove to be falsehoods, are paraded as truth. The word post-truth is now included in the Oxford English Dictionary to refer to these falsehoods. The president of the country, a former promoter and salesman (professions distinguished by the ability to bend the truth), has become the most visible purveyor of such “truths.” Time’s article is concerned for the future of the country when it is impossible to know what exactly the president believes because facts are exempt from scientific or historical tests of authenticity. In this context, it is quite sobering having to admit that Christians have been persistently promoting information that is subject to scientific and historical verification as truths of faith. By attaching faith to idols, they have been contributing to the obfuscation of what is true.

The gospel According to John reveals that the Truth is not something to be stored in the mind but something to be lived by the power of the Giver of Life and Truth. If we were to understand truth in Platonic terms, truth is the essence which all true statements share. That may be applicable to scientific and historical truths. The Truth of faith, however, is not the essence of esoteric information. It is the essence of the life of God. In this gospel, believers are those who live abundantly because as disciples of Jesus they abide in the Truth (Jn. 10:10; 8:31). Both faith and hope ought to be examined critically so as not to be manipulated by idols and mirages. According to Paul, Christian faith is built on the faith of Abraham. To be noticed is that Abraham did not believe the promise. He believed in God, the One who promised. Because he responded to God with faith, he received the promise, and a promise sparks hope. Hope requires descriptions built by the imagination. Faith has God as its object, and its certainty is experiential.

Herold Weiss is professor emeritus of Religious Studies at Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, Indiana.

Cover typography courtesy of Time Magazine.

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.

2017-04-01 Book Review.png

When retired leaders—be they in the realms of government or the church—choose to speak out about the state of the nation or the church, their interjections are often met with some skepticism and with inevitable questions about why they are speaking now. The suspicions are that they are exercising their greater sense of freedom after stepping away from their previous responsibility, that they now have less to lose so they can be more honest, or that they are trying to fend off a growing sense of irrelevance and to re-insert themselves into the debates, perhaps to re-contest some of the arguments they might have lost in their working lives.

Such are the risks (of misreading) that come with a book such as Where Are We Headed? by expatriate Australian and Avondale College of Higher Education alumnus Dr. William Johnsson, now retired for more than 10 years from his long-standing role as editor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s flagship journal Adventist Review and more recently as a leader in the church’s interfaith relations. But Johnsson’s strident new book has a different motivation: the church he served has changed—and not for the better.

For Johnsson, the tipping point took place at the worldwide church’s five-yearly business session in San Antonio, Texas, on July 8, 2015—the day of the vote on allowing different practices of ordination among the church worldwide. He describes that as “a truly sad day for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I am ashamed of what transpired.” While not in San Antonio that day, Johnsson was following closely and in contact with many people who were. He describes being deeply affected by the events of that day—“For a couple of weeks after the Session, I moped and grumped around the house”—and took to writing a response as a way to stop “fussing.”

But it was not so much the result of the “women’s ordination” vote that most troubles Johnsson. In his assessment, despite the continued obstruction and obfuscation by worldwide church leadership, the issue is decided. More and more women are being employed and ordained (even if by another name) in ministry by the church around the world, even in places as diverse as Papua New Guinea and South Africa; their ministry is obviously effective and Spirit-blessed; and this will simply be the way the church is among the next generation. Instead, the larger issues are the damage that is being done to the church by the responses from key church leaders to these realities and what they say about the kind of church some would have us become.

Where Are We Headed? identifies a number of related features from the San Antonio session: a tendency to “remnant” arrogance and exclusivity; the mantra-like statements about the soon-coming of Jesus; the statistical focus of mission; the fundamentalism and “flat” literalism creeping into our reading of Scripture; the continuing discussions of the role of church founder Ellen White’s writings; and the misuse of calls to “unity.” In Johnsson’s “lover’s quarrel” with what the church is becoming, “two radically different versions of Adventism are competing for the future.”

While Where Are We Headed? is open-ended—it is more a series of questions and reflections on the implications if we continue in some of the directions that have been set—Johnsson’s burden is to call us back to “Adventism at its best” and ultimately to Jesus. This discussion is never far away from our need for Jesus, the sufficiency of Jesus, and that the church should be shaped by the presence and ministry of Jesus. While Johnsson is writing about big issues in a global church, he draws regularly on his lifetime of personal experience of following Jesus and writes with a graciousness and passion that is both Jesus-like and statesman-like.

So Where Are We Headed? should not be tarred with the skepticism that sometimes meets post-retirement publications. Johnsson is speaking to, with, and for a broad spectrum of the church. The standing ovation he was given after speaking at the One Project’s gathering in San Diego in February is testament to the respect he is held in across generations and the relevance of what he is continuing to say as an Adventist leader.

As we continue to wrestle with the complicated issues of a worldwide church, we need wise voices that can offer circuit-breakers to our arguments and their continuing faith as a guidepost for our progress. Where Are We Headed? does this, calling us to find our best in Jesus and offering hope for a more authentic Adventism in our frustrating and frustrated church.

Where Are We Headed? Adventism after San Antonio written by William G. Johnsson and published by Oak & Acorn Publishing is currently available as an ebook.

Nathan Brown is the book editor at Signs Publishing. This review originally appeared in TK, an online magazine of news, reviews and perspectives produced by Avondale College of Higher Education, Signs Publishing and Manifest. It is reprinted here with permission.

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.

2017-04-02 Interview.png

La Sierra University professor Margaret Solomon tells about her project to provide leadership training to teachers and education administrators in her native India, thanks to a Fulbright grant.

Question: Last month you learned that your proposal for a US Fulbright Scholar grant had been accepted. With the grant, you will be able to carry out a four-month educational leadership training program at three colleges in your native India. What does that mean? What will you be doing at the schools?

Answer: This means a dream come true for me.  When I visited Indian government and private schools over the past seven years I saw that lack of leadership was a major challenge.  99% of leaders in Indian educational organizations have no formal training in leadership, and it is the same in the Adventist schools. 

There is also lack of leadership training programs as a field of study at the higher education levels. We don’t even have a leadership training degree program at Spicer Memorial University, an Adventist institution. 

Since I teach educational leadership courses and work with principals — many of whom are my students in the US — I wanted to share this knowledge with leaders in India, to help them become better leaders.  

I plan to conduct leadership institutes in three different colleges. The training has two phases.  In the first phase there will be formal learning sessions, but they will be activity-based to engage students in the learning process.  Different types of discussion methods, case study analysis, and Socratic questioning are some of the teaching methods that will be used to help them learn the content.  In the second phase, the participants will develop their own training module to teach others what they learned about leadership.  This is the basic plan of my Fulbright proposal.  

How did you choose which colleges to go to with your Educational Leadership Institute?

Lowry Memorial College was the facilitating Adventist institution for my first Fulbright project in India in 2010.  This college is a special place for me. It became a college only 20 years ago — before that it was an Adventist boarding high school. That school was started in 1915 by a missionary named Gentry Lowry.  And this was the high school from which I graduated. 

Last year when I went to India I visited this college.  At that time the President asked me if I could conduct training in Leadership but it was a last minute request, so I could not do it.  But then, since I have a very positive relationship with the faculty and administration there, I asked them to be my Fulbright project facilitation institution again for this award, and they agreed.

The next two colleges were chosen by a professional friend I have in India.  He is a faculty member in one of the colleges of Mumbai University in Mumbai.  Its name is Karmaveer Bharao Patil College, Vashi, Mumbai. He wanted me to come to his college and do the institute.  He also found another college nearby, called Samgameshwar College, Solapur, where one of his friends is teaching.  Since leadership training is desired by many, I was able to receive invitation letters from both of them, which is a requirement for the Fulbright award application.

Who will you focus on providing the training to?

School principals, college principals, teachers with many years of experience, and others who aspire to become administrators.

Why do you think educational leadership training is important?

I have personally seen how ineffective principals and college presidents are in India, when they follow the traditional authoritarian style of leadership.  They don’t have any knowledge of the leadership qualities needed for the 21^st century.

There is enough data to support  the idea that leadership training is urgently needed in India in all organizations. One leadership consultant in India stated: “Students, educators and educational institutions all have roles to play in the development of the leaders for the future.  At present too few educational institutions are taking on this task.” 

Also, during the course of my work on my first Fulbright award I met the Vice-Chancellor of Pune University. He told me: “At the macro level we bring out many good educational policies, but we don’t have leaders who can implement those policies at the micro level.  

When did you get the idea for doing the leadership training institute? When did you decide to apply for a Fulbright grant to make it possible?

I have been in touch with the Indian educational situation for the past seven years, and whenever I saw ineffective leadership behaviors exhibited by leaders in the schools and colleges I visited, I wished I could talk to them and teach them how to lead more effectively.  As I have become more experienced in teaching educational leadership courses at La Sierra University I have gained the confidence to teach the leadership content effectively.  

What is your goal for the Educational Leadership Institute? What do you hope it will accomplish? What is the best case scenario? How will you measure success?

The first goal is to establish a positive relationship with the leaders in each institution.  I must earn their trust first.  Then I must organize the learning sessions in a way that appeals to their interest.  

The overall goal is to inspire leaders to develop a desire to learn what it takes to be a leader and commit to develop skills that will help them become effective educational leaders.  

I plan to measure the effectiveness of the training by using basic research techniques.  First, I will be giving a leadership questionnaire before the training and another one after.  I will also interview at least 20 of the participants and use the participants’ reflections on their learning. Of course I will be videotaping the sessions and that will become live field notes.  And there will be brief evaluations of each session. All of these will become the data for evaluating the effectiveness of the program.  

Best Case Scenario:At Lowry Memorial College, there are three mini colleges comprised of a teacher training college, computer science college and a nursing college. There is an overall president for the college and principals for each of the three mini colleges.  For the leaders in these institutions to work together to achieve their mission, the leadership institute should provide learning opportunities in decision making, working as a team and achieving their goals.  That is the first benefit I believe would happen.  

Next, the college president has agreed to bring school principals from our Adventist schools in the union, as well as other non- Adventist schools, to have a conference for the Institute.  Here the principals would receive knowledge and skills in leadership, especially in developing a positive school culture based on our Christian faith.  

Can you tell us a little bit about growing up in India?

I am a third-generation Adventist growing up in the first really established Seventh-day Adventist church in India.  My grandfather was one of the first Adventists in India. There was a whole community of Sabbath-keepers in our village before the Adventists came. The leader of this group was very well educated and in his diary he had discovered the Sabbath truth and taught people about it and had a large group of followers in my village, called Prakasapuram.  He noted that in 1878 he had a dream of Seventh-day Sabbath-keepers coming from America. (Here I have taken an excerpt from a book on the history of this first SDA church that I co-authored.) 

According to Sattampillai the leader of the Sabbath keeping Adventists wrote in his 1878 diary, he had a dream in which he saw the arrival of Sabbath-keeping Americans to his village.  Perhaps, because of this, when he came across some information  about seventh-day Sabbath keepers (it was written by and about Seventh-day Baptists) on a report by the Congress of World Religions in Chicago in 1893, he wrote to “The Seventh-day Keepers, New York, North America” asking for more information about them.  Sattampillai’s letter eventually reached New York City; however, the distributing mail clerk, not knowing any seventh-day Sabbath keepers in New York City, but being aware of the Seventh-day Adventist headquarters in Battle Creek, Michigan, tossed this letter into the Battle Creek pouch, which ended up at the desk of F. M. Wilcox, the foreign mission board of the General Conference of the SDA.  Wilcox acknowledged Sattampillai’s letter, and sent him some pamphlets, tracts and papers, setting forth the doctrines and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  Both parties now knew that on the other side of the Globe, besides Jews, there were some seventh-day Sabbath keepers, but nothing came out of this.

 

Meanwhile, Seventh-day Adventists were moving into British India.  In the early 1890’s, S. N. Haskell and G. C. Tenny scouted through India.  In the later part of the last decade of the nineteenth century, mission stations were established in Calcutta, Karmatar and Rangoon, and the International Tract Society (the forerunner of the Oriental Publishing House, now located in Pune) was founded, and the journal “Oriental Watchman” began to be published.  By the beginning of the twentieth century, literature evangelists were moving into different parts of British India with health and religious books and journals.  The focus of the missionary activities was on the English-speaking people of British India, and very little attention was given to evangelize the rest of the people of the sub-continent.

 

Missionaries from the U.S. started coming to begin the work in India.  At this time there was one missionary Armstrong in Colombo, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). He met a group of Sabbath keepers near Colombo meeting every Sabbath to worship.  Those people were from my village, most of them were my grandparents’ relatives and they were all doing different businesses in Ceylon.  They were all Sabbath keepers, they closed their businesses from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset and met for worship every Sabbath.  Elder Armstrong, the SDA missionary heard about them and met with them and made the first contact.  My relatives including my grandfather who was in the group in Colombo asked for a missionary to come to their village in India. This was between 1905-1906.  After making these connections, the leadership decided to go to my village in the Southern tip of India.  Elders Shaw, Enoch and James came to my village in December of 1907 and met with the Sabbath keeping groups leader and felt very welcomed by them.  Then James was stationed in my village from 1908.  He started a dispensary and worked with the Sabbath keeping group and taught them the 3 angel’s message.  He could not convert them all to the SDA truth, only 34 people separated themselves with the original Sabbath keeping believers and joined James.  My grandfather was one of the 34 people who became Adventists.  The first church officially began from 1910. (Sustained by God’s Grace:  A brief history of the SDA church in Prakasapuram, South India, Solomon, M. & Raj, S., 2016.)

I had to give you this background history to tell you who I am.  I was raised as a traditional Adventist in this community, and went through Adventist schools until I finished my masters degree at Andrews University.  I am a product of Adventist education in India.  

Why did you initially decide to come to the US? 

I finished my college education at Spicer Memorial College, the Adventist Senior College in India.  Indian universities did not recognize the (BLA) degree I received from Spicer as a valid degree; therefore, I had to come to the US to study.  My husband and I were fortunate to come to Andrews as students and pursued our graduate degrees here. He finished his Doctor of Ministry degree at Andrews Theological Seminary and I earned my masters at Andrews and my PhD at Michigan State University.

Have you considered moving back to India? 

My husband is a fully trained missiologist from Andrews Seminary.  He has dedicated his life to sharing the love of Jesus to the Hindus, so he has started a Christian Ashram in India to contextualize the Christian message for the Indian culture.  He is there for six months of every year and I go almost every summer to work in the schools in India.  So we have spent a lot of time back in India doing service work.  But since my children and our only grandson live in the US I do not want to move to India permanently.  However, we will always have our presence in India as we work to make a difference forth Kingdom of Christ till our last breath.

Do you think the fact that you are from India yourself helps you to understand the education system there and will help your project to be successful?

Yes, certainly.  Not only because I am from India but because I have kept in touch with the educational situation in India through my research and service work in India.  I have a desire for quality education to be available for the poor children, and leadership is an important point in that connection.

You were a public school teacher in Michigan for 23 years. What did you learn in that role that helps you to teach teachers now?

OMG!  What an experience of teaching and learning that was! In those 23 years I learned so much about teaching, understanding student differences and working toward helping underachievers to learn better.  I also learned that public schools provide many opportunities for bringing awareness to the need of equity in education.  

As a special education teacher for 15 years I learned to help children with learning difficulties to have self-confidence to learn.   I also learned that schools are learning organizations and good school leadership would provide opportunities for learning for all. My professional experience in that phase was on an upper curve — I was learning continuously by attending conferences at the national and state levels to understand the educational issues and find solutions for them.  I worked with teachers across the district and at the state level, and was very involved in developing instructional materials for teachers in Michigan state. 

So yes, I learned so many things about teaching and learning and had an up-to-date knowledge of K-12 teaching and learning. 

For the past 14 years you have been a university professor in education, first at Redlands University and now La Sierra University. What do you most like about your job now?

After I finished my PhD at Michigan State University, I applied for higher education jobs across the country.  I interviewed at two of the Cal State campuses, George Washington University and at the University of Redlands.  U of R gave me the contract first so I accepted that. They helped me move to southern California, near Loma Linda, which was the best thing that ever happened to me. 

My seven years of work at U of R introduced me to the challenges in higher education.  It also provided me many professional opportunities for growth.  I was very involved in many types of scholarship work like presenting at conferences at the state, national and international levels because the university provides a large sum of money for professors for scholarship each year.  I even published a book with one of my colleagues on adopting instruction to special needs learners and second language learners in mainstream classrooms. 

All of this work prepared me well for La Sierra University.  I have made a full circle in my profession: after starting my teaching career in the Adventist system in India, I am finally ending at the Adventist La Sierra University.  

Now I enjoy teaching leadership courses but the most exciting part of my teaching is the relationship with my students.  As there are many international students in our School of Education I am able to relate well to them and help them become acclimated to the American educational system.  

I also enjoy the research opportunities La Sierra offers.  After every six terms we get a sabbatical.  I used three such opportunities for doing research — mostly in India.  That’s what really helped me to get acquainted with Indian educational issues. 

Many people in your position might be thinking about retirement, but instead you are off to teach teachers in India for four months. How do you have the energy?

Well, I am beginning to think of retirement but not to sit at home and do menial stuff.  I became a teacher in 1968 after I graduated from Spicer College.  I went to teach in my high school: Lowry Memorial High School (which has become the college where I will be doing my Fulbright work).  In 2018 I will have have worked in education for 50 years. I would like to take a break and do more service work in India and other countries where I can help poor children to improve their educational achievement.

I also have three book projects in mind.  One is already started.  I have organized a group of teachers in LSU to write instructional lessons for teachers teaching poor children in grades 1 through 6.  The lessons will be on three major themes:  character building, cleanliness, and self-esteem development. The lessons will be published as books for teachers. This came about as a result of my last sabbatical research, which focused on improving the cultural capital of children in marginalized communities. I selected four schools from four different slum communities: one from Varanasi in north India, one from Bangalore, and two from my home state of Tamil Nadu.  In this study I hypothesized that teaching motivation lessons that engages students in the learning process would make an impact on their self-esteem, internal locus of control and sense of hope.  I provided five days of instruction for two hours each day and collected qualitative and quantitative data to find out how they felt before and after the teaching. After I analyzed the data, I found that when you teach students activity-based lessons to motivate them and inspire them to have hope, they learn better.  That experiment helped me to realize the great need to develop teacher books for this. Teachers in the four schools where I did the experiment asked me to teach them how to engage students in the learning process.

The next book is at the planning stage.  One of my colleagues from University of Redlands and I are planning to write a book on immigrant educators and their contributions to American education.  

The third book is on the stories of 10 children who were adopted from India by white American parents.  I have collected some data on that but there is so much to do on that.

Setting up goals to do different things makes me excited and happy about life.  God has given me good health and full energy.  I enjoy sharing and loving people. Jesus has given me the desire for learning and help others.  It is not about me — it is about knowing how Jesus as my personal Savior and friend has made me what I am, and how He continues to transform me.  I want to humbly follow His directions. I claim his promise in Psalms 32:8: “I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go.” The text in Isaiah 50:4 also inspires me to keep going: “The Sovereign Lord has given me an instructed tongue to know the word that sustains the weary.  He awakens me morning by morning wakens my ear to listen like one being taught.”

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.

2017-04-03 Interview.png

Daniel Reynaud (Assistant Dean of Learning and Teaching at Avondale College of Higher Education) and Lisa Clark Diller (Associate Professor of Early Modern History at Southern Adventist University) are currently enrolled in a year-long faculty exchange program. They recently interviewed each other for Spectrum about the exchange, differences between Avondale and Southern, and between Australia and Tennessee (USA). In this first part of a two-part series, Daniel interviews Lisa about her experience.

Daniel: How familiar were you with Avondale College of Higher Education and the Australian university system before you began your exchange?

Lisa: I knew almost nothing about the Australian university system (including Avondale), other than it was more like the European/British system than ours. I had been on Avondale’s campus twice and had a sense of what programs it offered, its size, and how it “felt” on campus.

How about Australia: familiar territory or new culture?

I’ve visited Australia to stay with good friends eight times since 2006, so I felt like I had a certain sense of what some areas of Australian life and culture are like. It’s a big, diverse country, though, so I still felt I was coming to something new.

What differences between Avondale and Southern stand out for you?

Mostly the size, which contributes to greater campus-wide knowledge. I am meeting a wider range of students and staff/faculty than I think I would if I were going to a school more Southern’s size. There’s also a higher level of government accountability regarding what faculty do in the classroom assessments, and that’s unusual to me.

What are the continuities and similarities?

Undergraduates seem to be very much the same around the world (if we’re just comparing two parts of the world)! I feel extremely comfortable in my classroom and in my conversations with the students. We’re embarked on the same kind of project in the humanities, no matter where we are.

How would you compare the cultures of Avondale and Southern?

That’s a hard one. I still am not sure I know the “culture” of Avondale. There seems to be a strong ethic here among staff/faculty of supporting each other’s endeavours and knowing what the others are doing in terms of research, service and creativity. I think we don’t always know at Southern what our colleagues are involved with. There’s a similar level of concern among student and staff at both schools with the life of the Spirit and participating in spiritual activities, and there is a similar commitment to sports and staying fit — maybe a bit stronger among the faculty at Avondale than at Southern.

How about Australian culture and American, particularly that of Tennessee?

I’m still learning about rural culture in Australia, and may be mostly hearing stories from others rather than observing for myself, but the idea of wanting to do risky “fun” things that involve silly behaviour seems similar. There’s more formality in personal relationships in Tennessee — we are more likely to give titles to professionals, and to request that children use “Aunt” or “Miss/Mr” in front of first names of adults. There’s way more of a culture of healthy food here in Australia than in Tennessee. The humidity is the same! Although Australians are more tolerant of insects and heat — they don’t need to have the air conditioning on all the time.

What have you found to be the biggest challenges/surprises?

It has rained for four weeks straight. Everyone assures me this is unusual. But it has stymied some of the planned outdoor activities on campus and made travel and being outside a bit more challenging. I wasn’t expecting it to be so wet, but am glad for the locals who need the rain.

What would you tell an American colleague who was planning a similar exchange?

Do it. The hospitality is overwhelming. Feeling valued and adapting one’s skills to a new place is empowering. It is more fun to stretch to a new space or requirement when there is so much good will and tolerance for your mistakes due to you being a new-comer.

How has the experience to date changed you?

It has made me more willing to adapt to the changes at my own institution — I’ve already had some practice doing that here, so why am I resistant at home? It’s also made me healthier — I’m eating better and exercising more due to the changed culture of my environment.

Is there anything you would change if you could start afresh?

I would come earlier so I could stay longer. I would bring less stuff. Aren’t those always the conclusions we come to when we travel?

What have been the biggest pluses of the experience? The negatives?

The biggest pluses have been getting to travel around and enjoy both the natural beauty of Australia and the fun and inspiring people I have met. There’s a big health benefit as well in eating locally and being part of the culture of exercise that this little “blue zone” in Cooranbong has. I’ve also appreciated learning more about the different priorities for education in the Australian system. I would say the negative side is how much work it does take on the part of our colleagues to make this happen. The rest of our department bears a heavy burden while we are gone and we are so grateful to them for helping us have this experience.

Do you have an interesting story or anecdote that comes from your exchange experience?

The first week I was here, we had a beautiful convocation service planned by Dr. Lindsay Morton (English professor) that featured a dedication and communion/foot-washing service. A great many people on campus came to this and I was reminded of how similar the concerns of Christian higher education are around the world. Students, staff and faculty all pledged to pursue knowledge in order to be shaped more into the image of God and use their skills to bless the world. The student leaders are clearly both incredibly creative and committed to spiritual growth. I felt inspired and fully integrated into this small but talented corner of the Adventist academic world.

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.

2017-04-07 Ordination.jpg

The Gordian Knot

In ancient Greece, an oracle decreed that the next man to enter the city of Phrygian on an ox-cart should become their king. That man was Gordias, a peasant farmer. According to legend, he was, therefore, declared king.

His son Midas gave the ox-cart to a Phrygian god and tied the cart to a post by an intricate knot. When Alexander the Great entered the city in the fourth century B.C., the myth has it that the ox-cart was still tied in the palace of the former kings of Phrygia. Sources from antiquity agree that Alexander was confronted with the challenge of the knot, but the manner in which he opened this knot is disputed.[i]

In the twenty-first century, ordination has become a sort of Gordian Knot for the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Ordination: a sacrament in the Roman Catholic Church

The words ordination and ordain have neither Greek nor Hebrew origin, but come from Latin. The concept was used in a secular context within the Roman Empire before the church started using the word.[ii] The late Latin word ordināre comes from the word ordo which means "order."'[iii] Gradually, this term came to be used in a Christian context.

...'ordination' was brought into the Christian tradition by the post-biblical, so-called apostolic church fathers, especially Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-220) and Cyprian (ca. A.D. 205-258), and . . . it became integrated as a sacrament in the Roman-Catholic Church…[iv]

The word ordain was first used in English in the 13th century.[v] The term is currently used in the major part of Christendom but is understood somewhat differently from denomination to denomination.

Ordination: meaning beyond “originally implied”

The following sentence in the Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) Consensus Document, second paragraph, is worth noticing:

Over the course of Christian history the term ordination has acquired meanings beyond what these words originally implied.[vi]

As ordination is not a biblical term but an expression of the Roman world, the sentence from the Consensus Document is somewhat tricky to interpret. As a basis for understanding the sentence, one may assume that it is referring to several occasions in the New Testament (NT) when persons were appointed to various tasks. However, in Greek there are a number of different words which were used when someone was designated/appointed/elected to various tasks. This fact is reflected in most modern English translations that do not use the words ordination and ordain in any of the relevant texts at all. The New King James version typically uses appoint, and not ordain, in any of these texts.

King James Version: episcopal structure of the Church of England

King James 1 is relatively unknown as a political figure. His predecessor, Queen Elizabeth 1, is much better known. But King James’ name became renowned among Christians because of the Bible translation that came to carry his name. In the first year of his reign (1604), he commissioned translators to make a new English translation of the Bible.

The King James Version (KJV), also called The Authorized Version, has for centuries been the Bible translation that in many people's minds was the closest one could get to the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek texts. It was the Bible that was used in Ellen White’s time. It is the Bible that many Adventists still are using, despite the many new translations now available.

Based on the instructions given to the translators in 1604, it is not surprising that the word ordain is used several times in the KJV.

James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[vii]

The fact that the KJV uses the word ordain is a contributing factor as to why the perceptions surrounding the word ordination are so emotionally entrenched among Adventists. This makes it difficult to take a step back to ask this: Have we as Adventists something embedded in our ordination practice and understanding that is not consistent with the practice that was in the Apostolic church or in accordance with the teachings of Jesus?

Clergy and laity

The concept of ordination has been instrumental in creating a distinction between the clergy and the laity, a distinction that was alien and unknown to the early church. The Adventist church historian Daniel Augsburger states:

The first generation of Christians knew nothing about an essential spiritual distinction between clergy and laypeople."[viii] As time passed by, the clergy formed a power structure within the church, a hierarchical structure with great influence both in the Church and in society at large.

To put it mildly: This clerical power factor harmonizes very poorly with the servant role that Jesus exemplified.

Chosen for different tasks, not into a privileged group

In the NT, we read that people were selected/appointed to various offices in the church. Bible texts in the NT clearly point to the need to select people who would perform various tasks. However, there is no example that indicates that someone was appointed to a privileged group, elevated above the rest of the congregation, except that they had a special mission/office. The appointments are task-oriented.

Ellen White and the ordination of Paul and Barnabas

Ellen White uses the different forms of the verb ordain“close to a thousand times” in her published writings.[ix] One of the important instances where she uses both ordain as a verb and the noun ordination is in connection with the appointment of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13 as they were sent out from Antioch on their missionary journey. She points out that ordination was closely connected to the “office”/”the specific work” they were appointed to:

It was an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office and a recognition of one’s authority in that office [, and] . . . by that action, [they] asked God to bestow His blessing upon the chosen apostles in their devotion to the specific work to which they had been appointed.[x] (emphasis added)

As the KJV was the Bible translation in use in the time of Ellen G. White, it is no surprise that she uses the word ordination. But she was fully aware of the fact that ordination had been greatly misused in giving the clergy an elevated position:

At a later date the rite of ordination by the laying on of hands was greatly abused; unwarrantable importance was attached to the act, as if a power came at once upon those who received such ordination, which immediately qualified them for any and all ministerial work. But in the setting apart of these two apostles, there is no record indicating that any virtue was imparted by the mere act of laying on of hands. There is only the simple record of their ordination and of the bearing that it had on their future work.[xi]

Ordination of pastors in the Seventh-day Adventist Church

Ordination of pastors in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a one-time action. That "one time" ordination is sufficient, whether to serve as a pastor, Conference president, Union president, General Conference president, or any other ministry-related tasks. In this way it is the individual’s entrance to the clergy that has come to be the focus of the ordination rather than the person’s “devotion to the specific work.”  .[xii] This has contributed in creating an elevated group within the Adventist Church, a class distinction that was unknown in the early Christian church. A fresh look at this Adventist tradition should be called for.

Ordination and authority

The question of authority has possibly been the top concern for many who are opposed to opening up for ordination of female pastors. According to the Church Manual and the GC Working Policy, hardly any authority is granted by ordination in itself. Authority to function as an ordained pastor requires either election or a pastoral employment, and in both cases, the additional required voted credentials.

Being appointed/selected for an assignment as Conference president, Union president, Departmental director generally takes place in a Conference or Union session. The tasks are defined geographically to the area that the conference/union session has jurisdiction over. The time period the appointment applies for is stated clearly in the minutes of the session.

The same kind of thinking is also largely the case when a pastor is employed and given the task of pastoring one or more local churches. By voting the required credential, the Executive Committee gives the pastor a specific authority to work as a pastor in a specified geographical area until a new situation arises when a different task is given to the pastor in question.

An additional point that we need to be reminded of is that authority seems to be of a secondary importance in the thinking of Jesus. He came to demonstrate a totally new form of leadership that must be the model for leaders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Repeatedly, in his meeting with the scribes and the apostles, servant leadership was his focus:

Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.[xiii]

The right to have and to exercise authority must be earned and come as a result of having the attitude of a servant. Being voted a leader may give formal authority. Real authority comes by being a humble servant.

What are the roots of the current understanding of ordination?

What is the origin of the current concept of ordination? What is the background of granting the pastor entrance into a specific group of persons with a worldwide recognition for the rest of the pastor’s life?

Daniel Augsburger gives us a hint in this comment:

There is no support in early Christian history for an ordination attached to the person of the minister rather than to his mission. Thus Adventist ordination that is valid worldwide reflects a later, Augustinian concept of ordination.[xiv]

Pastor, elder and deacon: Ellen White’s use of ordain/ordination

At the Adventist ordination service, a pastor is set apart for pastoral work with no specific references to geographical area or any timeframe of service. Deacons and elders, the other two categories of tasks/offices that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has chosen to ordain, are also a one-time action, but each is clearly connected to an elected task/office.[xv] However, limiting ordination to these three groups of ministries seems somewhat arbitrary. Ellen White is concerned about church order and supports that there should be a special service of setting apart for those who “devote themselves entirely to His work”:

Brethren of experience and of sound minds should assemble, and following the Word of God and the sanction of the Holy Spirit, should, with fervent prayer, lay hands upon those who have given full proof that they have received their commission of God, and set them apart to devote themselves entirely to His work. This act would show the sanction of the church to their going forth as messengers to carry the most solemn message ever given to men.[xvi]

But in her writings, the concept of ordination is not limited to the three mentioned categories. She used the word ordination in a much wider and inclusive way: “many souls will be saved through the labors of men who have looked to Jesus for their ordination and orders.”[xvii]“All who are ordained unto the life of Christ are ordained to work for the salvation of their fellow-men.”[xviii]

The fact that the Church in the 21^st century has developed considerably since the middle of the 1^st century seems to have been overlooked by limiting ordination to pastors, elders, and deacons/deaconesses. Many functions and offices in the Adventist Church of the 21^st century should be just as applicable for a service of appointment or laying on of hands, as the three categories currently reserved for this. The task of a pastor is quite different to that of a Conference or Union president. Would it not be just as appropriate to perform a setting apart service when Conference presidents, Union presidents, or departmental directors are voted into office? Would it not be an opportunity for the constituency meeting to unite in asking God to bestow His blessing upon the chosen persons in their devotion to the specific work to which they have been appointed?

By connecting the setting apart/ordination to the occasion when a person is appointed to a specific task/office, there will be no doubt concerning which Executive Committee should rescind a person’s ordination to a specific task in case of a moral fall.

The vote cast in San Antonio

In San Antonio, the delegates were asked to say "yes" or "no" to this question:

Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry?

Had the result been "yes," the Church would have had to rethink and change the policy of the worldwide recognition of pastoral ordination.[xix] The GC Autumn Council has the authority to change policy. The responsibility to show the way out of the current deadlock is with the GC leadership and the GC Executive Committee and not the GC Session.

Conclusion

A few lines from the study document on ordination prepared by the Bible Committee of the Trans-European Division pinpoints the cul-de-sac the Church has entered:

The central conclusion of our review of ordination in the history of the Christian church is that Christian tradition after the New Testament has deviated from the teachings of the Bible. Ordination in the Bible has not been understood, taught, or heeded. A reform of ordination that brings it closer to the teaching of particularly the New Testament and is informed and guided by the theme of the Bible as a whole will assist Seventh-day Adventists in living up to its creed: the Bible, and the Bible alone.[xx]

To be in harmony with the NT model and the way Ellen White commented on the appointing/ordination of Paul and Barnabas, ordination/setting aside for ministerial work should be closely connected to the devotion of a person to a specific work. Ordination as it has developed in the Seventh-day Adventist Church has turned into a ceremony of including a person into a clerical group, a requirement for a number of possible tasks in the Church. The old thinking behind being part of an aristocracy has in this way been adopted by the Church. Changing the GC Working Policy and connecting ordination more closely to the appointment to a specified pastoral or elected task/office and thereby discontinuing the present worldwide system of elevating pastors into the class of the clergy might be the beginning of opening this Gordian Knot for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The GC Annual Council has the necessary authority to change the Working Policy.

Hopefully, this will lead to an acceptance of the fact that the appointing of pastors truly is a regional matter, as is the case in electing a Conference president and filling all other regional positions in the Church. The issue of ordination of female pastors will then hopefully be taken off the agenda of the General Conference Session. The current wording of the Church Manual that has opened for regional acceptance of female commissioned pastors/elders might be the opening that can move the Seventh-day Adventist Church to accept that the Holy Spirit gives the gift of pastoring as He decides, regardless of gender, in harmony with Joel 2:29: “Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.” (NIV).

On the day of Pentecost, Peter stood up and quoted the words of Joel, explaining that what people saw and heard in Jerusalem on that day was the work of the Holy Spirit equipping the Church for mission. "In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.”[xxi]

I believe we are living “in the last days” and, therefore, must expect that the Holy Spirit will be poured upon both male and female servants within the Church in a variety of ways. Are we ready to let the Holy Spirit work and guide us?

2017-04-08 IBMTE.png

A week before publication, the two unnamed persons who are the subjects of this account received a copy of what appears below. —Charles Scriven 

I can’t put a pretty face on this story. Except as human hearts bend toward contrition, there will be no happy ending.

Since December 15, 2016, I have been inviting two church officials with responsibilities related to Adventist higher education to make an actual response to criticism of a General Conference-sponsored effort to monitor, and possibly discipline, Adventist religion teachers for what and how they teach. The attempt has accomplished nothing. So far these officials (both members of IBMTE, or the church's International Board of Ministerial and Theological Education) show no interest in conversation.

A currently employed teacher of religion at an Adventist college in North America, Daryll Ward, has offered the only published analysis of the substance of the “endorsement initiative,” as this effort is called. Ward notes that the initiative would require Adventist college teachers to demonstrate, at five-year intervals, their alignment with some 35 pages(!) of official text that bear on what and how they teach. They would also have to submit all of their publications to official review by (at least in theory) bureaucratic entities outside of their employing educational institutions. Ward argues that the rationale for all of this is “self-contradictory,” “alien,” “vague” and “corrupting.” It is thus “a stunning betrayal of Adventist identity,” and raises, indeed, the question of whether “Rome has reclaimed another one of her separated Protestant brethren?”

This analysis may or may not be illuminating. By no plausible standard is it trivial.

In the hope that progress may still occur, I am not now naming the two officials. My first email, dated December 15, summarized Ward’s argument and made a single request. Within the church (see Matthew 18), and certainly within academia, disagreement calls for conversation. I therefore asked that “one or both of you offer (soon, and for publication with Spectrum or some other entity) a point-by-point analysis of Ward’s essay; either that, or use your influence to assure that someone who supports the endorsement initiative does so.” One other option, I said, would be an interview conducted by Alita Byrd of Spectrum.

I heard no response. Nor has anyone in Silver Spring acknowledged Daryll Ward and what he wrote. I would have thought that responsible leadership would say, “Wait a minute. You are one of us, and we respect you. But we think you are wrong, and here’s why.”

Instead, nothing.

Church leaders know that the endorsement initiative disturbs Adventist religion teachers. In that light, I sent a second email on January 12, 2017, making my request again. In their own “self-reckoning,” I wondered, did these two realize how their “silence” concerning thoughtful criticism “constitutes a very costly self-indulgence?” I remarked that the Reformation, which we uphold as a providence of God, was largely shaped by “professorial dissent.” I noted, too, that “all our fallen minds are teeming with misunderstandings and self-delusion, not to mention grudges large or small, so that we all require, again and again, respectful correction by others.”

Invoking Matthew 18, I said further: “Spirit-led conversation that involves the centers of Adventist power is the church’s only hedge against cynicism, and against the pain and suffering it produces.” I even worried that the IBMTE’s initiative to monitor Adventist religion teachers from the top might hasten us toward “a papal, or even a totalitarian,” form of governance. “Vladimir Putin,” I said, “does not need to answer, or even to acknowledge, his critics.”

Again I said I would be grateful to hear from them. Again, neither responded.

On January 29, 2017, after telephoning the pertinent administrative assistants to confirm my contact information and to arrange to copy each of them on what I would be sending their bosses later that day, I sent a third email. I repeated some of what I’d said before (only a bit louder), and added that teachers and people like me live quite agreeably with church members we disagree with; we know that we need “exchanges with persons not ourselves, fundamentalist, conservative and otherwise; persons of any stripe who can nudge us out of our biases and sin.”

But what’s hard for us, I went on, “is effort to control thought from the top, and indifference to appeals for conversation.” How, I wondered, can we hold on to our sense of being a movement “if, despite the clear example of the Adventist pioneers, we stigmatize fresh thought and discourage exploratory conversation?”

This time one of the two officials did reply, assuring me that the year-long process for developing the endorsement initiative had been thorough and fair. But the official must know that this point in itself would be a matter of debate among Adventist educators. As for what I had asked about — the question of the substance of the endorsement initiative — he said nothing.

Later, some eight weeks ago now, I suggested in a fourth email to these church officials that a phone call might be in order. We could talk about these matters. I left my number; neither responded.

All this has been going on since December 16. By now someone will be marveling at my naiveté. How can I not get it when these leaders are blowing me off? Well, I have persisted because I do not relish the hypothesis their refusal suggests. It suggests either astonishing intellectual poverty at the top of church bureaucracy, or drift into ever more cynical authoritarianism. Either of these bodes ill for the church’s future. Can communities whose leaders are incapable of rigorous, out-in-the-open conversation keep their movements strong? Can communities that careen into religious authoritarianism maintain a capable membership, one ready to meet new challenges?

Shared convictions matter; boundaries matter. Any community must find a constructive way to discipline members who mock its values and tear down its solidarity.  But no community can afford the dazzlements of self-satisfaction. Nor can any community afford, over the long term, thoughtlessness and arrogance at the top.

I think the two persons I’ve been communicating with might agree with this last paragraph. Then why won’t they, or someone they delegate, stoop to the level of the rest of us and actually carry on a conversation?

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

If you respond to this article, please:

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

2017-04-10 Interview.png

Lisa Clark Diller (Professor of Early Modern History at Southern Adventist University) and Daniel Reynaud (Assistant Dean of Learning and Teaching at Avondale College of Higher Education) are currently enrolled in a year-long faculty exchange program. They recently interviewed each other for Spectrum about the exchange, differences between Avondale and Southern, and between Australia and Tennessee (USA). In this second part of a two-part series, Lisa interviews Daniel about his experience.

Lisa: What made this an interesting or appealing undertaking? Why did you want to do this exchange?

Daniel: I like the idea of a challenge, the chance to try something new. Having only taught at Avondale, I felt I had lots to learn from teaching elsewhere. And I have not seen the U.S. For both my wife and I, it was a chance to do something different and to take a break from the intensity of our Australian routines.

What have you noticed about the Southern region of the U.S. that might make it stand out a bit from any other areas of the U.S. you’ve traveled to or visited?

I have seen very little of the U.S. to date, but things that have struck me in contrast to Australia include churches every few hundred metres, or so it seems!, a plethora of religious references on shop walls, trucks, billboards etc., just to remind me that I am in the Bible Belt.

Everyone is very polite, on the road and in shops. I am addressed as “Sir” or on campus as “Professor”—quite different from the informal “Daniel” used even by my Australian students. It feels so formal to my Aussie ears that I have to remind myself that they are doing it in all seriousness and not as a form of mockery.

Every now and then, I hit an accent in a shop that needs another take to understand. I’ve also noticed a lot more money invested in things like shops and homes around here; many are quite extravagant by Australian standards. And everything is designed around driving, not walking. Even shops in shopping centers can be separated from each other by vast car parks, requiring a car to go from one shop to the next.

How easy is it for you to meet other students or faculty/staff on campus who aren’t in your department (History/Political Studies)?

I have to make a bit of an effort to meet people outside of History/English/Business, which are the departments on my floor of Brock Hall. So far I’ve met professors from Theology, Science, and Communications at various staff meetings and professional development sessions. I’ve also engaged with administrators, the distance-education unit, and the professional development unit.

We have had nothing but positive experiences in our interactions; people have been genuinely kind and eager to help us integrate. We’ve felt thoroughly spoilt, especially as some of my colleagues here at Southern are having to do extra to compensate for the absence of your energy and experience.

What new pedagogical techniques are you trying out or resurrecting? Is there anything about the academic structures at Southern that require you to do something new in your teaching?

On the whole, the administrative procedures at Southern are a breeze compared to the heavy burden of compliance required in the Australian tertiary system, so it’s a relief not to have to deal with so much administrivia. It means I can focus on mastering new content and engaging with the students in class.

The common practice here of having a quiz on set readings each lecture is new to me. I have kept it for one class, but for the upper division classes, after discussion with the students, I have chosen to introduce them to Australian forms of assessment, which they seem to be happy with.

What are some surprising things about the students or culture or your time in the U.S. that you weren’t expecting? Conversely, what are some elements/expectations or stereotypes that were confirmed in your mind?

I have found that the best American students are more deeply concerned about their GPAs than Australian students, as the GPA will determine their options for future study.  Australian students don’t have that same stress. American students also seem to be far more professionally and politically ambitious than most Aussie ones, who tend to be a little more relaxed about their aims in life.

On the other hand, I had been primed by a number of people to expect big differences in the academic culture, but I have found that these have not been realized. My American students are very much like my Aussie students in ability, general knowledge, and engagement.

Southern has a much stronger emphasis on a research culture among its students than Avondale does; conversely, Avondale has a much stronger research culture among its staff. I think each could learn from the other.

What, if any, are the differences in Adventist culture or the church in your experience so far?

We haven’t attended a great variety of American churches yet. That’s because my wife and I value connecting in a spiritual environment rather than church hopping. From what I can see, there are the usual varieties of Adventist churches, some with traditional liturgies and others with more adventurous ones, especially those targeting a mission focus on unchurched. Perhaps the conservative churches around here are a little more conservative than in Australia, but overall, there are more similarities than differences.

What are some experiences, events, developments, or accomplishments that you’re still looking forward to over this year?

I am looking forward to more of the same in terms of teaching.  I am thoroughly enjoying the atmosphere, the collegiality, and the interaction with the students. During the summer break, we hope to travel a bit to see more of this huge and beautiful country.

How are your skills and contributions encouraging Southern students or the campus to try new things or ideas?

I guess I am definitely bringing an Australian perspective to the history I teach—that of a minor country compared to that of a big and influential one. In my Australian History class, I had my wife talk about Australian food, and then the class sampled some Vegemite, scones, Anzac biscuits, Tim Tams, etc. Most of them even claimed to enjoy the Vegemite!

I am also encouraging assessments that measure students’ thinking rather than just their memory.  For me, education isn’t what you know but how you think.

What do you see as the value of this experience, and why would you encourage or hope others would do the exchange as well?

It is an absolutely invaluable experience. It has got me out of the familiar routines, challenged me to recontextualise what I teach, and exposed me to new content, methods, and academic culture. I have found my time-to-date most refreshing, re-energising, and also a pure delight.

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.

2017-04-13 Interview.png

Sandra Roberts is president of the Southeastern California Conference, with more than 70,000 members and 154 churches. She is the first woman to be elected to serve in the position of conference president in the Adventist Church. In December, Spectrum readers voted her the 2016 Adventist Person of the Year.

Question: You have served as president of the Southeastern California Conference since 2013 and worked in the conference since 1987. What major changes have you seen in the Southeastern California Conference during your time there so far?

Answer: We have grown numerically and in many other ways. The conference has grown in depth and breadth of ministry as we have become this incredible and beautifully diverse community of people. We are diverse not just in language and culture but also in areas such as worship styles, and our conference contains the entire spectrum of theologies and ideologies under the umbrella of Adventism. 

Yet, we all get along and respect each other. We have matured as a faith community of churches in our love, care, and collaboration with each other for the sake of mission.

We have grown in processes and procedures, and like a lot of conferences entities, we have had to grow up and professionalize how we do things. We have moved beyond a verbal culture to a documented culture. Because of external expectations from governmental regulations, auditors, and other agencies, we have had to move into a more careful and intentional way of processing things. Our church at large has had to do this.

What do you enjoy the most about your job as conference president?

The people. It is always about serving the people in this leadership role. I love spending time out and about in our churches, schools, and with people who work in our conference office building. The people I work with are a talented, God-led group who are serious about expanding the Kingdom of God. I love listening to their hopes and dreams and doing what I can to assist in the ministry they feel called to do.

Another of the best things about this job is the perspective this job gives you — it’s an incredible opportunity to see the bigger picture of what God is doing everywhere. In this position I get to see beyond the view I did as a local church pastor or school employee.  Not too many people have the privilege of this view every day. It is amazing how much God is working — I am in awe as I see evidence of the Spirit of God powerfully working in all the different contexts around the conference.

And what’s the most difficult thing about the job?

The rapidly growing diversity is challenging. As beautiful as it is, just trying to get ahead of the curve with all of the changes within our territory of five counties and trying to help churches with that rapidly changing ministry landscape, takes daily prayer and visioning together. 

And conflict. Churches are full of well-intentioned people trying to live together in their faith communities. In spite of their best efforts to do so, there is no end to the conflict that we have to work through. Here again, however, we see God working in powerful ways as we work to raise capacities for dealing with conflict in healthy ways.

So would you put your name in to serve again?

I’m not ready to talk about that yet. I was elected along with our team to serve for five years.  When that time is up, our job is finished. Meanwhile, our team is doing what it can to boldly lead our conference forward as we follow Jesus step by step together.

The diversity in southeastern California seems to be truly unique. What are the languages/ethnicities covered by churches in the conference? 

When I talk about diversity, I am talking beyond just language and culture. I am also talking about diversity theologically, politically, and every other way imaginable. In our conference, we have La Sierra University and Loma Linda University, and there is a culture that comes with those big Adventist communities. We also have churches and schools in very remote areas. Yes, our conference is very diverse. 

Our greatest diversity in language and culture is the Asia Pacific churches. There are about 15 different languages and even more sub groups based around dialect, tribes, and countries of origin around which churches tend to cluster and form. 

I have often said that I wish I had a full-time anthropologist and sociologist on staff here! It would help us better understand how to assist these culturally complex churches in the context of their cultural values and identity.

What can you do to make sure that every church member, no matter the language or culture or background, feels valued and taken care of?

We are called to always care for the “other,” no matter how different they are than us. We are called to be the body and called to serve each other on the journey. If we can really focus on that — even if we can’t fully understand the subtle currents of other languages and cultures — we can serve and love and try to listen carefully. Southeastern California Conference is committed to living out our values of loving each other, welcoming all to our communities of faith, and modeling an inclusiveness that represents a big God. 

Taking care of pastors is one of the things that Southeastern California Conference is known for. Do you make it a priority? What should a conference do for its pastors, do you believe?

I believe that a priority of leadership is taking care of all of our employees: teachers, pastors, camp employees, office employees, everyone. . . I want to make sure they have every opportunity to have healthy and whole lives as individuals. 

We do a lot to assist our employees toward that goal: wellness programs, sabbatical programs for pastors, free spiritual retreats, anonymous free counseling for all employees, and many other programs, events, and initiatives. We want employees to know they are valued and we are willing to invest in their well-being.

How many pastors do you employ currently? 

Our conference has right around 200 pastors. (Not all of those are full-time.)

How many of those are women? Is there anything specific you are doing to create space for more young women to enter ministry? 

Currently, we have 22 pastors who are female, which translates into just a little over 10%. And yes, as a conference, we are trying very intentionally to create space for more women in pastoral positions. Whenever we have openings, we make sure the search committees always have names of both women and men. I believe we have hired more young women right out of college and sponsored them to go to seminary than any other conference in North America. We are always looking for the very best pastors for our team, female or male.

Are pastors retiring faster than their positions can be filled?

We know that we have an aging pastoral team in North America as pastors are working longer than they used to. Many are doing well and contributing so much, long past the age of 66 when Social Security can kick in. In our conference, we are not seeing the massive retirements that have been predicted, but I think that bubble will come. We keep hiring, mentoring, and educating new young pastors so that we will be ready when that time does come.

In a conference of our size, there are always transitions and openings. We seem to be in a perpetual  hiring mode. In fact, tonight I am going to a search committee for a youth pastor. The current youth pastor is leaving because his wife, who is a physician, has been given a residency in another state.

And that’s another change in pastoral ministry. Years ago the pastors were men, and their spouses (who had mostly sacrificed their own careers) followed them wherever they were sent. Now pastoral teams are mostly dual-career couples. Filling vacancies can be much more complicated, even within the conference, as we try to honor the vocational calling of the entire pastoral family. We value spouses very deeply in the Southeastern California Conference. 

Are you involved in any way in the conversations between the General Conference and unions about women’s ordination?

No. I interact with the Pacific Union discussions and at times with the North American Division.  I have never discussed this with the General Conference or been asked to be at the table for any conversations with them.

What are your priorities for the conference for 2017, and what priorities do you expect your pastors to focus on? Is growth a priority? What fuels church growth in your conference? 

Our priorities have been identified through an organic process. [See the the next question.]

Growth is a priority, and our conference mission statement is clear that we are to be about the work of expanding the Kingdom of God.

We’ve had steady growth in the conference. Numerical growth happens in several ways: mainly baptism and membership transfers from other conferences and world divisions. We look at the numbers quarterly, and in some quarters more people have moved out of the conference than have moved in. Many of the transfers are related to economic factors. Retirees especially are leaving southern California due to the high cost of living. 

So while we’ve had steady growth, it has not been as rapid as it was a few years back. We are encouraging our churches to carry out the ministry and mission in their zip codes, but we also encourage them to focus on the members they have already, emphasizing discipleship and retention.

So is growth a priority? Yes, in every way — not just numerically but also in spiritual depth. There are so many elements to growth. It’s not just the numbers. We pray that we will grow in every way in our journey as faith communities.

What does the conference do to help churches grow?

We just finished a major process identifying our strategic priorities, which we are calling "A Compass for Our Future." We’ve held numerous meetings and focus groups, surveyed all of our employees several times, and listened to church members of all demographics and ages. Through that process, we have identified four areas to focus on: 

1. Engage: We engage next-generation leaders and develop leadership opportunities for them to serve that help shape our shared future. We will have thriving youth and young adult ministries in SECC churches.
2. Evangelize: We live out our calling to evangelize with new and creative ways as we proclaim the everlasting gospel. We reach out deeply into our communities in transformational ways.
3. Educate: We educate for lifelong faithfulness and success, reaching for the highest academic standards.
4. Equip: We equip members of every age to serve and to concentrate on discipleship.

This list is extremely organic. It came from our members and employees. We distilled what we heard from them to 16 single-spaced pages of action plans. Everyone contributed great ideas, and we gleaned from the collective wisdom in our conference. Some action steps are short term, and some are long term. We have everything all gridded out: who will do what, whether the project is ongoing, or when the completion time should be. It will be a dynamic process as we re-evaluate annually where we are headed.

We have also identified seven values that shape our mission and life together: Collaborative Relationships, Innovation and Creativity, A Culture of Learning and Discovery, Emphasis on the Local Church, Regarding our Role in the Worldwide Community of Churches as a Sacred Responsibility, Valuing all People as Daughters and Sons of God, Persistence in Prayer and Honest Seeking of God’s Presence.

In May, we are having a pastor’s meeting to talk about the first priority: ENGAGE. We have asked every pastor to read the book Growing Young, authored by professors at the Fuller Youth Institute. One of the authors is speaking that day to our pastors. The book talks about churches that are multigenerational but thriving with next generation leaders, and the research that identifies what these congregations have in common.

We will put our money where our mouths are. We have set aside half a million dollars for what some have dubbed the “Sanctified Shark Tank.” Churches will become learning labs, and we will give money to these congregations to fund their projects aimed at changing the culture of their churches and ensuring they integrate young adults in every aspect of church life and leadership.

We are aggressive in our efforts in each of the four areas of priorities. We are trying to implement best practices in every area and are continuing to develop a culture of learning and discovery. In education, we are trying something that is a best practice in some public and private school systems: the hiring of curriculum coaches. We hired one last year and are hiring more for this coming school year. We have great teachers, but the intentionality of curriculum development and having someone on campus whose full-time job is to help teachers with that development and delivery can make a significant difference.

We also have an enrollment incentive program. We are trying to grow enrollment by 10% for our K-12 schools. Increased numbers spreads the cost as economies of scale come into play. We want to increase the excellence of the product but also increase accessibility and affordability. We want more children to have access to the benefits of Adventist education.

We have set aside about $850,000 for these two education programs this year.

Are all churches in the Southeastern California Conference required to support a school?

Yes. The constituency voted several years ago that as a commitment to Adventist education every church would pay school subsidy as well as be encouraged to provide tuition assistance to children from their churches. 

We have an in-house committee that reviews what churches are contributing every quarter to make certain this is happening.  

Have you had to close any schools?

We have had to close a couple of smaller schools, mostly in small communities with extreme economic challenges where the churches have also struggled to be viable. 

Education is a huge priority in SECC.  We need to lay everything on the table and rethink delivery and structure as we go forward. We need to revise our current approach and not just take BandAid steps. We need to explore every model we can dream up. 

We must make sure we have the ability to serve communities with an Adventist education, but what that looks like precisely, I don’t know. We need to be open to thinking differently than we have if we want better results.

We know our colleagues in the Florida and Oregon conferences have also been working hard on education issues. The Florida Conference has been able to reverse the trend of declining enrollment. We are going to start videoconferencing so that our officers and their officers can learn from each other. We are always looking to learn and grow in SECC, and if we can learn from others, I am committed to that.

How important is it for churches to get involved in their communities, beyond the confines of Adventist members? How do you go about making that involvement happen?

We have been working hard on evangelism and community outreach. At the pastors’ meetings a few weeks ago, we gave them demographic tools to study the zip codes around their churches. The data outlines not just ethnic, language, and age demographics but also has curated information about what people in their zip codes are looking for in churches. We don’t want to just assume we know what the needs are — so now we have given our pastors the tools to understand better.

We also invited elected officials to come the pastors’ meetings: mayors and an assemblywoman. We asked them to talk to the pastors about what they wish churches in their areas would do in and for their communities.  We then broke into groups to discuss how we could collaborate to meet some of those needs. 

We are trying to move beyond event evangelism — which is still important, but there is so much more to increase the breadth and depth of our service to our communities.

We are also really pushing collaboration between our Adventist churches and getting pastors talking with each other. Pastors can easily work in isolation from each other, and often don’t know what their colleagues are doing. The Spanish and English-speaking churches, for example, could work more closely together to serve diverse communities. 

SECC is considered one of the wealthiest conferences. How much tithe did you take in last year?

Considering overall tithe numbers, the trajectory has been up. The economic downturn brought some tough years — we all suffered greatly and had to make really difficult financial decisions. Just this year, we are finally restoring all the cost-of-living increases for employees we were unable to implement years ago, as well as restoring a 5% pay cut employees opted to take instead of letting employees go.

We took in just under $50 million in tithe last year. But on top of that, people gave $52 million to local church budgets and mortgage payments, and we know members also give a tremendous amount of money to independent ministries as well as to ministry projects in their countries of origin. Our members live and give generously.

I would challenge the idea, however, that we are a wealthy conference.  We have a larger budget, yes, but remember we serve a proportionally large constituency. 

I believe that you are the first president to balance the conference's budget in many a year?

Economic factors outside of our control make balancing the budget hard. As we have monitored variations in tithe in SECC, they tend to be economically driven. So far, our members’ giving patterns have not been reactive to other issues. They are extremely faithful and supportive of their local churches and of the world church.

However, we still have areas of slow economic recovery in our territory, and I pray we have enough to get through every month.

We have balanced the budget with difficult choices and decisions toward efficiencies and sacrifices.  

I am grateful for a competent and capable treasurer and his team who oversee the complex finances of an organization of our size. 

It still always amazes me how generous people are, supporting missions, their local church, and of course tithe.

What is your dream for the Southeastern California Conference? What goals do you hope to reach during your tenure as president?

I long for our conference to continue to model what can happen when we minister together as an inclusive and united community of faith.  I long for our conference to continue to represent Jesus well.  I long for our conference to be an oasis of hope for the Adventist church as we move into God’s future for us all.

I dream of a conference that truly is growing young and growing deep in our commitment to following Jesus into our future.

I will continue to focus on the four priorities and the values we have outlined above in "A Compass for Our Future." It really is a massive undertaking and is energizing us in our mission. 

And you are working to rebuild Pine Springs Camp, right? Is the camp still closed?

Yes, we are trying to get Pine Springs Ranch rebuilt after the devastating fire four years ago this summer. We are waiting for final county approval to move into the next phase of building. 

While much of our infrastructure was destroyed, fortunately we have still been able to operate summer camp and host church groups at the retreat center. The lodging and cafeteria were not affected. However, many of our outbuildings need to be rebuilt.

You previously were the camp director, right?

Yes, and it really is and always will be dear to my heart. It is a ministry I am committed to.

You are the daughter of Adventist missionaries and have worked for the Adventist church your whole career. How do you feel working for the church is different now than it was for your parents? 

My parents worked here in North America as well as overseas. My father was a dean of men and hospital administrator. It was a privilege to grow up in a family that always worked for the church. I was inspired by what I saw my mother and father model for me: the love they had for their church and willingness to go wherever God called. My parents instilled in us as children that same dedication to service.

The church is obviously a lot more complex now than it was then. The way we do our mission has changed. 

I love our church. I am committed to serving it all the days of my life as God opens opportunities for me to do that. But I am very cognizent of the fact that we are really entering uncharted territory as we move forward in a more complicated world and the changing landscape we are called to live out our ministry in. 

It’s tough work for all of us. Pastors don’t automatically have the positional respect they used to have — now they have to earn that. We don’t carry out mission in a vacuum, so we must be responsive to what we have in front of us and around us in our culture and communities. There are no easy answers to some of the more complex things we have to work through as a church. Change happens slowly in a big organization, and we have to be skillful and prayerful as we move into this uncharted territory.

How do you see the church changing in the next 50 years? 

I have no idea. If I knew, I would not call it uncharted territory. We are people of the Advent with expectant hope of the return of Jesus.  I pray and hope we don’t have 50 years, but we are called to prayerfully carry on until Jesus does come. 

Like anyone charting the course and figuring out where to go next, I believe God does help us discern the next step but rarely the entire path.  We just have to take it a step at a time with our eyes fixed on the Holy One who will lead us as we step forward.  

That is why we call our plan in SECC a Compass — not a path. It does not outline every step of the future, just a step at a time.

What is your dream for the church?

That we stay focused on Jesus and that we portray, as a community of faith, what that looks like in the depth and breadth of our love, compassion, and action in the places where we live and dwell. May we be known for how we love, serve, and follow Jesus. May we bring a richness to our spheres of influence that comes from a deep abiding at the feet of Jesus as we vision together how to move forward.  God is on the move. May we follow faithfully and boldly. May we be strong and courageous and fearless.

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.

2017-04-18 Transgender Statement Responses.png

Last week during Spring Meeting, the General Conference Executive Committee voted to pass a “Statement on Transgenderism.” The statement was crafted by the Biblical Research Institute (BRI), a General Conference entity. President Ted Wilson stated that the statement had gone through 21 revisions and had been “vetted and vetted and vetted” by specialists on the topic.

Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International released its official response to the statement on Friday, April 14 which read in part:

“Kinship has reviewed this statement thoroughly and finds that, at a surface-level reading, this document professes love and acceptance for transgender people and includes a call to treat them with ‘dignity and respect.’ Nonetheless, that does not diminish the genuine harm of this clear declaration: ‘As long as transgender people are committed to ordering their lives according to the biblical teachings on sexuality and marriage they can be members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.’  By this, the church has permitted and even encouraged the refusal of membership on the basis of gender identity and sexuality for those who cannot conform. . . . Kinship rejects the underlying message that transgender individuals are more inclined to 'biblically inappropriate lifestyle choices' because of their gender identity. . . . We encourage everyone in the LGBTIQ community—especially our transgender family—to remember this: no statement, vote, position, or proposition can take away from you the depth of your experience, your journey, your truth, and the fact that God loves you just the way you are.”

Kinship’s response can be read in full on its website.

In the days following, several transgender individuals spoke with Spectrum staff about their thoughts on the statement. Their responses are included here:

RESPONSE #1

Randi is a transgender woman born into the Seventh-day Adventist Church to lifelong Adventist educators. She is a successful professional with a family that includes her spouse of nearly 33 years and two young adult children. She is a retired U.S. Military officer who spent four years teaching at an Adventist institution. She fully transitioned after leaving church employ. She actively participates in her local congregation and has held a wide range of church offices that include head elder, Sabbath School leader, community services director, and more.

I have watched the progression of this statement over the past few years with special interest because I am a lifelong Seventh-day Adventist who is transgender and thus have a vested interest in the issue. I have spent the better part of half a century reading the science relevant to the topic, the personal biographies of many transgender people, and the writing of theologians and other thinkers relating to the topic. Further, I having worked through a deep personal struggle largely brought about by how the church relates to those who are somehow different or unique, beginning in early childhood and finally resolving at some point in my mid-30s. I’ve realized that God loves me in all of my uniqueness and celebrates the wonders of His diverse creation through the various skin, eye, and hair colors, shapes of faces and bodies, through our handedness, through or unique personalities and abilities, and yes, through intersex, gender non-conforming, and transgender people like me.

I find this statement deeply troubling and problematic. Space here does not allow for a detailed review, but the problems start with the title and the use of the term “transgenderism.” It takes little effort to know or realize that transgender people find this term very offensive. Having followed the evolution of this document, I find it troubling that BRI continues to cling to the bad science which its earlier version directly referred and the current version retains in its foundation. The body of recent science, medicine, and psychology that is available includes work by Adventist scholars at Adventist institutions, but this research seems to have been nearly wholly ignored, thus enabling the disproven work of yesteryear to dominate. This is reflected in the inclusion of the terminology “Gender Identity Disorder” (used in the DSM IV TR) to attempt to discredit or lesson the value of the current term “Gender Dysphoria” (found in the DSM V).

From the stand point of theology, the statement completely ignores the potential theological paths that fully support transgender and intersex people. The very short version of this path includes the statements by Isaiah, restated by Christ reflecting on the three distinct types of eunuchs. This also falls in line with the inclusion of the gentiles and all nations, kindred, tongues, and people we find in the long arc of Judeo Christianity and beyond who make up the group which is saved and cannot be numbered.

Next, many of the admonitions in this document, which are at best convoluted, are specifically contrary to known best practices of care for transgender people. This is cause for great concern as it creates a foundational position that causes the church to be ill-suited to minister constructively and helpfully to transgender people—children in particular.

In the fall of 2016, I presented a paper for the North American Division meetings on this topic, and I would like to include the final paragraph from that document:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church sits at a cross roads on how it relates to transgender and intersex people. The church can take one of several approaches, ranging from hostile, to wait and see, to full acceptance into fellowship. From this author’s perspective, the hope is that the Church and the Seventh-day Adventist denomination embrace a position that supports the transgender person, their families, and friends and provides a safe fully inclusive haven. I hope that the wisdom of committed Christian and Adventist scientists, physicians, and mental health professionals who are knowledgeable and studied on this topic are given sway as they are in the best position to inform our faith on this topic, just as they are given sway on most other matters of both mental and physical health. It would be welcome news to learn that we look to scripture and draw the larger circle advocated in this paper.

I believe the church’s statement is largely a failure when judged against what I had hoped for. Although I am deeply saddened, even angered, by the statement, I am not surprised by it.

RESPONSE #2

M.M. is a transgender woman and former Seventh-day Adventist living in Seattle.

I drifted away from Seventh-day Adventism as I realized the church doesn’t have a place for me, and statements like this only reinforce that understanding. I have many Adventist friends who would say, “you could come to our church!”, and I know there are isolated communities of Adventists who would allow me to fully participate in their church community, but let’s not kid ourselves—these people are going against the prevailing culture of the corporate church.

That being said, the Adventist community is a small one that I will forever be connected to. It’s an absolute part of my life. My grandfather was an Adventist pastor,  and many of my spiritual concepts were formed growing up in an Adventist family.

I’m distanced enough from the church these days that this statement wasn’t surprising; it was just disappointing. I don’t take it personally. Being Adventist isn’t a core part of my identity anymore because I can’t trust the church with that. But it makes me concerned and sorry because I know there are many trans people who  are still deeply involved in the Adventist community. When I read this statement, I imagine their discouragement and disappointment. It objectifies them as nothing more than sexual objects and assumes trans people are more sexually promiscuous than any other person. But that’s not why transgender people transition. I know so many trans people and can honestly say that on average they are less promiscuous than many of my heterosexual friends. Being trans is not about that. It's not a lifestyle choice. This is an internal crisis we’re averting. And there are medical treatments that are highly effective to help us lead normal lives.

Even if you are a trans person who is part of a loving, Adventist community that affirms you and doesn’t hypersexualize or judge you, you would see this statement coming from leadership, and there’s a dissonance there. And then there are trans people like me who aren’t out to their communities or places of work. There are trans people who are serving the church and fully committed to its guiding principles, and I guarantee you there are many that suffer in silence knowing they are completely misunderstood.

The statement is built on the idea that there are two people at the beginning of creation who are perfect, and this is the idea we should all emulate today. I don’t necessarily disagree with the story, but I think it’s really important not to assume that somebody who is born with an expression outside the perfect biblical binary— whether physical or mental—is predisposed to be more sinful because they were born that way. Nor should we advocate to prevent them from getting medical intervention that would help them live a normal authentic life. To ignore the modern approach to medicine and say that even though trans people are born with this medically verified condition that they should not undergo any type of medical treatment that will enable them to live normal lives is really hypocritical. It flies in the face of research being done—even in our own Adventist institutions, and the care being given by Adventist medical clinicians. It ignores that the treatment is effective and saves lives. Certainly, it was effective for me and my life.

So, statements like this—saying I should not seek medical treatment or live out an authentic identity—ask me to put my life at risk. I would not be here today if I followed these guidelines, and I don’t think the people who make these statements get that.

Overall, there’s just a lot of misunderstanding and ignorance as it relates to trans people. I think it’s compounded by the fact that many trans people like me don’t share their medical history with just anyone. As a result, most people out there don’t even realize they know and interact with trans people all the time. I struggle with whether someone like me should be out because I’m already engaged and interacting in society every day and just leading a normal, healthy life. But by coming out, I know I would also subject myself to the ignorance and judgment embodied in statements like this. And this comes from a source that claims to speak and act on behalf of God. I don’t know what to do. Everybody knows a trans person. Everybody does. Even if it’s incidental, it’s statistically guaranteed, but they just don’t know. Trans people are as common as people born with red hair.

I wish the church spent more time focusing on things like caring for the poor and vulnerable in our midst, and less on declarations like this.

RESPONSE #3

Rhonda is a biologist and teacher currently employed by a very large mental health organization. She is a Seventh-day Adventist/Christian ordained elder who is also a transgender lesbian, otherwise known as a “transbian.” She is married to the love of her life.  They have been together for 51 years and have two beautiful grown daughters.

A few days ago, the World Church Executive Committee of Seventh-day Adventists voted a statement on transgenderism. I am gratified that the Church is making at least an attempt at understanding our need for inclusion and desire for acceptance.

However, I do not feel included or accepted as a result of reading it. For Ted Wilson to say that, “We want themto come to the foot of the cross,” as if we had not already, immediately separates and marginalizes us to the edge of the Adventist Christian community that need “His changing grace” in order to be and feel included and accepted. We all need Christ’s “changing grace,” including Ted Wilson and all the rest of the Executive Committee.

The Committee suggests that the sexual ambiguity of intersexuality (and there are a number of varieties) may be summed up under “abnormalities,” and that this [alone] can be classified on the “physical level,” whereas the Committee classifies transgenderism as belonging on the “mental-emotional” level, and that we, transgender people, determine our gender differently “from those who determine gender on the basis of biological sex.”

The problem with such reasoning is that it is based on ignorance. They tacitly do not seem to know that there is very strong evidence of biological/genetic pre-determiners for transgenderism that has been heaping up for at least the past two decades. Additionally, to put it mildly, to push intersex or trans people to the edge of what they consider “normal” is an affront to basic human dignity and decency. Many in the mental health professions today would be hard-pressed to define “normal,” “normalcy,” “normative,” or “normality” as they apply to sex or gender. Without consulting a dictionary or the DSM (obsolete before it is printed), it is likely that no two of them would define or describe any one of these words in much the same way.

While it is true that we have “strong desires to be treated as the other gender,” we have even stronger desires to be actually appreciated and accepted as members of our identified gender by the general populace. Treatment is merely outward behavior that may or may not align with how one person or group thinks or cares for another.

The Committee makes a strong point in saying, “Gender dysphoria may, for instance, result in cross-dressing,[5] sex reassignment surgery, and the desire to have a marital relationship with a person of the same biological sex. These they considered “biblically inappropriate lifestyle choices.”

I will make the point that their point is scientifically and logically inaccurate, untenable, and out-of-date. A transgender person who wears clothing appropriate for the gender with which he/she identifies, is not “cross-dressing” but is dressing the way he/she must to be accepted as a member of that gender, and that is no more of a “life-style choice” than for a cisgender (non-transgender) person to wear clothing appropriate for his/her gender.

A trans person who elects to undergo “sex reassignment surgery” (now more politically correct: “gender confirmation surgery”) is no more engaging in a “life-style choice” than is a cisgender person who has a cancerous tumor removed. Having to remain in a closet or an unwelcome body can be even more fatal than cancer. More than forty percent of trans people attempt suicide because of gender dysphoria, and many are successful. Gender dysphoria is caused by fear of unacceptance and maltreatment by society because of our self-identified gender. That fear is very real and realistically derived as trans people, worldwide, are murdered at a rate more than seven times greater than the remainder of the LGBT community put together! Does it make logical/practical sense that we would consciously make such a “lifestyle choice” when we are so hated and violently bullied for being who we are?

As for the “desire to have a marital relationship with a person of the same biological sex,” another difficulty is inherent in defining “biological sex” itself. The largest sex organ on planet Earth is the human brain. Is it less important in defining biological sex than one’s other sex organs, otherwise known as gonads?

Sexual dimorphism is the characteristic of showing real physical differences between the two sexes. These are most outwardly evident in the gonads, body shape/size/height, adult breast size, facial hair, and other hair growth patterns and secondary sexual characteristics. But, it is important to know that there are also at least two structures in the human brain, where they are not immediately obvious, that are very sexually dimorphic: the bed nucleus of the stria terminalus (BSTc) and the sexually dimorphic nucleus. These specific brain structures display very defined differences between men and women. But, they are very similar for cisgender women and transwomen, and they are very similar for cisgender men and transmen. Therefore, brainwise (where it matters), transwomen are essentially women and transmen are essentially men, period! Regardless, a human’s sexual orientation does not determine one’s gender identification, and vice versa, and neither has to do with a “lifestyle choice,” as humans do not make a deliberate choice for either; it is a matter of genetics and biological predetermination. See this article from Harvard University for more on this.

In the GC’s statement, in the section titled “Biblical Principles Relating to Sexuality and the Transgender Phenomenon,” the Committee states that “according to Scripture, our gender identity, as designed by God, is determined by our biological sex at birth (Gen 1:27; 5:1-2; Ps 139:13-14; Mark 10:6). Agreed. But, “biological sex at birth” is a complicated affair. It is NOT solely determined by gonads or sex chromosomes. It is strictly impossible to determine everyone’s “sex” as strictly male or female by gonads and/or sex chromosomes only. Intersex people, previously noted, are a case in point. Their “biological sex at birth” is often inaccurately “assigned” to them by the physicians who deliver them. “Biological sex at birth” is very difficult to define for any group but especially for intersex people, and it is largely dependent upon many other determiners, including other genetic factors, hormones, and how those hormones are affected by the mother’s activities, poor or contaminated food and water, alcohol and other drugs, and chemicals in her immediate environment while the embryo/fetus is developing. It seems likely that at two specific times during gestation, these substances, as they are transported across the placenta into the yet unborn child’s own bloodstream, may result in a severely unbalanced endocrine (hormone) system and a pre-determined propensity for a gender identification unrelated to its gonadal development. If it is so extremely difficult to determine “biological sex at birth” for one group, it is the same for all. There is no “serious dichotomy” in claiming “a gender identity incompatible with biological sex.” Such a claim cannot be made because an accurate and absolute definition that applies to all is not possible.

The Committee states, “As long as transgender people are committed to ordering their lives according to the biblical teachings on sexuality and marriage, they can be members of the Seventh-day Adventist church.” To the Committee I say, “Oh my, what a graciously gratuitous statement! Thank you for your willingness to reluctantly include me as a member, but I am already a member and an ordained elder in my local Adventist church, and I didn’t need your authorization to become so. I also consider myself so ordering my life and didn’t need your prompting or encouragement to do so. Please take note, however, that my views on how to order my life according to biblical teachings, and your views for the same, may not be identical.

All biblical teachings and laws must be interpreted and understood in their historical context, as they are based on principles that are absolute, but the rules, laws,  and ordinances themselves are not. Exceptions, refutations, and changes in their application can be discovered easily throughout the Bible itself. Their application changes with time, place, and culture. Just as, “It should be remembered that the promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional,” so should it be remembered that the application of His laws are, too.

In spite of the sentence that “the Bible commands followers of Christ to love everyone,” I feel unloved. Are you, GCEC, not choosing to sit upon a high and lofty judgment throne? Perhaps that is the most important choice actually being made here.

For the Committee to make such statements about any minority group of people is to do something not only unnecessary, but it is possibly done also to soothe and placate a discriminatory majority that would encourage, laud it, and in one way or another reward it. Oh, I do hope this is neither too accurate or judgmental, but for an organization that should be mostly concerned with this truth: “The last message of mercy to be given to the world is a revelation of His character of love,” this transgenderism statement has widely missed the mark. I feel sad and angered as a result.

Alisa Williams is Managing Editor of SpectrumMagazine.org.

If you respond to this article, please:

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

2017-04-21 Inherent Fallacy Statement on Transgenderism.png

“There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.” (Proverbs 12:18)

“Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.” (Proverbs 13:3)

“Good sense is a fountain of life to him who has it, but the instruction of fools is folly. The heart of the wise makes his speech judicious and adds persuasiveness to his lips.” (Proverbs 16:22-23)

Though there are several approaches one could use to dissent from the lines of reasoning found in the Seventh-day Adventist Biblical Research Institute’s (BRI) statement regarding “transgenderism,”^[1] I will focus most of my argument on the faulty construction of their statement, and the dangerous environment that any such statement creates. It would be possible to direct my critique from several directions including those of modern science, biblical language and translation of terms into modern English, as well as my personal knowledge of the lived-experience of a large number of trans^[2] individuals (something that seems quite obviously missing from the church statement). However, I have decided not to engage with the statement’s misappropriated reading of Genesis or the general misunderstanding of the basics of transition, genetics, or biology. Delving into all of the statement’s errors would require a great deal more space than is available to us here.

As noted, I have decided not to fully engage with the scriptural (mis)readings or the general lack of knowledge about the transitional experience, as expressed by the BRI statement, but I would like to make a few careful notes about some of the more fundamental errors. Firstly,as concerns the BRI’s scriptural grounds for their argument, while it is true that Scripture does not distinguish between sex and gender, this does not necessitate that transgender people be understood, as the statement has crudely worded it, “as being trapped in the wrong body.” This is widely understood as a misconception of the experience of gender dysphoria, and does not accurately represent the segment of the population they pretend to be referencing.

Secondly, their choice of language regarding genital reassignment surgery (also referred to as “sex change” surgery and “sex reassignment” surgery) is important because it reflects what we think actually happens in such a procedure. Medically, it is not a reassignment or singular change of sex. It is a reassignment of genitalia. Human sex consists of far more than just genitals. It also is composed of chromosomes, hormones, neurological structures, and internal reproductive organs — things that vary even among people of the same gender.

Thirdly, it is impossible to ignore the incorrect description of intersex individuals, which is lacking in the most basic facts. Intersex is a wide and diverse spectrum, rarely even diagnosed due to its often subtle or invisible symptom manifestations. To draw such a hard line between the experiences of intersex and trans individuals is unwise and shows a lack of education in this field of study. Furthermore, it is demonstrably false that most people born with ambiguous genitalia might “benefit from corrective surgical treatment.” Where such procedures are demonstrably beneficial to some transgender people, they are not for most intersex people. This fallacious flip combined with BRI’s choice to use “sex change” terminology over any other, more accurate, option, and their easily identifiable lack of information concerning the biological nuance of intersex and trans bodies, is a public display of their gross ignorance on these issues and should, in and of itself, be grounds to doubt their epistemic and theological authority on the matter. A basic Google search would easily provide updated, scholarly resources on this matter that could have corrected these essential errors. In addition, trans people of faith should have been consulted and/or should have been consulted better. This author knows, for a fact, that copious amounts of resources on this subject have been made available to the authors of the BRI statement, making their lack of research and respect for this subject matter wholly unacceptable.

A striking and revealing moment in the BRI statement says that “[w]hile the struggles and challenges of those identifying as transgender have some elements in common with the struggles of all human beings, we recognize the uniqueness of their existential situation and the limitation of our knowledge in such issues.” This admitted lack of knowledge on “such issues” should have been enough for the BRI to abstain from giving a public response, until they could demonstrate that they had at least an adequate understanding of both the wealth of scholarly work concerning trans and intersex bodies, and gender dysphoria. Instead, the BRI felt that, even with an obvious lack of knowledge on the subject, a response was necessary.

This kind of bold decision, to speak decisively concerning members of your congregation whom you do not understand is a dangerous one. Ted Wilson was quoted in the BRI statement, saying, that “[t]he last thing we want to do is chase people away from Christ and the Church. We want them to come to the foot of the cross and His changing grace.” If this is truly the case, then there must be at least the slightest attempt to understand how this statement affects this already-marginalized segment of the church population. I agree that the church should be the safest place to have these kinds of conversations and should welcome believers into that space with open arms! But to believe that the BRI’s statement has paved the way for this kind of safety is misguided.

Let us consider our broader context first. A recent study reported that 21% of trans people identify as Christian.^[3] This is in drastic contrast with the 71% of the general US population who identify as Christian. However, studies have shown that, within the wider LGBTQ+ community, trans individuals are more likely to call themselves spiritually engaged and interested. This drastic contrast should give us pause about just how cautious church leadership should be when approaching any kind of public statement about this segment of the congregation. Trans individuals have already been extensively abused by the Church (in particularly unchristian fashion), as is proven by copious historical documentation. Statements like the BRI’s only reiterate the same harmful tropes and misunderstandings to which trans people have already been excessively subjected. In short, it annihilates “peace and mutual upbuilding” as Paul exhorts us (Romans 14:19). Not just because it fails to reach out and meet the intense needs of the trans population at-large or draw them into genuine conversation, but also because it threatens to bring the world’s hostile opinion of trans people through the church doors and into the congregation. If the church proves itself no safer than the world outside, why would anyone wish to find sanctuary there?

At this point in our argument, it is important to address the actual work that is done by releasing any kind of statement like the one written by the BRI. It is unequivocally unwise to deconstruct and detail the “sinful” aspects of an individual’s gender identity (including the physical make-up and possible bodily “alterations” involved) in a situation which is arguably “in front” of a global audience. A trans individual’s dysphoric struggle and societal transition is one of the most difficult and personal experiences that a human being could ever be asked to experience. Thus, exposing and examining this intimate process leaves an already disenfranchised and neglected population, in a way, dissected and prone for the peering eyes of a curious congregational public.

When human beings are placed in these kinds of dehumanizing situations, the impulse is to “flee the scene” and find a safer space, an often wise solution to these scenarios. The church’s statement has exposed and sidelined their trans church members in an inappropriate and painful way, which is a terrible idea if leadership’s true desire is to create a safe, welcoming, familial, and Christ-centered environment for all believers. They have proven themselves an unsafe space in which to have this conversation, as they are obviously unable to honor trans bodies, identities, and lived-experiences, let alone vocabulary or concepts. If you are truly interested in engaging trans church members, displaying their personal struggles and publicly otheringtheir embodiment is not the way to do it.

What I find the most confusing about the church’s statement is how the church has, in effect, declared transitioned bodies inherently sinful. Their logic and phrasing clearly communicates that any trans body having “undergone such a procedure” (here they are attempting to refer to genital reconstruction surgeries) has acted inappropriately, even sinfully, and is in need of healing and/or repentance. To then follow this with a generic call to love everyone is an empty gesture because it has already set these transitioned bodies outside of the sphere of “accepted” engagement with the church. Growing up as a Seventh-day Adventist child and then through adulthood, I can’t count the number of times I heard (and even used myself) teachings about how “everyone sins, but continuing to sin after becoming aware of your sin is the real problem.” This rhetoric creates a church culture wherein a transitioned body is inescapably outcast: if the church knows that you’re trans and have undergone any medical transition then you will never be able to distance yourself from the body which they have deemed “sinful.” While certain aspects of transition can be “walked back” retroactively, most of them cannot, and none of them can do so well. Meaning that even if a transitioned body wished to “repent”^[4] of their trans identity and decided to medically transition back to their former gender identity, the marks of transition would remain on their body and relatively obvious to the observing public. This individual would never be able to be seen as a normative-bodied church member again, leaving the door open to gossip and inappropriate assumptions which would hinder their ability to work and abide peacefully in their church family. The church’s statement makes no attempt to bridge this gap in understanding or address the extremely dense layers of nuance surrounding bodies who have undergone any kind of transition. This bewildering oversight is unwise and, frankly, dangerous.

Even if we move this discussion of trans identity awy from the physically transitionedbody, and instead consider trans individuals who have not undergone any medical transition and are just beginning to deal with their dysphoria, the BRI statement continues to show negligence. For these individuals, the church’s argument makes “coming out” and admitting trans-ness to friends, family, or pastoral leadership a dangerous and highly scrutinized act. The fear associated with the potential community blow-back of this admission encourages trans believers to remain in denial, in “the closet.” This is a very dangerous position, because history, psychology, and life experience has proven the fact that closets kill people. Setting up a structure in which “obvious” or “observable” sin (such as a body in transition or performing non-normatively for any number of reasons) is what limits a believer’s engagement with, and respect from, the church dangerously threatens to eventually put all of the congregation in the closet, because hiding is easier than being judged. The BRI statement is one more step down the path to slowly closeting its congregation, and that is terrifying. I serve a God who came to earth to bring life, and to bring it more abundantly. If the Adventist church wants to reflect Christ’s service and love in their congregations, then setting up a structure which makes closets the most attractive option is dangerous both spiritually and (for trans and other members of the LGBTQ+ community) existentially. I would like to see the church at least attempt to do better.

It is important for our discussion to mention the global increase of violence (both physical and otherwise) against the full spectrum of trans people. In broader society, framing trans bodies as outside the scope of normative human identity has placed them in a dehumanizing space which leaves them prone to violent acts^[5] and even a denial of their human rights.^[6] Every trans person I know has experienced some form of violence due solely to their trans identity, and a few have even died because of it. I am not meaning to suggest that the Adventist church is necessarily oblivious to the struggle of trans people, but to admit that trans lives are daily at stake in the world and then to create official church doctrine that makes them even slightly unsafe in their home (church) is an unwise move for a church which claims to do the work of Christ. I am also not suggesting that the Adventist church is a place where a trans individual is likely to be beaten or brutally hazed, but I think that we should carefully define some terms, as specifically pertains to othering and violence. Violence is not inherently physical and not always obvious to us. The Oxford English Dictionary states that having violence done to you simply means that you have been damaged or adversely affected, meaning that we can be violent to each other in the subtlest of ways. To make this point, let us examine a portion of the BRI statement:

The Bible commands followers of Christ to love everyone. Created in the image of God, they must be treated with dignity and respect. This includes transgender people. Acts of ridicule, abuse, or bullying towards transgender people are incompatible with the biblical commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31).

This comment is lacking multiple levels of proper interrogation, the most obviously significant being a proper definition of the following terms: “ridicule, abuse, or bullying.” At face value we accept that these are unacceptable actions and we would all encourage our children, friends, church members, etc. not to ridicule, abuse, or bully anyone. This is not Christ-like and we know it. But there is a subtlety with which all of these things can be regularly performed against trans and othered bodies in a church power system. For example, leadership positions, such as deacon/deaconess, Sabbath School teachers, or any roles that place one on the church platform, are commonly denied to LGBTQ+ church members. To deny these members the ability to serve and use their gifts — fulfilling their call and feeding their souls — is a violent and painful act. To be denied your role in a faith community for reasons that do not directly relate to your ability to serve or to your spiritual gifts is hurtful, not to mention illogical. This situation is compounded when the denial from positions of service is due to the appearance of your body, which you cannot escape (as we discussed earlier).

Let us not pretend that involvement with church leadership and doctrine requires a perception of holiness which, due to the church’s declaration of the sinful state of a transitioned body, cannot be attained by any such body. This means that a transitioned body, regardless of education, gifting, or demonstration of ability, can never be seen to hold authority on matters of theology, faith, doctrine, or practice. This sets them aside from the general Christian or Adventist population, deeming them, in effect, illegitimate. The act of declaring a believer’s faith illegitimate is a bold and brazen act, whether it is done by leadership or lay individual. To make this kind of judgment call requires the firmest of beliefs in one’s own spiritual authority — arguably an ultimate authority, which borders on blasphemy.

Please be sure that we have no delusion that transgender people (or anyone else other than Christ) are without sin. However, we, as a church family, cannot deal with our sin appropriately if those who are ordained to help us refuse to remove the log in their own eyes (Matthew 7:5, Luke 6:42). Even the smallest of children can understand that engaging in a conversation without the most basic levels of general knowledge or vocabulary on the subject is a pointless, even embarrassing course of action which should be avoided whenever possible. If the leadership of the Seventh-Day Adventist church, or the Biblical Research Institute, wants to gain an understanding of the lives of trans people across the globe and within their church, we are here and ready to engage in the conversation. But if the church wishes to remain in the dark about the lived-experiences and current studies on trans individuals, then they should also remain silent on the subject, as they clearly do not comprehend the harm they are doing.

2017-04-21 JoyceNewmyerInterview.jpg

Joyce Newmyer is President and CEO of Adventist Health’s Pacific Northwest Region. She spoke to Spectrum about the Walla Walla General Hospital transfer and what the future looks like for the Adventist Health mission in Walla Walla.

Question: Our understanding is this transfer has been in the works for a while now. How long have conversations about a possible transfer been going on?

Answer: The Walla Walla community has been served by two hospital for almost 130 years. Saint Mary’s was here first and then Walla Walla General Hospital (WWGH) started a ministry here in the valley 118 years ago. With the university and several churches, our Adventist roots are very deeply planted in the Walla Walla community. So, this wasn’t in any way an easy decision, but it is one that has spanned years. There were folks I called last Monday to inform them about the decision, and their response was, “wow, this has been decades in the making.”

What are the events that led up to the final decision that this was the right path for WWGH?

I knew how complicated the issues were for WWGH, and those issues were further complicated by a rapidly changing health care industry. Hearing that some people were not at all surprised by the decision was interesting. After much consideration, we became convinced this was the best way to be responsible stewards of precious health care resources. Health care dollars are precious. As competitors, Saint Mary’s and WWGH were continually trying to one up each other in a town that could, in reality, only support one hospital. We were really slugging it out and we competed hard and gave it every best effort and tried many, many business models.

Ten years ago, Saint Mary’s offered to buy WWGH and we declined because we wanted to do our very best to make it work. So, this is not an easy decision or one we came to lightly. We prayed over the decision. We sought council on how to best meet the health needs of this community. We’ve tried in the past to acquire other organizations to help build critical mass, but none of those strategies came to fruition for one reason or another. Finally, we had to admit that this town can support one hospital, not two.

It’s public record that Providence Health has over 75% of the market share here in Walla Walla. Adventist Health has 23%. What kind of a position of strength can we negotiate from? One of our Christian values is stewardship, and that means finding a position that is right for the patients and the employees.

Many have speculated that the transfer is happening to solve the hospital's debt problem, with one report indicating the hospital is currently in the red by $60 million. Would you be willing to respond to these rumors? Do they accurately represent the hospital's current financial state and does debt represent the main reason (or one of the reasons) for the transfer?

We are $68 million under water and it is getting worse every year by the amount of $3 to 5 million per year. We haven’t been able to find a pathway out of that $68 million ditch and this transfer seemed the most responsible use of the resources we have to make sure health care continues to be delivered in a responsible way here in the valley.

As part of the transfer, Providence Health is giving us $14 million over a 24-year period to do something important and to extend the Adventist Health mission. When we’re looking at losses of $3 to 5 million each year, there’s a lot we can’t do, but when we have an annuity of $14 million that can be invested straight into the community, that will allow us to do exciting things. I can’t tell you what exactly that money will be used for yet, but I can tell you it will be used to further the mission of Adventism and Adventist Health. I’m working really hard in conjunction with another organization on plans for this money and look forward to sharing those plans soon.

Will you please describe the process involved in making the decision to transfer control? I assume the governing boards at both Adventist Health and Providence Health must conduct a vote before a decision like this is passed?

Yes, the Board of Trustees for Adventist Health voted just before the letter of intent was signed, and they gave the go ahead on it. These are incredibly smart and very thoughtful people who love the mission of Adventist Health and the Church. This was not easy for them – for any of us. I appreciated their thoughtfulness and the time they took to look at the various models we tried previously, and their recognition that in the end, this was the most responsible course of action.

Catholics and Adventists both have an invested interest in the health of the communities they're in, and both are responsible for some of the largest health systems in the world. How do the Catholic and Adventist health missions align with each other, and how do they differ? How do you see these similarities and differences working together for the Walla Walla community?

I know that one of the most difficult things for readers is that this is a Catholic organization. As a third generation Adventist, I get it. There are certainly differences between the Adventist and Catholic faith traditions, but we serve the same God. We both do what we do because Jesus healed and thus so do we. Catholic hospitals have been doing good work for a really long time and have been doing so in Walla Walla for 130 years. They take delivering consistent care that aligns with Jesus’ ministry very seriously. They already have Adventist patients and employees. They are already well acquainted with many in the Adventist community. Both hospitals care for people of all faiths and have people of all faiths working for them. We’ve all been here working in the same ministry in the same purposes and we will continue to do so now and into the future.

Elaine Couture, the chief executive officer for Providence Health & Services in Eastern Washington, and I have a great deal of respect for each other. She is very respectful of WWGH and the Adventist faith tradition, and she wants to honor those traditions. We both have a very long history of charitable care and trying to do the right thing for each patient. It is painful to think about losing control of an Adventist hospital that has served so many people for so many decades. And it’s a loaded situation when we are losing control to a Catholic organization. But if I had to choose between people of another faith tradition taking control of our hospital or boarding up the doors and shuttering the windows, I would choose relinquishing control to the other organization. It’s quite possible we were headed to closure, but we very actively sought a different solution.

How and when were employees notified of the transfer? Were certain employees made aware that this was a possibility in advance?

The letter of intent was signed on Thursday morning and the following Monday, the regional team and I showed up at WWGH and had conversations with the board and the medical staff, and we held a town hall meeting for the employees. Because we told everyone right away, we didn’t yet have answers to some of their questions, but it was important to us to let them know as soon as we possibly could. We wanted to be respectful and honor their commitment to the hospital.

The official announcement about the transfer mentioned that no immediate staff changes would occur but that reductions may happen in the future. What actions are being taken to ensure as many WWGH employees as possible will remain employed?

This situation is personal for so many. It feels personal to me. My grandmother worked for WWGH in the 1940s, earning 40 cents an hour doing laundry. In the 1950s, she worked in the kitchen. She worked for that hospital and now she’s buried just a short distance away. My aunt and uncle live in Walla Walla. So, this community and this hospital are part of my personal story. But it’s not about me or my family – it’s about all of the families affected. I have a great deal of empathy for an Adventist organization not being an Adventist organization anymore. It’s painful. There’s a sense of loss, of grief. I don’t want to minimize that at all.

One of the most important things we wanted was to ensure employment for as many people as possible, and I believe we have done that. At this point, Providence Health and Adventist Health are still competitors and need to respect all applicable laws which means we can’t jointly plan what the future will look like. But I do know they intend to employ the majority of our people and we’ve tried to be good stewards to our people during the course of this transition.

What does the future look like for the Adventist Health mission in the Walla Walla area?

We intend to continue mission. It will look different. It won’t be bricks and mortar and direct provision of care but it will be loving, caring, and serving this community for decades to come.

What is the key point you want people to know about this transfer?

I hear their concerns. I understand the concerns. I share in the disappointment. I would have preferred we maintain control of the hospital and continue to deliver the care we have for so many years, but it simply wasn’t sustainable. I want people to know we tried every possible business model we could think of and I believe this transfer is the most responsible thing we could do to be good stewards to the community, the employees, and the patients.

Are there any final thoughts or information you'd like to share with our readers about this transfer?

Adventist Health takes very seriously the business we conduct and the mission we fulfill. One of the questions we hear is, “how does the situation with WWGH effect how we deliver care and fulfill our mission in our other hospitals and health-related services (located in California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii)?” Adventist Health is alive and well and we are very much seeking to fulfill our mission that honors the healing ministry of Jesus Christ, and hopefully this will help Him return faster. That is what we want.

This was a hard decision and resulting transaction. My heart hurts for this, but this decision was the right one for the ongoing mission of Adventist Health. To drain resources on something that isn’t going to be a successful business model and subsequently drain our other communities is the wrong thing to do. We have to be responsible in every market we serve in.

Alisa Williams is Managing Editor of SpectrumMagazine.org.

If you respond to this article, please:

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

Copy of Screen Shot 2016-10-19 at 11.06.01 PM.png

Nina Vallado uses film to delve into the story of her relationship with her nonverbal sister Lisa, hoping Sisterly will increase understanding of people on the autism spectrum.

Question: You hosted your first screening of your documentary film Sisterly on the Andrews University campus last week. How did it go?

Answer: The first screening was a tremendous success. I couldn’t have imagined a better outcome. I had my family, my friends from all parts of the country, my professors, classmates, kids I babysit, and students of Andrews I have never even met all there. 

It was an important night for me, but also I think it was important to Lisa. It showed how many people find this story important and how many people admire her.

The film is about the relationship between you and your sister Lisa, who is just one year younger than you and on the autism spectrum. Why did you want to create this film? How long did it take you to make?

I came to Andrews and knew I had a story to tell: my sister’s story. From there, my film was going down so many different directions. For the first two years, I was trying to objectively film my sister and make a story purely about her experience and point of view. And I couldn’t film throughout the school year because I was at Andrews and Lisa was in California finishing high school. To tell her story, I would need to be with her all the time, at least enough to capture a story together. 

It wasn’t working. 

I changed the story after I asked myself why I wanted to tell this story. The answer was because I did not know my sister the way I wanted to know her. She was communicating for the first time in so many years that I felt like she was a completely new person. Above all, I became interested in our relationship. As much as I did not want to be in the film and spotlight Lisa, somehow, I ended up in the story. It became a very personal and challenging project for me but one that I am extremely proud of. 

How do you describe the film to people?

I say that this is a film about a sisterhood impacted by autism. It is a film that explores the relationship between two siblings and how autism changes the whole dynamic of the family, especially closeness between siblings. Sisterly is a story about a search for connection, friendship, and understanding. 

Lisa didn't speak until she was 16 years old, is that right? How does she communicate now? What does she think of the film?

Lisa did not communicate her own thoughts, ideas, or feelings until the age of sixteen. Years of therapy had trained her to respond verbally to certain cues and questions, but it could never get her to express herself. When she was sixteen, she went to Texas to visit HALO where this mom discovered a way to communicate with her nonverbal son. After a friend of Lisa’s went there and returned with successful communication, my mom thought we ought to try with Lisa. 

Lisa communicates with a letterboard or a stencil board. When a question is asked, the person asking the question holds the board, and Lisa points to one letter at a time. After each letter, Lisa writes it down, one by one. Soon, words are formed and thoughts are expressed. 

After the screening at Andrews, my mom asked Lisa what she thought of the film, and this is what she said:

A diary of emotions coming to life. 

Nina Vallado you are very brave. 

I felt very included throughout the story. 

I trusted you to make our story meaningful to other siblings.

I felt my desire to talk get even stronger, so we can lay down the barriers that disconnect us and rebuild a relationship that we started long ago. 

I so wanted to say that I am so happy that you are my sister. 

Having autism makes my life difficult, but watching you all my life makes me believe that life is also so exciting and beautiful. 

I love you so much.

What message do you hope to get across to people with your film?

I wanted to make a film that brought awareness to autism, especially to individuals like Lisa. In the end, the message I want for people to take away is to think about their families and the challenges they may have. I want siblings to feel connected and motivated to tear down the walls between them. 

I also want to show that awareness of autism has been achieved, at some level, but inclusion of people with autism has not. I want my film to be an introductory piece to how my sister is, how I interact with her, and how others might interact with her. 

I want Lisa to be included in society, and I hope my film helps with that. 

You organized a Kickstarter campaign to raise money to finish the film and submit it to film festivals. How much money did you raise? 

I organized a Kickstarter for funding the finishing of the film. At that point in time, my film was in post production. I had done the bulk work of renting equipment and filming. 

The campaign helped finish the film by raising money to pay for professional work on the film. My goal was to raise $10,000, and we raised $11,100. I had a few other private donations that did not go through Kickstarter and that brought us to about $14,000. The extra helped give me more creativity in finishing the film and will help to bring the film greater exposure.

Where have you submitted the film so far? Where do you most hope it will be screened? Beyond festivals, how will the film be distributed?

I have only entered my film to a few festivals so far. I plan to submit to many more, but I am finishing up classwork and school first. 

During the festival rounds, I plan to have private screenings for autism groups, churches, and communities that want to bring the film there. 

I do not have a dream festival to get into, but my dream audience is a community of people who have siblings on the autism spectrum. They are my niche audience, and I believe they are the ones who need a story like mine and Lisa’s.

After the festivals and screenings, I haven’t quite figured out the means of distribution, but I want it to be accessible to all people and not create exclusivity for it. So, we’ll see!

How do you feel your film is different or the same as other films that talk about autism?

I know my film is different because Lisa is different from everyone else on the spectrum. There is a saying that once you meet an individual with autism, you've met one individual with autism. Each person with autism has a unique story. Lisa’s communication style is definitely one that sets her apart, but there have been documentaries about this type of communication before. 

Another element that makes our story different is that it is about sisters. Many of the films I have seen about autism tend to focus on the individual with autism, the parents, or teachers. While their perspectives are just as important and necessary, I felt like the sibling aspect has a lot of depth to explore. 

What can you say about your experience studying filmmaking at Andrews?

My studies in documentary film at Andrews have been the biggest growing experiences in my life. Studying storytelling and filmmaking at the philosophical level has been my favorite part of my studies. My favorite classes have been the directing and film histories. I love learning about the nuances used in earlier films, and studying world cinema has opened up my eyes to different cultures, symbolism, and creating stronger narratives. 

Why did you want to be a filmmaker? What are your career goals? What is your next project?

I chose to be a filmmaker to connect with people. I chose to tell stories for a living to bridge the gaps in our society with empathy and understanding. While I love filmmaking, I have discovered a passion for just broad storytelling. I love radio documentaries and documentary photography. I know I am a documentarian, and I want to explore different mediums for nonfiction narratives. 

Career-wise, I haven’t gotten it all figured out. I am at a place where I want to explore and allow for learning. I have accepted that I do not have my five-year plans all laid out. Although I am a person who tends to enjoy spontaneity less than others, I am going down the path of the unknown and embracing it. 

I do not know what the future holds in terms of projects, but I love the idea of exploring family roles and subjects again. 

What do your parents think of your film? Has making the film changed your relationship with Lisa?

My parents were proud and surprised. I know they loved the film, but they were surprised because I think they forget that I am studying filmmaking, so I know a thing or two about what I am doing. They were surprised at how it all came together. My mom said she was also surprised, but understanding, that I had experienced my sisterhood the way I described it in the film. 

This film changed my relationship with Lisa in such a positive way. The film allowed me to fail and succeed in our relationship. I saw my mistakes and learned from them. This film has taught me that it is okay to try to make an effort in the relationship even if it hurts or fails in the end. I have learned to take risks, even small ones, to better our sisterhood. 

Is there anything you wish had turned out differently about the film? What do you like the most about the finished product? What did you most enjoy about the making of the film?

I would not change a thing about my film. I love all the components — the imperfections, successes, music, animation, and storyline.

So far, what I like most about the finished product, is that it is a finished product. 

One of my favorite aspects about making this film was working with professionals in the industry to make the film the best that it could be. I hired a composer from Portugal and recorded the soundtrack in Iceland. My sisters and I got to go to Iceland and be a part of the recording session. It was the most unforgettable trip of my life because of the experiences in Iceland but also because it was the first time Lisa was able to travel without either of our parents and just be with her sisters. She said it was the first time she felt like an adult, and I was happy to have been a part of that important experience for her.

Nina Vallado, 22, is completing her bachelor of fine arts degree in documentary filmmaking at Andrews University with a history minor. She graduates this May. She is the oldest of three girls. Her family is from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and moved to the United States in 2001. 

Anyone interested in organizing a screening of Sisterly can contact Nina at nina.vallado@gmail.com. The film will be more widely available in 2018.

If you respond to this article, please: 

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

Inline Images: 

2017-04-29 On Being Fat.jpg

The pastor I worked with during my ministerial internship was one of the most brilliant people I’ve ever known. I came to ministry lacking, I think, a natural aptitude for the job. Even after a college degree, I was mostly clueless about how to be a pastor. Bob was my first role model. He was an excellent preacher, planner, writer and communicator. In the days before computers made audio-visual easy, he created amazing presentations with multiple slide and movie projectors synced with music and narration. He had an uncanny grasp of congregational dynamics: I remember him telling me before an important board meeting exactly how it would go, which member would say what and who would raise what objections—and he was right! (After pastoring nearly 40 years, I now can occasionally do the same thing.) And he had a wicked sense of humor that he unleashed when away from the church members.

Yet what everyone remembered about Bob was not his brilliance or his talent, but his size. Bob was not just pudgy. He didn’t just have a stomach overhanging his belt. He was massive—well over 400 pounds. Even to me, his young assistant, church members made remarks. The kinder of them tongue-clicked and mumbled “Isn’t it a shame? And such a brilliant man…” Sometimes there was no attempt to be kind: “How can this man represent our health message?” and “Clearly, he can’t control his appetite.” To these Bob’s corpulence wasn’t just a health problem, but a spiritual problem. They didn’t have the tackle to say it to him directly, but their intention was pellucid: being as fat as he was was a sin. He should not only be ashamed, but feel guilty.

Which he did. To a degree they could never have imagined. He didn’t require their behind-his-back scolding to feel bad about his body.

I felt defensive about Bob, and I still do when I run into someone from the old days who knew him. (He — predictably — died younger than he should have.) Bob was good to me. He defended me when a foolish administrator was giving me a hard time. He was unselfish: he pushed me to try every pastoral task that he did. He was praising and encouraging. His friendship and mentoring meant the world to me.

Of course, his enormous size was a handicap. He strained to get up out of chairs, and at least once, I remember, broke one to great embarrassment. He wore special industrial-looking shoes, and had to get his suits at special stores. Getting into and out or cars was a chore, and riding with him in my compact car wasn’t pleasant: he filled his space and intruded into mine. He moved slowly, and sweated heavily. Whatever his natural gifts, they often seemed eclipsed by what people saw when they looked at him.

I thought that his size should be worth overlooking in deference to all he had to offer. But Adventists aren’t known to hold back a criticism if we think we’ve got a good one, especially if we can nail it into the sinner with a Bible verse or Ellen White quote. Those who grumbled to me about Bob weren’t exactly ideal specimens of physical culture themselves. They just weren’t as fat as he was. Their scolding, it seemed to me, covered up the relief they felt in seeing someone more out of shape than they were.

We can agree that being fat isn’t healthy. But is it a spiritual problem?

The Bible isn’t as clear about this as some suppose. It was written in a time when people worked tremendously hard to get food, yet average people had fewer calories available to them than we have now. There are only two people described as being obese in scripture: Eli in his old age (1 Samuel 4:18), who was a beloved priest to Israel in spite of it, and the Moabite king Eglon, whose shape is noted mostly for the disgusting detail that when Ehud stabbed him, the sword was completely buried in Eglon’s fat (Judges 3:12-22).

But in general, being fat in those days wasn’t a bad thing: when the slaves in Babylon are praised for the outcome of their healthful kosher diet, they’re described in Hebrew as being nice and fat (Daniel 1:15), which in thatworld meant they were healthy.

The Bible does address gluttony, and when people make a spiritual matter out of being overweight that seems to be the deadly sin they’re referencing. That’s a questionable interpretation, for several reasons. First, biblical gluttony is almost always about selfish rich people who satisfy themselves at the expense of others. It usually appears not as a condemnation of health or self-control, but selfishness and lack of empathy (1 Samuel 2:29, Jeremiah 5:28, Psalm 73:7).

Second, it isn’t clear that gluttony is as simple as overeating. The Torah, Jesus, and the Proverbist all link it with drunkenness: “Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty” (Proverbs 23:20–21). Health isn’t the issue here, but shirking one’s responsibilities. Thomas Aquinas thought that besides eating too much, gluttony included gourmandism: obsessing about finding the perfect foods, involving elaborate preparation and expense. That would make those of us who are infatuated with vegetarian or vegan diets (I have been in groups of Adventists who talk about little else) as guilty of gluttony as those who eat to gratify their tastes. (I am constantly surprised at the number of fat Adventists who speak boastfully of their strict diets, as though we’re supposed to believe they got that way by eating carrot and celery sticks. Come to one of our potlucks and watch everyone digging in, and only then assess our collective self-control.)

Third, the glutton is proud of his gluttony. He doesn’t hide it. His appetite for quality and quantity of comestibles is apparent. That’s not true for most unhealthily fat people I know. They feel bad about their weight, and castigate themselves for lacking self-control.

It is this last point that Ellen White speaks when she writes about appetite as a sin. She goes so far as to characterize Eve’s eating the fruit at the fall as a function of appetite, which is why, she says, Jesus’ first victory had to be over appetite (when Satan asked him to turn the stones into bread.) “The fall of our first parents was caused by the indulgence of appetite. In redemption, the denial of appetite is the first work of Christ” (God's Amazing Grace, p.162). These interpretations may be forgivably eisegetical, considering the teachings about diet that she was then expounding. Granting that self-discipline is surely necessary, I have a hard time thinking, as Ellen White seems to, that appetite is the original sin. Unless that tree grew KrispyKremes powdered with cocaine, I’ll go with the sin identified by Genesis: disobedience.

I’m not defending being unhealthily overweight. I am insisting that self-control is difficult, and very few are as successful at it as you might suppose. Genetics and upbringing, not conscious decision-making, has much to do with what our bodies look like.

Let’s also admit that a not inconsiderable factor in our preoccupation with weight is vanity — also a biblical sin. I’m fairly sure that if our culture valued large bodies (as some cultures do) we’d probably figure out a reason to make spiritual judgments about slim people.

I‘m not fat, and I don’t gain weight easily. A few have erroneously assumed that that shows marvelous appetite discipline. I was blessed by genetics with a great metabolism and an adequate but not exceptionally vigorous appetite. (The same gene pool that blessed me with some less admirable qualities, by the way, that I don’t have to mention.) It would be dishonest for me to take credit for my frame: I was born this way, like someone would inherit natural artistic or musical talent. I deserve no plaudits for self-control.

My overweight friend, on the other hand, was constantly trying to lose weight. He didn’t succeed in keeping it off (not many people do) but he exercised more self-control in one week than I’ve had to exercise in my whole life. If self-control is a measure of spiritual strength, who had more?

Which reminds me to note that Christians occasionally take credit for spiritual victories they’ve not actually had. Old people scold young people over their sexual behavior, because they’ve forgotten what it’s like to be young and horny. You might call it righteousness by age and infirmity. Poor people criticize the greed of the rich, sometimes because they’ve never had enough money themselves to be as greedy as they’d like to be. Some people’s righteousness is only a lack of opportunity or skill.

After a lifetime of being a pastor (which means occupying other people’s heads a bit more than the average person does) I know that many Christians harbor sins of self-control. Some sins they can get away with longer than the person who eats too much, because it doesn’t show as readily. Your body size may be a function of genes, metabolism, upbringing, self-control, and habit, but it fiendishly displays your trespass in the very thing that houses you and carries you around. And you’re stuck in it.

Bob undoubtedly had a metabolism that easily turned food to fat. He was also a compulsive eater. I’m not enough of a psychologist to explain why, though I suspect there was some emotional aspect, maybe a way of comforting himself. Perhaps the fatter he got, the more he sought the solace of food — a vicious cycle he couldn’t escape.

Jesus said, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (A conditional statement sadly false in its latter part: I’ve seen no evidence that not judging others means that others won’t judge you anyway.) I am quite certain (because Jesus said so to the Pharisees) that the prohibition against judgment is more significant than how you eat.

As for good health, it is mentioned only in passing in the Bible, and by Jesus not at all, which makes it surprising that so many of us have moved diet to the top of our spiritual to-do list. Our bodies, let’s remember, are of this corrupt old earth — what we occupy before the moment when, in the twinkling of an eye, this corruption puts on incorruption. Storing up treasures in heaven means that character development takes precedence not just over possessions, but over the state of these mortal bodies, too.

It’s lovely to be healthy. But no one will be saved by a good diet or a trim figure. No one. The question for us is how we, as people who claim to exalt good health, are to assure unhealthy people that they can have full confidence that they’re saved.

Loren Seibold is a pastor in the Ohio Conference and the Executive Editor of Adventist Today.

Image Credit: FreeImages.com / Asif Akbar

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.

Fred Lee_edit.jpg

Fred Lee was born on August 8, 1939, to missionary parents in Kunming, China. He began his healthcare career at Shawnee Mission Medical Center in Kansas. As VP for marketing and development, he won several national awards for innovative approaches to patient satisfaction and loyalty. He then transitioned to senior VP at Florida Hospital, where he developed a nationally acclaimed guest relations program. Next, Disney University recruited him due to his expertise in helping hospitals achieve a culture that inspires patient and employee loyalty. He helped adapt and facilitate Disney’s healthcare version of its three-day seminar, Disney’s Approach to Quality Service, and developed its latest seminar on Customer Loyalty.

After writing If Disney Ran Your Hospital in 2004, Fred and Aura—his wife, business partner, and a former director of nursing in Orlando, Florida—traveled across the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium, England, and The Netherlands. With an insider’s experience and a keen eye for cultural comparisons, he shared his passion and concepts of patient loyalty, the patient experience, and compassion of caregivers. In 2015, Fred was appointed to the “My VA Advisory Committee” by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert A. McDonald to share his insights with U.S. healthcare leaders.

In 2005, his book won the ACHE James A. Hamilton Book of the Year award. It has sold over 250,000 copies in English and almost 250,000 copies in Dutch, Portuguese, and Korean and is currently being translated into Mandarin Chinese expecting to be released in China in 2017. (Fred spoke fluent Mandarin.)

Fred’s greatest desire was for healthcare leaders and caregivers to instill his concepts for future generations. He will occupy a permanent place in American Healthcare’s Pantheon of Patient Loyalty, Patient Experience, and Compassion by caregivers.

Fred Lee passed away on Sunday evening, March 26, 2017, of complications from neuro-surgery due to glioblastoma. –Biography provided by Jerry F. Pogue, Fred’s friend and publisher.

The following is Fred Lee’s eulogy, written by James Londis:

Try as you might, you could not be bored around Fred Lee. Witty, quick on the repartee, anxious to be the “social director” in every group, you never knew what was next. He enjoyed an infectious zest for life. It was on full display the three weeks we traveled together in Greece some years ago. Three weeks felt like three days. Time was compressed by the intimate sharing of the turns and bumps in our lives. A closeness reserved for immediate family seemed to descend upon us. It turned a special, but still somewhat casual friendship, into a rare, lifelong respect and affection for each other.

On that trip, after commandeering my camera, Fred scoured various angles to capture the moment. His photos exposed an artist’s eye for design and form, as did his vision for the interior design of his most recent home. Even his PowerPoint presentations on the patient experience were arresting (not easy to do, believe me). His speaking, peppered with new ideas and riveting stories, mesmerized thousands for as many as six to eight hours in a day. Standing ovations were common. When he, after much cajoling by Aura, finally put in a book much of what he had developed as a consultant, his partner Jerry Pogue entered the volume in the American Hospital Association Book of the Year, the most coveted award in healthcare. And, wouldn’t you know, If Disney Ran Your Hospital: 9^1/2 Things You Would Do Differently won first prize. It had to be the most thrilling professional achievement of his life!

Following the award ceremony in Chicago, board members and hospital administrators who were there formed lines to get signed copies. The rest is history. Glowing reviews followed in major healthcare journals, which, of course led to extremely large orders. Speaking appointments poured in, changing Fred and Aura’s life forever. She became his travel agent, calendar supervisor, and administrative assistant. These many years later, after translation in several languages (including most recently Fred’s beloved Chinese), and appointments in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere, it is now ranked as the best-selling book in healthcare history.

His public abilities, however, were balanced nicely by his private qualities. He was a thoughtful, sensitive, compassionate listener. He was also an avid reader across a wide spectrum of thought from science to theology and philosophy. When he found a passage or an essay that moved him, he would insist his friends sit and read it aloud with him so we could laugh and tear up together. He was always generous, and his family and friends knew he treasured their closeness.

An example occurred some years after our first meeting during a healthcare leadership retreat. On my 60^th birthday, Fred penned this recollection and reflection on our friendship:

A Chronicle of Our Beginnings
It can now be known that our first meeting was at the
Instigation of our rebellious wives who, on the Sabbath Day,
Conspired to forego the rapture of church worship and
Indulge their illicit desire to first purchase and then drink a
Cup of coffee. You and I, priests of our family altars, who
In those days did neither drink nor desire to drink such a
Bitter, forbidden substance, nevertheless chose, in the
Tradition of our father Adam, to go along with the sins of
The wives whom the Lord gave us, rather than sit in lonely
Contemplation through the rigors of another Sabbath School
Lesson. And so, far from the pious protection of the
Worshipping congregation, the four of us communed over
The rising steam from a dark, pagan brew. In that
Unforgettable hour we found a deep and abiding connection
That has transformed into the inexplicable mystery of
Intimate friendship.
                                    Blessed be that cup of coffee.
                                    Blessed be our special closeness, forever.
                                                                                                Selah.

Very few have ever received anything as lovely as that from a friend.

In addition to his creative impulses, Fred was intellectually gifted. His curious mind would not tolerate weak reasoning or fake news. He questioned conventional wisdom and unexamined orthodoxy. He found in me (and many others) a sojourner who understood where he was coming from. His graduate study and his research into leadership and patient care gave him a renewed appreciation for evidence-based medicine, customer service, patient care, and science in general.

However, Fred—like many of us—looked forward to his future with a mixture of skepticism and hope.

During my college years, a local conference president died unexpectedly of a massive heart attack. His son was a close friend of mine. At the gravesite, standing with his mother and brother, he—a religion major—turned to her and said: “Well mother: at least we will see him again in the resurrection.” She quietly stared at the grave for a few moments. She then turned to him and said: “You never know.” He could not believe his ears . . . .

In conversations with Fred over the years, and most especially in recent months, he echoed this widow’s sentiment. And I agreed with him. “You never really know.” We also agreed on one more thing, which leads me to one of the great passages in Scripture: The Apostle Paul’s soaring hymn to love as the supreme gift of the Spirit to the church.

“Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.” 1 Corinthians 8-13 NIV

To me, this passage describes, in one way or another, every serious Christian’s faith journey. In Fred’s memory and honor, I want to reflect on how it could describe the sometimes difficult and always forward-looking spiritual journey Fred traveled with many of us.

Raised by devout missionary parents in China, Fred inherited their commitment to the life of faith. But, unlike most of us, it was assaulted in the most horrendous way. His first wife contracted a rare illness that did not respond to treatment. Church advisers urged Fred to conduct an “anointing” service if he wished her cured. But there were conditions. Dubious, he nevertheless followed their counsel. First: “Get rid of every record and book you possess that might displease God; second, pray for the forgiveness of every known sin. Then, a cure will come.” Imagine the desperation and agony, the fervent, unceasing prayer, the pleading, negotiations, and tears: and it did not come. To be sure, science had also failed; but to its credit, it made no promises! To be told that if you did all that was required, she would get well, leads to only one conclusion: since he failed, her death was on him. What could be more destructive of one’s trust? If God is that kind of person, God is not worthy of human devotion.

When he first shared this experience with Dolores and me on our trip through Greece, I recoiled and grieved for him. When I first arrived as pastor of the Sligo Church in Maryland, a young mother and her two boys were eating breakfast one Sunday morning. They heard a crash upstairs. Racing to the bedroom, they discovered their 38-year-old husband and father dying of a massive heart attack. After the funeral service, a prominent pastor said this to her: “Now that this has happened, you must discover what God wants to teach you through this experience.” It cut right thorough her. Later, she angrily asked me: “Am I so dumb that God had to kill my husband to teach me something?”

His offering an explanation for the inexplicable backfired. One should not try to turn the tragic into a divine blessing. Nothing like that ever helps.

Fred’s life and thinking were changed by what happened to him. If God controls everything that happens, and God loves us, how can God not be almost a monster? But, if God is not a monster, what is going on? Where is divine compassion?

As I see it, the passage from 1 Cor. 8-13 is the Apostle Paul’s attempt to deal with some of these questions. Knowledge, he claims, is not the answer, for it passes away. While children we talk, think and reason as children. When life challenges and matures us, we put childhood thinking away. We “see” ultimate reality dimly. What life means and what we believe the future may hold is not certain.

You never know . . .

Paul nevertheless insists that faith is connected to hope and love in an unbreakable chain. If our faith weakens, as it sometimes must, our loving and being loved in the present keeps us strong in the Spirit. Moreover, the path to the future is paved with hope which never really leaves us completely. We never stop wondering: Is death a period? Or an ellipsis . . . signifying there is more to come?

In Paul, “you never know” means, hope never abandons us.

I once joked to Fred that as surprised as I may be in the resurrection, he may be the most surprised person in the universe. He laughed and said, “I’m counting on it.” That response moved me for it means that even if we cannot know, we can hope and know love again.

In her book Called to Live in Hope, Madeleine L’Engle argues:

“How do we learn to bless, rather than damn, those with whom we disagree, those whom we fear, those who are different? All of Creation groans in travail. All will be redeemed in God’s fullness of time, all, not just the small portion of the population who have been given the grace to know and accept Christ. All the little lost ones. . . . To look for hell, not heaven, is a kind of blasphemy, for we are called to live in hope.”

And, I would remind us, Paul adds, “in love.”

In the March 26 edition of The New York Times, Fred’s favorite paper, an opinion piece caught my eye: “After Great Pain, Where Is God?” by Peter Wehner. I quote:

“Jesus himself, crucified and near death, gave voice to the question many people overwhelmed by pain ask: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus’ question, like ours, was not answered in the moment. Even he was forced to confront doubt. . . . I have seen enough of life to know that grief will leave its mark. But I have also seen enough of life to know that so, too, will love.”

We should never forget that Fred’s love for us, and our love for him and each other, leaves a mark that cannot fade.   

May that love comfort us all. Grief has indeed left its mark. But so too has hope . . . and love.

And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.

James Londis is a retired evangelist, pastor, professor, college president, and Ethics and Corporate Integrity officer.

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.

2017-05-01 Exchanges Down Under.png

Meditations on what I’m being taught by spending a year away from my family and community on a professorial exchange between Avondale College and Southern Adventist University.

Travel always requires dependence. This seems counter-intuitive to me as I also associate traveling with independence. One must have a certain amount emotional, financial, and personal autonomy to take off and be in another place for any length of time. But I am being reminded more and more of how much I depend on others for information, generosity, tolerance, and even personal care when I’m living in a new place.

The past two months have taught me this in humbling ways. My husband Tommy and I arrived in Sydney and were picked up from the airport by our friend who not only took a day off work but had to borrow a larger vehicle in order to accommodate us and all the luggage I had brought for a year. We have stayed with friends for extended lengths of time while we set up house for me close to the Avondale College campus. Food isn’t cheap or effortless to provide, and the constant stream of meals my (old and new) friends have provided have made me realize how much welcoming others into a new location requires effort and intentionality.

Even before I arrived on campus, great efforts of generosity and hospitality were exerted on my behalf. Other faculty and staff made sure the paperwork for my courses was done in a timely manner; office space, equipment, and training were all organized for me. There are so many things I don’t know how to do! I need instructions and help all the time in order to complete the procedures that are common knowledge for my peers here. I have made mistakes that others had to correct. This professional hospitality, making sure I get the explanations I need—it has been rich and on-going.

Since my husband isn’t here fulltime, I find that church members, colleagues, and friends reach out to me to invite me to dinner, Sabbath afternoon socializing, and recreational outings. These aren’t just casually flung out comments—they require my new friends to rearrange their lives and be inconvenienced. (They also only take on real meaning when I accept them!) When I’m invited to go camping or cycling or other activities that require equipment, I have to borrow some of the accoutrements. And there’s an astonishing amount of good will to lend/provide what I need. Again, I have to be willing to ask for and accept this help.

Hospitality requires all parties to adjust themselves. I’m in a new place. I’m in the homes of people whose assumptions and habits are different from what I’ve experienced. At home, I’m the one who reaches out to others, but here I’m dependent. I need to adjust, but also, my hosts are adapting to me as well, trying to make things as easy for me as possible. I sometimes say things or make observations in ways that can be perceived as rude. Worse, I don’t always even notice when they are adapting to my presence or that my being there is preventing the relaxation that only comes when you’re surrounded with people you don’t have to be “on” with or explain yourself to. This requires both humility and gratitude on my part. And sometimes it is hard to be grateful all the time. I don’t like being aware of my dependence and weight in the world.

Christine Pohl’s book Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition has been extremely helpful to me in this process. She reminds us that welcoming others is core to the Christian faith (notice what our central act—communion—actually is, a shared meal) but that it isn’t cost-free. It usually involves something like food, the preparation/clean-up of which is often thankless, time-consuming and even expensive. The entire gospel is a welcome message—extending an invitation to and including people in the Kingdom of God where our central metaphors of those of houses and meals and conversation. We need to be intentional about adjusting ourselves to and being part of these systems of hospitality and welcome.

At its best, Christian hospitality is equalizing. Our Scriptures are full of references to the ways in which we have been exiles and strangers. I am the stranger now, the dependent one. But I’m going to be returning home, and I know the experience of being welcomed has made me much more acutely attentive to how I’m receiving people in my church, my town, my workplace. I will be less concerned with efficiencies and productivity and more in tune with the pleasures of slowing down (patiently!) to experience life, or an event, with people for whom this place, this community are new.

For now, as I get to eat novel kinds of food, participate in different scheduling rhythms and holidays, learn fresh ways of practicing my profession, and the different expectations that hold in this place—I am aware that I am one of those “least of these” that Jesus talked about. I’m on the receiving end of obedience to the command: “When you see the stranger, take her in.” It’s hard to be the one who weighs heavily on the community, but it is a reminder of my actual state of dependence and need, just in case I begin to rely on some sort of artificial individualism. And I hope to bring back some of the bountiful Australian hospitality with me when I return. Vanilla slice and a flat white, anyone?

Lisa Clark Diller is Professor of Early Modern History at Southern Adventist University. She is currently enrolled in a year-long faculty exchange program at Avondale College of Higher Education. Learn more about the exchange here.

If you enjoyed this article, you might also like Jesus as Guest: Hospitality in the Ministry of Jesus by Beverly Beem.

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.

2017-05-02 Interview.png

Crystal Cheatham — writer, entrepreneur and Andrews grad — is working to create a hub for progressive Christians who may have felt excluded and judged by more traditional, conservative spaces.

Question: The Our Bible App,  an app you are creating with devotionals, Bible translations and a forum, is set to launch in June. You describe your project as pro-women, LGBT-affirming, and social justice oriented. When did you start this project?

Answer: I guess I started this idea in 2010 with the IDentity Kit Project. That was a resource to help queer Christian fundamentalist youth access information about gender identity and orientation. Really, I was just trying to bring together an isolated community. And I think isolation is what any believer who isn’t a conservative Christian has found themselves in. Fundamentalists (aka closed-minded Christians), have hubs like the National Religious Broadcasters or the Trinity Broadcasting Network to pump their exclusionary theologies to people around the globe, but those of us who have a more accepting approach to spirituality and religion only have access to like-minded believers and tools that are within reach. Our Bible App is a direct descendent of the IDK Project. In fact, the book I wrote for LGBT youth will be available on the app.  

So you feel that other such resources are not inclusive, progressive and affirming? Are there other apps that Our Bible App is modeled on?

Yeah, I modeled it after YouVersion’s Holy Bible App. It’s probably on your phone right now and the #1 way you access the Bible in church and at home. Unfortunately, YouVersion shares the same values as Focus on the Family, Rick Warren and the Family Research Council (organizations that have been included on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of hate groups). In fact, they regularly publish devotionals written by those organizations. That’s why I created Our Bible App, because I couldn’t take the exclusionary theology anymore. 

Are you the technical expert behind the app? Have you developed apps before?

Haha! I wish! No, I’m an expert at everything else and have learned many trades in order to get to where I am today with the app. When it came to coding I decided it would be better to hire the professionals. The App Institute is puzzling together the working pieces of the app while I recruit authors, hire people and build the other side of the project. 

Can you tell us a little bit more about what resources will be available through the app, and how you are sourcing these?

I’m creating a platform to help bring together the parceled community of progressive Christians out there. I want the app to be a place, unlike the Christian section in a Barnes & Noble bookstore, where those looking for progressive podcasts, video blogs, books and devotionals can come and find what they need. I’m encouraging writers and creators to submit their podcasts, devotionals, books and vlogs for consideration. Just go to OurBibleApp.com and click on submissions. 

How are you working to get the word out about the app? Do you have a target for the number of people you hope will download it?

I’m working with organizations and people all over the country. Organizations like Reconciling Ministries Network are teaming with us to spread the word. Rachel Held Evans and Kevin Garcia are tweeting and messaging their followers. We need all the help we can get. 

Our goal is to launch with 10,000 pre-subscribers and we are at 4,000. We want to be at 100,000 by the end of December. We are asking everyone to share news of the app with five friends. I think that way we can reach our goal and make a huge impact when we launch. I invite anyone who reads this to share the OurBibleApp.com link.

What do you hope the app will accomplish?

I think the app is bigger than me and my team. It’s churning up all kinds of feelings in people. I’d call it a business for social change. 

How are you funding the development of the app? Will you charge for the app?

I ran two fundraisers last summer. With family, friends and the help of many strangers I raised $84,000. Most of that was spent just creating the app and paying for licenses. Now that I am working with a team I need more funding to get this thing up and running. Of course I’m looking for the right investor, but in the meantime folks can make personal donations online or they can buy a T-shirt of our mascot the Zebracorn. Go to the site and take a look because I love it. It reads, “For Believers of All Stripes.” Get it?

The app itself is free, but if folks want to get premium content and ultimately help keep the lights on and keep authors contributing then they can pay to subscribe to the app. 

Are you mainly targeting the app to people in the LGBT community? 

Absolutely not! While LGBT people have been targeted by the conservative right, they are not the only group to feel that burn of judgment. This app is for anyone who wants the tools to take back their spirituality and strengthen their personal walk with their God. 

Your editor-in-chief is agnostic? Isn't that rather curious for a spiritual app?

I think that as Adventists we spend a lot of time looking down on other kinds of beliefs, forgetting that the people that hold them can be every bit as loving, giving and capable as we are. I know because I’ve been there. It took a while to shake off. That’s why Our Bible App promotes the affirmation of other faiths and belief systems. 

In keeping with this mission, our editor-in-chief is worth her salt. I’ve watched her work tirelessly and oh-so-lovingly with the devotionals that come her way. To her credit she is quite tender in all the right places and pushes authors to give a little more when she knows they aren’t quite hitting their mark. And I’m convinced that being agnostic doesn’t necessarily mean that she isn’t more learned about faith and spirituality than I am. She truly is fantastic. 

You are an entrepreneur, with two big projects you worked on previously. Can you tell us about those? What else do you do currently?

Yeah, I’m always dreaming up something. This is by far the biggest endeavour I’ve taken on. Up until now I was working as a ghostwriter. I spent some time as a singing artist as well. 

You are a graduate of Andrews University. Do you still consider yourself an Adventist? When you were an Andrews student, would you have used an app like this?

I’m culturally Adventist and I tend to have more conservative ideas about my lifestyle. I think 18 or 19-year-old Crystal Cheatham desperately needed this app. I think she would have benefited from knowing there were people in the world capable of unconditional love the way Jesus portrayed it. 

Did you feel marginalized in the Adventist community?

The answer is yes. To be told that there wasn’t a place for me in leadership because of my orientation was heartbreaking to hear. I think the Adventist church is cutting off the hands and feet of Christ by pushing out diverse believers like myself. Unless 1 Corinthians 12:27 is wrong then that’s no way for a church to survive. 

Will you be targeting the app to Adventists? 

Those who know me in the Adventist community won’t have a choice about knowing the app exists! I’ve always been a vocal person. But as far as targeting? I don’t think I’ll do that. I will, however, pray that God will melt the hearts of those leading the church. 

In my mind, the men that lead the church have become a sort of Pharaoh of the Old Testament, refusing to allow God’s word to touch them tenderly, the way that only He can in order to change hearts and minds. I will pray that they hear the ever closer chant ringing from the empty pews: “Let my people go.” 

How do you think the Adventist church could or should treat members of the LGBT community differently than they do?

Adventism was my first home and I miss it dearly but you gotta know there is no such thing as loving the sinner and hating the sin. That’s what the church doctrines promote and is ultimately what drove me and so many others out. Adventists should reconsider number 23 of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs and include LGBT voices when they do. If you can find a way to incorporate the queer community in your doctrines then you can truly practice what is preached about loving thy neighbor. 

Crystal Cheatham graduated from Andrews University in 2009 with an English degree, then earned a masters in creative writing at Antioch University-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.

Inline Images: 

2017-05-06 Adventist-Edgar-Dorothea-Gwendolyn-Roy-Brooks.jpg

Remembering Roy E. Brooks and his family’s extraordinary mission service.

Roy E. Brooks could be described as the quintessential Seventh-day Adventist missionary.

Born to British missionary parents, Brooks grew up speaking fluent English and Spanish in Argentina. He moved to the United States for his university studies and, after getting married, served as a missionary in Uruguay and Argentina. He also worked for years at Loma Linda University in California and served a stint as South American Division treasurer.

Brooks died on January 29, 2017, in Loma Linda, California. He was 91.

“He was passionate about mission,” said Brooks’ nephew, Guillermo E. Biaggi, a general vice president of the Adventist world church. “His conversations always centered on his desire to share the hope of Jesus’ return around the world.”

To fully grasp Brooks’ love for mission requires an understanding of his own background as a missionary kid. His father, Edgar, worked as a missionary in Peru from 1911 to 1915 and then moved to Argentina to head the editorial staff at the church’s publishing house. While in Argentina, he was encouraged by church leaders to get married, and he remembered Dorothea Waterhouse, a former classmate from Britain’s Stanborough Park Missionary College (now Newbold College of Higher Education). He wrote her a letter. Around the same time, Dorothea remembered Edgar and wrote him a letter.

“The letters passed each other by steamship on the Atlantic Ocean,” Biaggi said.

A close relationship formed through the letters, and Dorothea accepted a marriage proposal from Edgar.

“Dorothea decided to make this long, life-changing trip, and she arrived at the port in Buenos Aires to find Edgar and all the church leaders waiting for her,” Biaggi said. “Six days later, on October 26, 1920, she and Edgar got married.”

Strong Impression

The couple’s courtship and subsequent mission work left a strong impression on their two children. Their first child, Biaggi’s mother, Gwendoline Frances Brooks Biaggi, was born in Buenos Aires in 1923. Roy Ernest Brooks was born two years later, on May 15, 1925, while the family was on furlough in Watford outside London.

“Roy grew up in Argentina, where his father worked in Adventist publishing work and his mother taught in an Adventist school,” said his grandson Steven Brooks. “He was fluent in both English and Spanish as a child.”

Brooks went on to study business at Washington Missionary College (now Washington Adventist University) in the United States, and he graduated with an MBA from the University of Maryland in 1949. That same year he began to work in the treasury department of the church’s Texico Conference in western Texas and New Mexico. It was there that he met his future wife, Betty Thornton, an employee of the Shamrock Oil Company.

Roy and Betty Brooks

“Her friends joked that it was not fair for her to be taking such a tall young man off the market,” said Steven Brooks. “Betty was only 5 feet, 2 inches, and Roy was 6 feet, 1 inch.”

The couple married in September 1953 and five months later set sail to Uruguay as missionaries. Brooks worked as treasurer in several places in South America, including at Argentina’s Cuyo Mission and Buenos Aires Conference. The couple’s three sons were born in South America: David (1954), Richard (1956), and Roland (1961).

In 1965, Brooks joined the trust department at Loma Linda University, and he stayed there until he retired in 2001, leaving only to work as South American Division treasurer from 1977 to 1980.

Time Is Short

Brooks was preceded in death by his wife Betty, who succumbed to cancer in 1988, and their youngest son, Roland, who died during a hiking accident at age 9 in 1971. Brooks married a second wife, Gladys Pereira, in 1992, and she died in 2013. He is survived by his two older sons, David, an X-ray technician at Tillamook Regional Medical Center in Oregon and Richard, business administrator at Loma Linda Academy,their their wives, and several grandchildren.

Biaggi said his uncle’s 56 years of unceasing mission work serves as a reminder to all Adventists that the time is short.

“Consider church cofounder Ellen G. White’s advice, ‘Summon every energy of the soul, employ the few remaining hours in earnest labor for God and for your fellow men,’” he said, citing Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, page 463.

This is advice that Brooks’ parents, Edgar and Dorothea, took to heart as they dedicated their lives to the mission field, Biaggi said. The couple is buried in Argentina.

“They left Uncle Roy and my mother with a heritage of hope and mission,” said Biaggi, who also has served many years as a missionary, including as treasurer and president of the Euro-Asia Division in Moscow. “This is a legacy that has been passed down in my family for four generations.”

Roy and Betty Brooks with their three sons, David, Richard, and Roland.

This story was written by Andrew McChesney and originally published on AdventistMission.org. It is reprinted here with permission.

Photos courtesy of Richard Brooks. Cover photo: Roy Brooks, second right, pictured with his parents, Edgar and Dorothea, and his sister, Gwendoline Frances Brooks Biaggi.

If you respond to this article, please:

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

Inline Images: 

2017-05-08 Millennial Voices.jpg

Growing up as a Seventh-day Adventist, I knew my parents wanted two things from me: to become a doctor and to marry an Adventist doctor. Personally, I thought it would be easy to marry someone of the same faith since I have attended Adventist schools all my life. As it turned out, my parents did not get either of their wishes since I’m an English and Communications major, and I am dating an ex-Catholic pre-med student. In a way, I guess they got half their wish.

For most people with a religion or belief, it is a little taboo to date/marry someone outside of that belief. What if he tries to convert you? Why are you dating him when you’re completely different from each other? These are just some of the questions I’ve been asked about my relationship. As I’ve come to know the person I love, I’ve realized three things I believe to be true in all inter-religious relationships:

1. Your partner’s parents and your parents will either care that you’re dating someone of a different religion—or they won’t. I remember when I told my mother I was seeing someone. One of the first things she asked me was whether he was Seventh-day Adventist or not. When she found out he wasn’t, she was immediately skeptical of him and disliked that I was spending so much time with him. Not until after she met him did she start warming up to him. My partner’s parents, on the other hand, didn’t care at all.

2. People will assume that you’ve changed for your partner. What some people don’t understand is that there is a huge difference between changing because of someone and changing for someone. There is this unspoken rule that tells us that changing for a romantic partner is a big no-no. And if there’s a slight shift in the foundation of your beliefs, it is an instant red flag for your relationship.

I think what my parents were most worried about was whether or not my partner would convert me to his religion. Any change that happened at all in my beliefs resulted in an avalanche of questions. So the moment I decided that women have the right to make a choice on whether they wanted to keep their unborn baby or not, some of my family and friends from church blamed my relationship.

But, what they didn’t understand was that I wasn't changing for my partner because I wanted to make him like me more. I had changed because of him. The long walks and talks weren’t for nothing. It was in our conversations where we challenged and tested each other with questions that helped both of us grow our ideals. It was in our connection where we ironed out the wrinkles we had in the foundations of our beliefs.

3. While both people in the relations may have their differences, they’re both still human. I was going through a time in my life where I was questioning everything. I wasn’t sure if I was studying the right thing, doing the right thing, or making the right choices. I started questioning my relationship because of our differences in belief. It was during time in nature when the answer came to me. We were star-gazing at a nearby park, talking about life, and I asked him a question:

“What is something you’ll never stop doing?”

After a moment of thinking, he responded, “I’ll never stop believing in God.”

That’s when I knew that humans are more alike than different. What brought us together was not the details but the big picture. My belief in Adventism was not all of me. It’s a part of me, just like my politics and my likes and dislikes.

I know people still doubt the quality of an inter-religious relationship. Many may say that being with someone outside of Adventism is like being unequally yoked. But, as I think about our partnership, I know that we pull together.

Ashli-Jane Benggon is a current English and Communications major at La Sierra University.

Image Credit: FreeImages.com / MARIE JEANNE Iliescu

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.

2017-05-09 WCRTC.png

The 2017 conference in the context of a 45-year history.

The West Coast Religion Teachers Conference is an unofficial annual meeting of the religion faculty of the five western Adventist colleges and universities. Rotating their annual meetings between La Sierra and Loma Linda in the south and Pacific Union, Walla Walla and Burman (CUC) in the north, the Conference convened this year at WWU, April 7-9, its 45^th annual session since the first meeting at PUC in 1972. Except for 2015, it has met every year since then. Organized by the host campus each year, the conference provides the opportunity for fellowship and serious conversation on topics relevant to academic and church life.

When I started writing this report for Spectrum, it began simply as a straightforward report. But the more I worked on it, the more complex it became. And Augustine’s dictum proved true for I “learned many things I never knew before . . . just by writing.”[1] After a fair bit of initial work on this piece, I had two “revelations,” both of them surprising, and one potentially revolutionary. The first “revelation” was that the WCRTC is an astonishing and unusual gathering within Adventism. The second “revelation,” the potentially revolutionary one, is that it could become a model informing the General Conference in session! More about that in conclusion.

So what makes the WCRTC unusual? First, it has no constitution or by-laws and no elected officers. Second, in its early years, it was out of line with church policy: the campuses represented two different unions and therefore needed “permission” to cross union lines. When CUC/Burman came on board, three unions were involved. But with the support of campus administrators from all five institutions, the Conference has continued to this day. And if this year’s Conference is any measure, it is enjoying robust health.

I will survey the events of the year’s Conference under three headings: “Attendees,” “Presentations,” and “Sidelights.” I conclude under the heading of “Implications.” That’s where my potentially revolutionary “revelation” comes in.

ATTENDEES

While the faculty from the five campuses form the essential nucleus of the Conference, the list of other attendees as determined by the host campus reflects some of the sensitivities that must be negotiated when church-employed Adventist academics meet to talk about church and academia.

This year, the combined effect of the unity document, the issue of women in ministry, and the proposed IBMTE plan to require “endorsement” for tertiary teachers, formed an ominous backdrop to our meetings. Surprisingly, however, those issues were scarcely touched in our formal sessions. Given the potentially explosive nature of those issues, however, the question of invitees became delicate. Should select students be included? Area pastors? Conference and/or Union representatives?

This year, our answer was no to all those groups. Thus, the list of additional attendees was limited. All spouses were included (and always have been) and some with close ties to WWU, especially former faculty, were also invited.

The distribution of attendees from the five campuses was intriguing. LLU brought twelve faculty, the largest contingent. After arising as early as 2:00 a.m. to catch their flight from Ontario, they flew through San Francisco to Portland where they rented two vans for their final Portland-Walla Walla leg, a four-hour trip which, in recent years, has expanded for them into something of an excursion through the Columbia gorge. Someone in the LLU crowd suggested that next year when the WCRTC is at LLU, the WWU group should fly into Phoenix so that we, too, could enjoy a long road trek before arriving at LLU. This year, however, for time on the road, the three faculty from Burman took top prize, driving twelve hours from Alberta. PUC and LSU each sent two representatives. At LSU, bereavements involving faculty families and Bailey Gillespie’s sudden life-threatening encounter with liver cancer clearly affected their attendance and cast a somber shadow over the conference. These sobering events and these precious people were the focus of a special prayer session Friday night.

The content of the presentations will be noted below, but the distribution of presenters by campus and by age was significant. Of the nine presenters on Friday and Sabbath, four were from LLU, three from Walla Walla, and two from Burman. And for the first time in a long time, younger faculty members balanced out the old. Given the dominant presence of archeologists in our midst (Larry Herr, Burman; Jody Washburn, WWU; Doug Clark, LaSierra), I will borrow their terminology to represent the presenters by age: three were Early Bronze (Jon Paulien, LLU; Dave Thomas, WWU; Bruce Boyd, Burman). Three were Middle Bronze, though dangerously close to being Late Bronze (Paul Dybdahl, WWU; Zane Yi, LLU, and Ted Levterov, LLU). And three were clearly Late Bronze (Whitny Braun, LLU; Jody Washburn, WWU; Kevin Burrell, Burman). Jody and Whitny are actually brand new, first-year faculty on their campuses.

PRESENTATIONS

Instead of focusing on a specific theme this year, WWU took a page from an old LLU playbook and simply invited presentations featuring current research interests. It worked. I could even wax enthusiastic and say it was wildly successful. But here my comments on the nine presentations are very uneven, even unfair. Some superb ones get less attention and some very preliminary and unfinished ones get more. But I hope I drop enough hints along the way to suggest the reasons why.

The first formal presentation was Friday night by Paul Dybdahl (WWU), “Adventism and Other Christians.” Building on his family’s experience in Thailand and then on more recent in-depth interviews with Buddhists and Hindus, Paul followed in the footsteps of his father Jon and argued for a both/and approach. The discussion was wide-ranging and insightful, pointing toward a more inclusive perspective that contrasts with the separatist and isolationist impulses found in some Adventist circles.

After Paul’s presentation, our program called for an hour of open discussion on “Church Issues.”  But instead of zeroing in on the major issues noted above, the group spent more time reflecting on how academics could be a positive influence in the church, especially when they are often viewed with suspicion. Would posting more material online help? Several voices suggested that it could even make matters worse.

A number expressed gratitude for church administrators who attend meetings with academics. Words of appreciation were spoken for Dave Weigley, Columbia Union President, and Ted Wilson, General Conference President, both of whom were mentioned as having been present at recent ASRS (Adventist Society for Religious Studies) and/or ATS (Adventist Theological Society) meetings. Other voices urged support for progressive administrators whose positions could be at risk as the wave of conservatism sweeps through both country and church. On balance, the consensus seemed to be that caution is very much in order in an era of volatility.

On Sabbath morning we met in Village Hall, the former College Place Village Seventh-day Adventist Church. Jon Paulien (LLU) delivered an excellent paper, “Creation in the Gospel and Epistles of John.” Though he warned us that very little had been written about the theme in scholarly sources, we hardly would have guessed that from his impressive, thoroughly documented paper.  Bruce Boyd (Burman) argued in his paper, “Equipping University Students to Be Peacemakers,” that university students were not as reticent as ordinary members to address tension points within local churches. He buttressed his conclusions with intriguing statistics. Ted Levterov (LLU) presented a tantalizing survey of church documents on the evidence for and against the ordination of Ellen White: “Ordained! . . . Yet, Not Ordained: Ellen G. White’s Ministerial Credentials.” The evidence points to a kind of de-facto ordination without the laying on of hands. It was even suggested that the raising of hands to vote the approval of her ministerial status could be seen as the equivalent of the actual physical laying on of hands.

The Sabbath morning session closed with worship, a high point of the weekend. Over the years, the WCRTC group has sometimes worshiped with the larger campus community and sometimes by themselves. This year we met separately. And it was a feast. WWU’s president, John McVay, is a recognized New Testament scholar, an experienced pastor, and a dynamic public speaker. His sermon, “When Jesus Sets You Free,” took us through Acts 12, the narrative of Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison. I personally found it very moving. Our music was led by archeologist Jody Washburn at the piano, our departmental executive secretary, Heather Huether, an accomplished cellist, and New Testament scholar Brant Berglin on the guitar. The whole worship experience was a powerful reminder that we are, after all, a body of worshiping believers, not just academics.

A cluster of three and a cluster of two papers followed on Sabbath afternoon. Under the title of “The Family Tomb as an Inscribed Artifact,” Jody Washburn (WWU) excerpted material from her newly-minted UCLA dissertation to illustrate how textual and pictorial inscriptions blend together in a family tomb at Beit Lei in Israel.

Jody’s clear but technical paper contrasted sharply in both style and content with Whitny Braun’s presentation: “Adventism in Pop Culture: An Article Series for the Huffington Post.” In quite different ways, both were captivating and maintained high levels of interest from Conference attendees. Jody’s paper was a synopsis of finished research, while Whitny’s was a preliminary foray into pop culture. Having agreed to provide a cluster of 1000-word, Garrison Keillor-style articles for Huffington Post, Whitny was now looking for help in true collaborative style. She wanted possible “Adventist” topics on which she could write. A barrage of suggestions followed, representing a wide range of ideas: Pathfinders, Nuteena, Baby Fae, Adventism in Siberia, Dr. Harry Miller and the adaptation of soy milk for babies in China, Harry Orchard, John Weidner, Uriah Smith, James White – to mention just a few.

But just as intriguing as the project itself was how she was drawn into it. Sponsored by Claremont School of Theology where she was working on her PhD, Whitny went to India to study Jainism and was subsequently invited to present a paper on Jainism at the Parliament of World Religions in Salt Lake City in 2015. Before she had even given her paper, however, the Huffington Post representative saw her name and topic in the official program and looked her up. After inquiring about Jainism he casually asked her if she knew anything about Seventh-day Adventists. Everything he had discovered about Adventists thus far, he said, simply struck him as weird!

Whitny surprised him by immediately identifying herself as a Seventh-day Adventist with impeccable credentials, a seventh generation Adventist and on her mother’s side, Baptist roots back to the Millerite movement.

As far as I can remember, Whitny’s foray into collaborative work was unique for the WCRTC. She did not present a paper, but simply asked for help. Her efforts were warmly received and should result in some intriguing exposure for Adventism in the world of pop culture.

In striking contrast with the preliminary, collaborative, and informal presentation by Whitny, the third presentation in the initial Sabbath afternoon cluster was a fully polished paper presented by Kevin Burrill, a second year teacher at Burman. Taking advantage of the 500^th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, Kevin chose to deconstruct some of the laudatory praise of the magisterial reformers. His title: “Five Hundred Years of Reformation?: The Ambiguous Legacy of Reformation Christianity and Global Christian Expansion.” The final line of his abstract, succinctly summarizes his sobering assessment: “As the most potent ideology of the Western imperial project, Christianity provided the moral justification for conquest and unmitigated greed.” It was the kind of paper that deserved a formal response from a well-prepared colleague. But that was not the format of this year’s session. His paper was well-researched and thoroughly documented. I suspect that it will appear elsewhere in print.

The last two papers on Sabbath afternoon moved into philosophy and theology. Zane Yi (LLU) presented a paper entitled “Re-thinking Thinking: Overcoming (Mediational) Epistemology.” But what he was really after was collaborative help with a chapter that he had written for a book manuscript: “Opening the Frame: Charles Taylor’s Philosophy of Religion.” Originally, he had placed the chapter at the beginning of his manuscript. But he confessed that he had struggled with it and hadn’t come to clarity. So he moved it to the end of the manuscript. A double-blind reviewer, however, spotted the difficulty, too. So Zane had re-written part of the chapter and was asking us whether the revisions made the material more readable. The consensus was that he was headed in the right direction.

The final paper by Dave Thomas (WWU) entitled “The Presumption of God,” addressed “one of the great and pressing issues of our time: namely, the rather rapid departure of large numbers of well-educated and well-informed people away from theism into agnosticism or even outright atheism.” Exploring issues of world views and anthropologies, Dave argued that the crucial element lies in clash between two competing anthropologies. The classic Christian perspective holds humans to be “noble beings made in the image of God” but who have been “seriously damaged by sin.” The contrasting model posits a “pristine self,” encumbered by “junk” that has imposed “limits” on the “self and its desires.” Thus “human beings flourish only to the degree that they are free to chase and satisfy their own personal desires.” From such a view, God is a hindrance. This new anthropology explains the atheist’s fervent wish that there be no God. Speaking to “the fear of religion itself,” atheist Thomas Nagel is quoted as saying: “I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” Dave concluded his paper with the rather brisk statement “that our profoundest deliberations pro or con” cannot affect the actual existence of deity “one whit.”

I was startled when Dave’s paper drew a sharp critique from one of our colleagues: “I was looking forward to your paper and wanted it to be true,” he said. “But I was disappointed.” The intensity of his brief critique was unsettling, but Dave responded with disarming grace and the result was an instructive dialogue. In a sabbatical quarter just concluded, Dave worked on a manuscript on “world views,” and his hard work showed to good advantage in his paper. But perhaps most valuable was the gracious spirit in which Dave responded to his critic, a worthy model for academics and church administrators alike. And he could not disguise his joy at having a conversation partner in Zane Yi, someone who understood his vocabulary and his love of theology and philosophy. Given WWU’s emphasis on biblical studies over the years, our resident systematician has rarely had a kindred spirit for a conversation partner. But in this case, Zane engaged Dave with philosophical and theological precision. It was fun to watch and hear.

One further observation on the nine presentations: some of them included technical material that was beyond the expertise of some of us. Whitny Braun’s presentation was a delight because suddenly we were all experts. But speaking for myself, I was approaching deep water with Bruce Boyd’s statistics and Jody Washburn’s archeology. Similarly I could not have added much to the Thomas-Yi dialogue. Yet all of these presenters were down-to-earth enough so that I could be adequately engaged.

After breakfast on Sunday, we exchanged news from the various campuses and finished by 10:00 a.m. so that the LLU people could get back to Portland for their return flight.

SIDELIGHTS

While I hope the final “Implications” will be seen as more significant, a couple of fun and funny events from the weekend are worth noting. First, the food. And judging by our conversations, the food was much more than a sidelight. You see, a number of years ago at one of the WCRTC campuses, three of our WWU faculty ended up in an otherwise abandoned wing of a men’s dormitory. They even had a long trek for showers. But what kept bubbling up in our planning sessions was the food narrative from that event: no plans had been made for Sabbath morning breakfast for these three abandoned brethren. Finally an apologetic faculty member from that campus scurried in with two muffins for the three guests to share. That was their breakfast, and the miracle of the five loaves and two fish was not repeated.

So we vowed to feed our guests and to feed them well. Our president’s wife, Pam McVay, has been endowed with a double portion of the gift of hospitality. She worked with our campus food service (Sodexo) to produce four extraordinarily good meals. Sabbath morning breakfast was in faculty homes. But all the rest of the meals were catered by Sodexo under Pam’s watchful eye. We feasted, but only the WWU insiders knew that the fine food was motivated, at least in part, by the memory of three hungry faculty who once had just two muffins to share among them.

The other memorable sidelight involved a youngish faculty member from another campus (I promised to protect his identity). Actually, if one didn’t know that he had a family and a PhD, he could pass for a teenager. On Sabbath morning he went out for an early-morning jog. Upon his return, he was finishing up with some stretching exercises on what he thought was the front porch of the home where he was a guest. Wrong house. The owner came to the door and was neither pleased nor amused. After our guest had found the right house, a College Place police cruiser arrived on the scene and the ensuing dialogue was intense until the police were finally convinced that they were not dealing with some teenage hooligan intent on making mischief.  On our Sabbath afternoon walk around campus, several of us listened with rapt attention as our guest regaled us with his unlikely tale. But now to the serious stuff.

IMPLICATIONS

Having been a regular on the WCRTC circuit almost from the beginning, I found myself reflecting on its role in my life and work over the 45 years since its first meeting in 1974. Three of my papers (1978, 1980, 1985) have led to major church publications in times of wide-spread anger and frustration. In all three cases, the WCRTC venue provided both the motivation and platform for doing the research and preparing it for presentation. Perhaps even more important, WCRTC is a smaller and more private venue than that provided by ASRS (for example). That makes it possible to “safely” explore potentially explosive topics in a setting where we can receive the wise counsel of trusted colleagues before the material is published for the larger church.

The 1978 and 1985 papers reflected both my alarm and my anger at the authoritarian impulse that has frequently haunted the church, especially at the General Conference level. The research for these two papers fed into my (anonymous) contribution to the NAD publication: Issues: The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries. This “Purple Book,” as it is sometimes called, addressed three dissident and increasingly troublesome independent organizations: Hope International (Ron Spear), Hartland Institute (Colin Standish), Prophecy Countdown (John Osborne).

When Bob Dale of the NAD asked me if I would write the chapter on “Historic Adventism,” – I would be pinch-hitting for an over-committed George Knight – I was candid with him, noting that if I were to write the piece, I would have to develop a two-fold thesis. If he agreed with that two-fold approach, I would make a serious effort to camouflage my style so that it would not jeopardize the acceptance of the document. The explosion over my recent book Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers (RH 1991) was very much on my mind!

My primary thesis: That historic Adventism is a simple nucleus with room to disagree; my secondary thesis: That the strong rhetoric of lock-step unity coming from church leaders was actually working against unity since anyone with a conviction running counter to current orthodoxy would be conscience-bound to move toward a hostile independent perspective.

Dale agreed and I wrote the chapter, drawing heavily on the two unpublished WCRTC papers. The 1978 document was a strong reaction to the authoritarian impulse during the Robert Pierson presidency; the 1985 paper was a similarly strong reaction to the same authoritarian impulse during Neal Wilson’s presidency.[2] In the 1992 NAD publication, my contribution appeared virtually unchanged as chapter 3: “Historic Adventism – Ancient Landmarks and the Present Truth” (n.d. [1992]). The moral of this story is that the collective wisdom represented by the West Coast Religion Teachers Conference made chapter 3 possible.

Another even more explicit illustration of academic consultation and cooperation involved my 1981-1982 Adventist Review series, “Sinai-to-Golgotha,” a narrative showing how I saw both Scripture and Ellen White moving from a fear-centered view of God, to one motivated by joy. My preliminary and exploratory paper was presented at the WCRTC at PUC in May 1980.[3] Not only did the resulting dialogue help shape the series, it also opened my eyes to important aspects of Desmond Ford’s perspective and laid the foundation for greater understanding, appreciation, and dialogue with my colleagues.

While I believe that the examples cited above show the positive value of academic interaction in service of the church, just three weeks after this year’s WCRTC, I also had the opportunity to glimpse the tragic results of failed interaction. Our alumni weekend this year (April 27-30) celebrated the 125^th Anniversary of the founding of WWC/WWU. As part of the festivities, I was asked to speak briefly on one aspect of the future of WWU. I chose to focus on the aftermath of the accreditation debate of the 1930s, an event that nearly dismantled the School of Theology.

As part of my presentation, I noted how the fundamentalist movement in the early 20^th century had resulted in a great gulf between thinkers and believers, breaking down nearly all the bridges between the two sides. Under those circumstances, accreditation had become an acrimonious issue in Adventism.[4] And here I excerpt several cryptic paragraphs from my 2017 paper:

“Strong voices wanted no worldly standards. Yet Loma Linda insisted that new medical students distinguish between a liver and a kidney. That meant an accredited liberal arts college, not a Bible college.

 

“The ‘yes’ in the overnight letter from our accrediting body in 1935, reeks of providence. The GC plan for only 3 colleges did not include Walla Walla. But when our President Landeen plunked that telegram in front of the GC President, that war was over. [5]

 

“The academics welcomed accreditation, but tragedy lurked.[6] Church leaders had become alarmed at teachers with non-SDA degrees. The Walla Walla board met, and on Monday, February 7, 1938, Landeen announced four resignations to students and faculty in chapel: his own and two from the most popular theology teachers on campus, Frederick Schilling and Harold Bass. Says Terrie Aamodt, ‘The school was in an uproar.’  But when student leaders met with Landeen, he urged caution.

 

“The students listened. In what is now a deeply-rooted Walla Walla tradition, they helped defuse the crisis, skipping one issue of the Collegian and then simply honoring each of the four departed under the heading of “A Salute.” They did not attack.

 

“But on a Friday in March, Schilling handed in his credentials and he and his wife resigned church membership. On Sabbath they moved to Pasco, Washington, 50 miles away, on Sunday he was an Episcopal priest. That fall Bass became a Methodist pastor.

 

“What went wrong? In 1889, Ellen White urged the church to send ‘strong’ young people to ‘the higher colleges in our land’ for ‘association with different classes of minds’ and ‘a knowledge of theology as taught in the leading institutions of learning.’[7] But in the 1930s, many church leaders didn’t believe that. And that battle rages still.

 

“My Walla Walla mentors, especially J. Paul Grove, taught us that the solution is to take all the Bible seriously, all of Ellen White. We come together before the Lord to explore what that means. And students notice. As one of mine, a life-long Adventist, put it in 2010, ‘Never until Walla Walla University have I read or heard of a helpful Ellen White.’

 

“A vivid memory from years ago: Grove took our theology faculty in his motor home to the. . . West Coast Religion Teachers Conference. . . . The twenty hours on that Loma Linda trip allowed us to address all the Adventist issues. But we did it by whittling each other down to size. My colleagues tackled me for making too much of Ellen White’s growth; with Chuck Scriven and Henry Lamberton, the issue was the substitutionary atonement, but on opposite sides of the debate. So we took both of them down a notch. Remarkably, for each issue we chose up sides differently! Grove listened as he drove but never pulled over and told us to stop. Adventism is not defined by voted statements, but by the full range of Adventist voices who work together then write and sign their names.”

And that is where I see the WCRTC as providing a model for the church. The earliest published Adventist “statement of beliefs” was both unofficial and anonymous, though we now know that it was crafted by Uriah Smith. Appearing in 1872, it was blunt and clear: “We have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline, having any authority with our people, nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by them.”

Why couldn’t the church take a leaf from our 1872 statement and several leaves from the 45-year history of the West Coast Religion Teachers Conference? That twenty-hour, dialogue-rich sojourn to the WCRTC at Loma Linda in Grove’s motor home suggests that trust and openness can protect the church from a Schilling-Bass tragedy. At the 2017 event we heard a blend of voices old and new. It was exhilarating. Theology teachers are here to bless the church and we will not keep quiet. Yet this place does not explode when a Walter Rea or a Desmond Ford comes to town. We listen, pray, then keep on with our work.

And here Ellen White’s comments are to the point. Responding to the furor that grew out of the 1888 crisis, she addressed those who were worried that the church might get something wrong:

“If a man makes a mistake in his interpretation of some portion of the Scripture, shall this cause diversity and disunion? God forbid. We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light. The church may pass resolution upon resolution to put down all disagreement of opinions, but we cannot force the mind and will, and root out disagreement. These resolutions may conceal the discord, but they cannot quench it and establish perfect agreement. Nothing can perfect unity in the church but the spirit of Christlike forbearance. Satan can sow discord; Christ alone can harmonize the disagreeing elements. Then let every soul sit down in Christ's school and learn of Christ, who declares Himself to be meek and lowly of heart. Christ says that if we learn of Him, worries will cease and we shall find rest to our souls.

 

“The great truths of the word of God are so clearly stated that none need make a mistake in understanding them. When as individual members of the church, you love God supremely and your neighbor as yourself, there will be no need of labored efforts to be in unity, for there will be oneness in Christ as a natural result.”[8]

That was the very statement that triggered the comment from my student cited above: “Never until Walla Walla University have I read or heard of a helpful Ellen White.”

In short, we don’t need voted statements that we all sign. What we do need is Adventists who express their convictions in books and articles with their own names attached. The composite result will represent Adventism at its best. And then Ellen White’s poignant desire will come close to fulfillment: “When men cease to depend upon men, when they make God their efficiency, then there will be more confidence manifested in one another. Our faith in God is altogether too feeble and our confidence in one another altogether too meager.”[9]

Alden Thompson is Professor of Biblical Studies at Walla Walla University.

Notes and References: