Spectrum Voices

Podrška izbeglim licima u Beogradu - avg 2015 (15).jpg

Igor Mitrović, Country Director of ADRA Serbia, describes the center ADRA has opened to help the river of refugees passing through Belgrade as they try to reach western Europe.

Igor Mitrović, Country Director of ADRA Serbia, describes the center ADRA has opened to help the river of refugees passing through Belgrade as they try to reach western Europe.

Question: ADRA Serbia, along with partners, opened the Asylum Information Centre in Belgrade on August 24 to help the thousands of migrants traveling toward Europe. Can you tell us a little bit about the center? How big is it? How many people can you help every day? What kind of help do you provide? How many people visit each day?

Answer: Our project presently involves indoor and outdoor activities in the Belgrade region. Our outreach activities actually began August 10, and then we had the official opening of the Info center on August 24, so our indoor activities then began.

The premise itself is 130 square meters (1400 square feet) of indoor space. It used to be a bookshop, but was left unused for a year or two, so we reopened it and gave it a humanitarian and protection purpose. It is located some 200 meters from the parks area where most of the refugees spend their time in Belgrade, whether outdoors or in the hostels.

There are 100-150 people who visit the Centre on a daily basis, and approximately 100 to 150 more we reach out to and assist in some way outdoors.

The Asylum Info Centre offers basically identical services in the premises itself and outdoors: providing information of a legal nature (all about the asylum-seeking procedure in Serbia and how to undergo it), and a practical nature (where is the Asylum centre, what is the currency rate, public transportation or taxi rates, how to access medical services, etc), offering and providing psycho-social support, assisting in accessing police and medical services, and mediating in communication with officials, as well as advocating for refugees and escorting them to places they need to go.

All of this is to protect them in different ways, as they are vulnerable and exhausted from the journey. Many of them survived serious violence. Given that Serbia is currently kind of a safe space after a long journey, once they reach us they are aware that this is the time to recuperate before most of them continue the unpredictable journey.

Where did the idea for the center come from and how did it start? How did ADRA Serbia get involved, and what is ADRA Serbia's role in operating the center?

The municipality of Savski Venac, the one most affected one in the city of Belgrade by the influx of refugees, shared the idea with the UNHCR in Serbia, then with the NGO Belgrade Center for Human Rights, and NGO KlikAktiv.

However, it seems that only when ADRA entered the partnership did it became feasible. The idea was growing and is still. All of these organizations I listed are part of this coalition. ADRA’s role is that of key funder, and provider of skilled interpreters and the facilitator/coordinator of different ongoing programs. So, basically the real strength of this Centre is in the functional multi-sectoral partnership and in joining the strengths of all the stakeholders.

What are the main things the migrants (refugees, asylum seekers, etc) need when they reach Belgrade? What is the main way the center helps?

Obviously, it is humanitarian aid (food, water, clothes, footwear, hygiene) but also some kind of shelter (tents, basically) and — protection. The first two are usually assumed and several agencies are providing them. However, the last one, protection, is lacking and has been something ADRA with its partners has been focusing on. Distribution of relief aid is still there but protection is our focus of choice.

Protection is the standard humanitarian term referring to all activities protecting human rights and empowering refugees to be able to exercise those rights. It means that our teams of trained volunteers and interpreters reach out to the scattered refugees in the Belgrade parks and streets, approach in a warm, human way, asking about needs, making themselves available, and offering assistance in meeting those needs.

We especially watch for the most vulnerable ones — families with children, multi-member families, disabled people and others.

^{Opening of the Asylum Info Centre.}

Where are most of the visitors to the Asylum Info Centre arriving from? How long do most travelers stay in Belgrade? Where are they headed?

Most of them are from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq. They also come from Eritrea and Nigeria.

Since mid-September, almost no Syrians have come to Belgrade (because instead they seem to go from the southern and eastern borders directly to the northern and north-western borders with Croatia, where they attempt to cross the border as soon as possible and continue their journey towards western Europe). More recently we have met predominantly Afghani, Pakistani and different peoples from Iraq.

However, during the most difficult period — from July to September — it was 65-75% Syrians. And while the dominant ethnic profile has changed, and the overall number of those reaching Belgrade has dropped (now about 100-200 are in the parks daily), it is interesting that almost all of those are extremely vulnerable individuals (EVIs): multimember families with observable challenging social backgrounds, elderly, unaccompanied minors, disabled, and so forth. It seems that those coming to Belgrade for recuperation are also those without sufficient resources to continue the journey. This makes our work and approach even more meaningful.

Very soon our Asylum Info Centre operations will be moved to the town of Preševo, at the Macedonian-Serbian border. This is the hotspot of humanitarian response presently and we are needed there. Three to five thousand refugees enter from Macedonia daily there.

How is the refugee crisis in Europe changing, and how has it changed since the center opened a little over a month ago? As EU countries bordering Serbia open and close their borders, is it difficult to offer accurate advice?

The number of refugees coming to Belgrade has dropped, mainly because the Hungarian border has closed and refugees had to shift their routes toward Croatia (further west). This is why we are moving our operations to the main critical point: where refugees are entering Serbia, at the border with Macedonia and in a smaller way border with Bulgaria. The winter period will bring some drop in the influx of refugees but not significantly. Still, the harsh winter conditions will make them additionally vulnerable and make provision of help more difficult. This is the challenge we will be facing and we are preparing for it.

Are local Adventist churches also getting involved in assisting refugees?

They are collecting humanitarian relief aid which ADRA then distributes, mainly in Belgrade. The churches have yet to get more involved.

Is this current crisis the main focus of ADRA Serbia right now? Other than this issue, what are ADRA Serbia's other projects? How big is your staff?

This is our primary project now, but we have others. Our other projects involve empowerment of Roma youth and developing psycho-social systems of supports in different contexts.

As for the Roma community, it is by far the most vulnerable ethnic group in Serbia. They are prone to constant mobility and economically motivated to seek asylum in western Europe. This only makes them additionally uprooted and unable to pursue education, and socially excludes and impoverishes them. We focus on educationally and professionally empowering Roma youth, and helping them with income generation in Serbia. Interestingly, it seems that migration has been a "specialty" of ADRA Serbia, either related to Roma or to the larger refugee crisis. This know-how helps in both projects.

Psychological support in collective and individual catastrophes is our other programmatic focus. The first refers to psycho-social support to individuals and communities who survived large catastrophes, like last year’s floods in Serbia. We have organized mid- and long-term activities which involve public lectures helping surviving communities to understand the process of recovery, groups of support and individual meetings with extremely vulnerable ones. (See the book by ADRA Serbia "Psychological support after a disaster" - http://www.adra.org.rs/publikacije/. Free paperback can be ordered on office@adra.org.rs.)

The second (psychological support in individual catastrophes) involves different programs, but the psychological aspect of palliative care is what we focus on presently. (Palliative care is a multidisciplinary approach to specialized medical care for people with serious illnesses. It focuses on providing patients with relief from the symptoms, pain, physical stress, and mental stress of a serious illness—whatever the diagnosis.) The Serbian medical system is still struggling to find ways to include psychologists in palliative care, notwithstanding their critical role. One could say that the holistic understanding of the human being undergirds ADRA’s approach in this respect. This is why not only physical wellbeing is on our agenda but also mental, social and economic.

How long have you been country director of ADRA Serbia? What do you most like about the job? What do you find most challenging? Where else have you worked for ADRA?

I first joined the ADRA network when I became ADRA Serbia country director in 2011.

I like how it gives exciting opportunities for embodying the theology I have been immersed in since my undergraduate and graduate studies. I worked as a pastor for 12 years before joining ADRA, and have been an associate undergraduate lecturer in biblical studies and Christian spirituality at the Belgrade Theological Seminary. Even while pastoring churches, the community-building work was very close to my heart and I found myself in the middle of it.

Then I somewhat unexpectedly moved to ADRA. It turned out to be just the right place and a call I felt at home with. Even before I came to work for ADRA, I saw what a unique space ADRA is for combining robust Christian and Adventist feeling for the wellbeing of people, communities and the environment, and finding ways to be directly involved in building it or restoring it.

Basically, I like the width of the field of work I am in. ADRA turns out, at least in my experience, to be the perfect ground for experimentation in small, local steps toward restoring individuals, communities and environment. I love it.

What can people living in other parts of the world do to help the refugees in Europe?

Press their own governments to be responsible, human and proactive in doing what they can to uproot the causes for the conflicts in these refugee-producing countries but also to react in human and humanitarian way once refugees do come to their countries. Many, especially western countries, can do a lot.

Raise awareness among their circle of influence on the drama and suffering going on in the lives of thousands of refugees. There are many prejudices about the background of these people. Naivety about the complex issues behind the crisis, and xenophobia, are both problematic.

Our primary responsibility is not to turn a blind eye to the suffering and to react immediately and responsibly.

Third, donate and support the work of professional and well-performing humanitarian agencies. To support ADRA, go to http://www.adra.org.rs/donate/. Thank you!

On the work of ADRA Serbia: www.adra.org.rs, https://www.facebook.com/ADRASerbia?ref=hl

To financially support the work of ADRA Serbia: http://www.adra.org.rs/donate/

Inline Images:

Asexual.jpg

I am a mother. A pastor’s wife. A teacher. An Adventist. I love Star Trek. I have a cat. And I am asexual. It took me over 30 years to discover that last part. Let’s start basic. According to Wikipedia, the source of much of my cultural knowledge, asexuality is “The lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity.” There are many different types of people who identify as asexual, but since this is my story and not a guide to understanding asexuality, I’ll just say that I am what’s called a “romantic asexual” as opposed to “aromantic asexual.” That means I fall in love. I have an orientation (heterosexual). I identify with a gender (cis female). I just don’t want to have sex. Not with anyone. Not ever.

This made me really judgy in my younger unmarried years. I saw my friends struggling to remain abstinent in their premarital relationships and I was puzzled. Don’t they have any self-control? Can’t they just make a decision and stick to it? I never seem to have problems! I made a commitment to remain pure and… you know… it’s not even that hard!

But after I got married things got difficult. I thought sex would be this mind-blowing experience that TV and culture says it will be. I thought there was something wrong with me. I spent hours talking things through with my poor husband. I went to see two different doctors. Neither of them were helpful. One of them told me I was a freak. I went to see two separate therapists. One of them told me that I didn’t like sex because my husband was doing it wrong.

Our culture is very heavily sexualized. On TV or in the movies if someone doesn’t want to have sex it’s because there is something wrong with them or because they are repulsed by their partner in some way. But that was not the case with me. I am head-over-heels crazy about my husband. I can’t imagine living without him. I just don’t want to have sex with him. And that brought with it some incredible shame. I was convinced I was broken. That I needed to be fixed. I have never met a person who identifies as asexual. I have never seen one portrayed on TV or in the movies. The weight that I carried with me all the time was crushing. I would avoid my husband when I knew it had been awhile since we were together. I would pretend to be exhausted. I started wearing baggy unflattering clothes around the house hoping to deter him. It was miserable for both of us. Any romantic activity would trigger my crushing shame and I associated all romantic touch with that shame. I was guilty all the time. 24 hours a day. It was a very dark few years.

One day I was online and someone shared something about Asexuality awareness day. I immediately latched onto it. What is asexuality? I spent the whole day and most of the next day doing research on the topic. I was amazed at how much I identified with the information. I couldn’t believe there were other people in the world like me! I was delighted with the information. I wasn’t broken. I was whole. I was made this way. The mental freedom I experienced was indescribable.

Identifying as asexual has changed everything for me. I have let go of the shame and guilt I had. I have accepted myself. I don’t want sex and that’s ok!

If you ever meet someone who identifies as asexual, and they share that information with you, let me give you the same advice I would give someone who meets anyone on the LGBTQIA spectrum. Please don’t ask them about their sex life. Since I’m writing this article, I will tell you that my husband and I work it out because we love each other. We spend time talking through how we feel. We share when our needs aren’t being met. We compromise. And we find joy in the journey.

I am not “out” as asexual. There are many reasons for this. Asexuality education is seriously lacking, even among strong supporters of the LGBT+ community. And, being an Adventist pastor’s wife, I am not usually surrounded by people who are strong supporters of the LGBT+ community. Maybe one day I will be ready to take on the responsibility of educating people about what asexuality is, what it means, and how to treat people with respect regarding their sexuality, but not now. I’m not ready to take that on. I’ve got kids to raise and work to do and a church to help run. Secondly, because I’m already married it’s not really necessary for me to be open about my sexuality with anyone but my husband. I don’t need to inform potential dating partners. I can be fully myself in the context of my marriage and I don’t feel stifled in my self-expression outside of that context. I don’t need to discuss my sex life with anyone at my church. It would make for uncomfortable, invasive, and unnecessary conversations. I have shared with some of my family and friends. I don’t exactly want to hide. I just don’t feel the need to share it from the pulpit.

Another concern is the same concern that many in the LGBT+ community face. I’m afraid that as soon as my asexuality was public my character would become immediately one-dimensional. No longer would I be the interesting person who has a cat and leads the song service and drops her kid off at school and watches Captain Jean-Luc Picard save the galaxy from certain destruction in her free time. Nope. I would be that asexual woman. A person defined by only one aspect of myself. And a very personal and private aspect of myself. I don’t want my church members to think of my sex life every time they think of me. As I write these things it strikes me how privileged I am to be able to keep my asexuality a secret. So many are unable to remain in the closet for their own sanity. And they are forced to do the hard things that I am able to avoid.

As a culture asexuality needs to be acknowledged. I am certain there are people out there like I am who feel like there is something wrong with them. Representation matters. I am writing this article hoping that it will help get the word out there. I would love to turn on the TV sometime and see a complicated, nuanced character work through his or her asexuality. I would love to see two asexual characters forge a romantic relationship, or one asexual and one sexual person have enough love and respect for one another that they figure out a way to make it work for both of them, as my husband and I have.

Our church is challenged by the idea of gay and lesbian relationships. It is challenged by transgender people expressing their true gender. It is challenged by bisexuality. Is it challenged by asexuality? Maybe not in the same way. After all, according to traditionalists, I’m technically not committing any sins by not having sex at all. But simply by identifying myself as asexual challenges the church. Here are a few questions that people have asked me (some of them more politely. I have condensed the questions for clarity) when I share my asexuality.

“Is that really a thing?”

“Are you sure you’re not just still recovering from that slump after the baby was born?”

“Maybe you just have a low sex drive. That’s not really a sexual identity.”

“You’ve really gotten into this whole LGBT+ thing a lot lately. Are you sure you’re not just trying too hard to identify with them?”

“Have you talked with your husband about how to satisfy you?”

“You know, women are just like that.”

Depending on my mood, and who I’m talking to I either laugh these comments off or try to patiently explain, again. But sometimes when I get home I can feel the insult; the implication again that I’m broken; that I’m exaggerating or attention grabbing or that I just need to have a “man who knows what he’s doing.” These comments are very deeply insulting to both me and my husband. And women. And men. And LGBT+ people. My marriage is so much more joyful and connected since I discovered my asexuality. I hope that as a culture we can learn how to approach all people with respect and dignity.

I imagine that in my next 30-60 years I will still be discovering new things about myself. I hope so. Life would be awfully boring without new information to discover and process.

I hope that one day when I’ve had a little more time to let this relatively recent discovery settle for me, I can be more open about it. Maybe I won’t feel so uncomfortable telling people even if I know they will be challenged by the inevitable discussion that follows. In the meantime, I’ll keep learning about gender and sexuality and enjoying watching James T. Kirk beat up strange creatures on alien planets.

The author of this article has requested to remain anonymous.

If you reply 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:

BestOfComments.png

In order to highlight the great feedback we often receive as comments to the articles on the Spectrum Website, the editorial team has introduced the Friday feature, The Best of the Comments. Spectrum editors select comments that exemplify respectful discourse and that further the conversations that begin with Spectrum's articles and news stories.

In Response to "Religion Can Be Fun" by Jason Hines

Comment by James Londis:
So right, though I would recommend folding "entertainment" into "joy." Preachers should use self-deprecating or "natural" humor frequently, the kind that is embedded in daily life! When telling a story to make a serious point, in almost every instance there are humorous element in the story which can and ought to be used. My opinion only!!

Comment by Graeme Sharrock:
Six-year-old Angie and her four-year-old brother Joel were sitting together in church. Joel giggled, sang, and talked out loud. Finally, his big sister had enough.
"You're not supposed to talk out loud in church."
"Why? Who's going to stop me?" Joel asked.
Angie pointed to the back of the church and said, "See those two men standing by the door? They're hushers."

In Response to "Rebuke and Retribution for the Hard of Heart" by Jean Sheldon

Comment by Thomas J Zwemer:
Yes even the church, yes especially, the church can become an idol. God gave man individuality, and communion is one on one with no institution between. Certainly those of similar relation come and worship together and rejoice and share their faith, hope, and love. But be assured that no institution stands between the person and God. The church may have a teaching function but not an intercessionary role. This is the most compelling basis for WO. And also the greatest barrier to achieving that goal. The priesthood of all believers is fundamental. Can we dare we be like a Daniel?

Comment by Sirje:
Christianity is based on Christ, not the OT covenant relationships. Whatever else Christ accomplished, His outreach was to individuals. He called his disciples one by one; and that call wasn't based on any predetermined covenant. The "new covenant" places God's will into the hearts of men - not by decree, but voluntarily by experience - the experience of being the recipient of grace and forgiveness.
The idea that God has a favorite people, be it Israel and Judah back then, or a particular denomination today, goes against everything that Christ came to demonstrate.

In Response to "ADRA Serbia Assists Migrants" by Alita Byrd

Comment by Carolyn Weasner
Thanks for this terrific interview - always good to hear what's happening in more depth than the typical 30 second news flash. I glad that ADRA works there continually with worthy local projects and partners, but then also responds to new crisis as they emerge as an example of demonstrating the gospel in action. Everyone should support ADRA!

In Response to "The Great Disappointment of 2015: The De-Valuing of Women" by Alisa Williams

Comment by Mackenzian:
Thank you for writing, Alisa. What do we do when our patience has expired? How do we care for ourselves, and still live out the callings that we have in or beyond communities that don't make space for us?
I'm in your corner as you and others across the denomination work this out over the upcoming months and years. I would love to see what emerges from these "ashes." Thanks again.

Comment by Cherry Ashlock:
I appreciate your observations and along with you 100's of other members were disappointed! It is appalling that our church is arguing about the value of women in this day and age! We should be the leaders in treating others just like Jesus did and would. He respected women and tried to show that they are equal and have value. He created women as the crowning act of creation to be equal and a team member with men. Anti womens ordination is nonsense!

Comment by Janet Brock:
I've been waiting fifty years for the church to fully recognize women. There was a time during my teen years when I planned to leave the church because of its treatment of women, but I decided to hang in there. Over the years, we made some progress--women elders-- and then women ministers. I figured ordination would eventually come as well. And then along came San Antonio--and not only San Antonio--suddenly some people were trying to roll back the progress we had already made. And so now at the age of 66, I have become much more active in promotion of women's ordination. But I have to admit it's very discouraging. I've done my best over the years in the church's education system to promote equality of gender, and I hope I have made a difference. By the way, I have been a wife for over 40 years and a mother of four grown kids. Yes, motherhood was a full-time occupation for me when my kids were preschool, but that time is only a small part of a woman's life. I have been able to contribute quite a few years to Seventh-day Adventist education since then. My mother before me was a church school teacher and she was insistent that every woman needed a career, needed to be able to fend for herself if she needed to, and so my three sisters and I each chose a career, one of the smartest things we ever did!

If you respond to this article, please:

Jackson Wendy.jpg

“White is very clear about decentralising power,” says Jackson. “Authority does not lie in the hierarchical structure and decision should be made locally where possible.”

Church unity is not about uniformity, but union with Christ; not about knowing, but practicing truth as found in Jesus, an Avondale College lecturer’s doctorate reveals. Dr. Wendy Jackson compared the views and practices of Restoration Movement leader Alexander Campbell and Seventh-day Adventist Church pioneer Ellen White to reach her conclusions about achieving unity.

While both Campbell and White believed unity begins in Christ, they understood the methodologies for maintaining unity differently.

Campbell’s back-to-Acts model emphasised a comprehensive restoration of New Testament Christianity that “effectively limited the possible authority structures of the church,” writes Jackson in her thesis. Campbell saw disunity stemming from the mixing of human opinion with divine authority. He guarded against it by emphasising agreement in the core facts of the gospel, the use of a consistent method of Bible interpretation and the sole use of biblical terminology. The problem, though: “You risk becoming irrelevant,” says Jackson.

White’s union-with-Christ model emphasises “the importance of the transformation that occurs in the lives of those who are connected to Christ,” writes Jackson. White saw disunity, even that which at first appeared to be associated with theological disagreement, as stemming primarily from disconnection with Christ. She saw connection with Christ, though, as resulting in an understanding of what it means to be a church, what it means to be a Christian and the nature of truth as it is in Jesus. “White expected that experiencing this transformation would make individuals sympathetic to the truths of the remnant, willing to submit to one another and prepared to recognise the Bible as the rule of faith and practice,” says Jackson. The implication: it is not about difference in doctrine but about how you deal with that difference.

Campbell and White did agree on one thing: bottom-up rather than top-down authority. “White is very clear about decentralising power,” says Jackson. “Authority does not lie in the hierarchical structure and decision should be made locally where possible.” White’s concern centred more on the importance of order and the character of the leaders within the authority structure rather than on the form of authority structure itself.

Despite using published primary sources from the 1800s, Jackson says her thesis, The unity of the church and church authority, is particularly relevant for the worldwide Adventist Church in 2015. The church voted down a motion that would have allowed each of its divisions to decide for themselves whether to ordain women to the gospel ministry. The vote ended a five-year study characterised by “vigorous and sometimes acrimonious debate,” according to the church’s flagship journal, Adventist Review.

While delegates at the 60th General Conference Session of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in San Antonio were discussing the ordination issue, church members were interceding in the prayer room. Dominik Zeh / Adventist News Network

“In Scripture, leadership is not about authority, it’s about servanthood,” says Jackson. She describes the six-hour discussion on the floor of the church’s session in San Antonio in July as “a perfect opportunity to submit to each other, with part of the church saying, ‘We need this now but we realise you don’t,’ and the other saying, ‘We don’t need this now but we realise you do.’ Instead there was intimidation and triumphalism.”

The conferral of Jackson’s Doctor of Philosophy comes 25 years after her graduation as a medical doctor specializing in paediatric endocrinology.

Jackson will be awarded her doctoral degree from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University at year end.

Brenton Stacey is public relations officer, Avondale College of Higher Education.

If you respond to this article, please:

Inline Images:

Ventura.png

Can I still be a part of the Adventist Church if I don’t believe everything the church officially believes? Do I even want to be?

Last April, I thought about leaving the Adventist Church.

I was listening to a report from an "Alternate Sexualities" summit held in South Africa, from which I learned that I still disagreed with my church’s official standing on LGBTQ+ relationships. (See reports here, here, here and here.)

“As Seventh-day Adventists, we are opposed to homosexual relationships and practices.”

“As a church, we will not officiate same-sex marriages, support gay-straight alliances in our schools or participate in any action that could condone same-sex relations.”

I kept hearing this reference to “we:” “We believe…we decided…” and I felt sick because I didn’t believe this. I didn’t decide this.

The report left me with two questions slamming around in my head: Can I still be a part of the Adventist Church if I don’t believe everything the church officially believes? Do I even want to be?

This past summer, many members of my church were heartbroken over the “no” vote in regards to women’s ordination at the General Conference Session. Many of us wondered, can we still be Adventists if we don’t agree with this? Do we even want to be?

I can’t answer this question for everyone, but I’ve answered it for myself.

After listening to the aforementioned report, I poured my heart out to a teacher who listened and then completely changed my perspective. “Sarah,” he said. “You get to decide what Adventism is.”

Before that moment, I viewed Adventism as something someone else decided and controlled. There was one Adventism, one way of doing and believing, and I either fit into that or I didn’t.

But in reality, there are as many different ways of being Adventist as there are people in the Adventist Church.

In a sense, millions of Adventisms exist in our world. If someone asks what books Adventists read, both “The Great Controversy” and “Harry Potter” are viable answers. If someone asks what Adventists do on Sabbath, both “attend church” and “eat at Olive Garden” are accurate.

When people ask what Adventists believe, they often receive a standard answer: Adventists believe in the Sabbath and that Jesus is coming soon.

In reality, Adventist belief differs widely. There are Adventists who believe in the sanctity of same-sex marriage, and there are those who don’t. There are Adventists who don’t believe women should be ordained pastors, and those who do. There are Adventists who believe Jesus is coming really soon, like next Tuesday; Adventists who believe “soon” means in their grandchild’s lifetime; Adventists who believe “soon” might mean the year 3015.

Adventist beliefs are as diverse as the members that make up the church. If Adventism was only one thing, only one way of believing, perceiving and living in the world, I would have to leave because there wouldn’t be room for me. But I’m staying, because there’s room for me and there’s room for you, even if we believe differently in a lot of different areas.

I’m staying because Adventism is mine, and I decide what it looks like. I’m staying because if I left, I would forfeit my ability to grow, shape and shift my church. I’m staying because I’m positively influenced by other Adventists, both similar to and different from me.

I’m staying. Will you?

Sarah Ventura is a senior English major at Union College in Lincoln, Nebraska. This article first appeared in The Clocktower, the Union College student journal, and is reprinted here by permission.

If you respond to this article, please:

BestOfComments.png

Here are eight noteworthy comments from this week's stories, with links to the articles under which the comments appeared.

In response to "I Thought About Leaving the Adventist Church," by Sarah Ventura:

Comment by efcee:
There is no virtue to either staying with or leaving the SDA denomination. The only virtue is to follow wherever the Spirit of God leads. One can't spend too much time in any denomination without coming to the conclusion that no two people accept an entire statement of beliefs in the same manner. That is, unless the doctrinal statement is mercifully brief. If you were to poll all Adventist pastors on their personal harmony with SDA 28 fundamental beliefs, you will not find harmony among them, so why look for it among the general membership? When I look around for a church to join, I look for one that has an understanding of scripture that most closely harmonizes with the teachings of Jesus as I understand them. What else could I possibly do? I know I will never find a church that harmonizes completely with my understanding of scripture, so I choose the one that comes closest to the mark. I also have a second choice in case I ever find the current choice to become too offensive to the reputation of God. I certainly don't recommend that anyone join or remain in a church where they have strong disagreements with the truly fundamental doctrines - that wouldn't make much sense. Theologian Herman Hoeh once wrote, "You can't JOIN the true Church; ONLY GOD CAN PUT YOU INTO IT BY HIS SPIRIT." The fact that the SDA church continues to update its statement of fundamental beliefs is proof positive that our understanding of correct doctrine changes through time. Our need to vote on those updates is proof positive that we do not all agree on how those beliefs should be expressed. Some day I'd like to meet a person who has found a church with a completely flawless set of doctrines. I'd like to join it. But I'm afraid that my membership in that church would give me no additional virtues or claims to Christ's righteousness than I already possess.

Comment by James Christianson:
As I read all of the critical comments to this article I understand why our church is not growing in North America. Christianity and yes, even Adventism is a journey and each person is at a different level of maturity and understanding with their creator...how can we not see that? Last year I brought a friend to church, after they had been coming on a regular basis for 2-3 months someone in our leadership asked me in a very curt way, "so are they coming here to be Adventist or are they just coming to come?" I was floored. Just a couple months into this journey and people in our church wanted them to be Adventists or to not come at all, as if following a set of 28 rules exactly how they are written is really all that is necessary to have a relationship with Christ. People, the work of the Holy Spirit is not our job and we need to give people the space to grow in their understanding, to grow in Christ. I applaud Sarah for asking difficult questions and for wrestling with what she believes (far too many are too afraid to do this and like the Jews in Jesus' time, . She will stay and hopefully the conversations continue and her understanding will grow with the help of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said in Matt 23:27 “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity. 28 Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness." Sarah, your heart is open to God, keep seeking Christ, he will not fail you.

Comment by Second Opinion:
I want to be supportive of this young author. She has sincere conflicts with some of the denomination's positions on social issues, and she would not be alone! However, the premise that "I get to decide what Adventism is" may be a bit of a misnomer. From a sociological standpoint, we know that "Sheila-ism" (as Robert Bellah first called it in Habits of the Heart) has been around for quite awhile. "Designer religion" is part and parcel of the autonomous nature of contemporary religious experience. Yet, even if you agree with the idea that "I get to decide," you still have to acknowledge that you may be in danger of overlooking what so many others have "decided" before you. Sure, you can "undecide" some of what has been agreed upon by others, but you will always be indebted to (or perhaps limited by) a tradition that, at best, you must navigate. It may be more accurate to say that we all stand, one way or another, on the Adventist scaffold. We get to work on the building, renovating here and there or bringing things up to code, but we stand on a framework of belief and meaning erected by others.

In response to "Adventists in the Spotlight," by Loren Seibold

Comment by Herold Weiss:
It is a sad truth that the Adventist church at one time did wish to escape being classified as a cult or as a fundamentalist, but it has become a fundamentalist denomination. In the late fifties and early sixties when the famous dialogue with the evangelicals was taking place those involved in the dialogue did try to have the church seen as evangelical, but not fundamentalist. The sticky point was belief in verbal inspiration and Bible infallibility. Because the adventists would not agree to these doctrines the dialogue with the evangelicals broke down. At the time I was a visiting faculty as a Sabbatical replacement at Emmanuel Missionary College and Dr. Edwin Thiele was my chairperson. He would get quite excited when the details of the dialogue with the evangelicals was discussed and some were pushing for verbal inspiration. He had demonstrated that there was error in the Bible and his demonstration was in a textbook being used in Seminaries around the world. It is a sad thing to see that the number one Fundamental Belief states that the Bible is the "written" word of God and that it is infallible.

Comment by Bjork:
Great piece of writing Loren. I can say that I do fall into the third group "faith doesn’t rely on these frightening prophetic narrative." The whole obsessing about the end of the world, how it will happen, and who will be at fault seems to be a very unhealthy mindset. It is fine to mull it over occasionally but to make it the supreme focus. End of the world obsession also infringes on currently living life and causes paranoia. Am also extremely amused by the obsessive following of many when it comes to conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories that have been proven wrong and flawed, time and time again. In fact some conspiracy theories are so demented, I am usually pretty certain that those telling me them have a mental health disorder to even believe them in the first place. With this said. I am married to extremely lapsed Catholic. He finds it uncomfortably annoying how SDA's spout random bits of information about the Pope and follow that up with the end of the world prophecy. He says, how would SDA's feel if the Catholic church was running around saying this same unfounded information/gossip about the Ted Wilson and Doug Batchelor along with church leaders. SDA's would shriek about persecution. Yet, we feel free to do this to the Catholics and live with our own end of the world mythologies as if they are truth and reality. Luke 6:31 covers this: " Do to others as you would have them do to you." and Mark 12:31: "The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." Eventually the world will probably end. It may be the way SDA's predict, or could happen in a far different manner then we ever thought possible. In the meantime, maybe we should stop obsessing over our possible future. Start living in the present. Hug our children, make pumpkin pie, and remember what Proverbs says: There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community. Proverbs 6:16-19 (NIV)

In Response to "Ryan Bell Disinvited by Pacific Union College," by Jared Wright

Comment by Beth:
Speaking as an ex-SDA, now nonbeliever, I think it was the correct decision given the mission of the school. The concern that exposure to new and different ideas will make some students reject SDA teachings and even religion itself is a valid concern. Religious beliefs sometimes survive careful reasoning, and sometimes they don't. The reasons depend on all sorts of things, but pretending that religious beliefs automatically hold up if the person is thoughtful and prayerful about examining them is just that - pretending. It is a common belief that people do not reason their way out of either the SDA faith or religious belief in general. They instead reject God due to sin issues or psychological problems or some other personal defect. However, thoughtful, prayerful people are losing their faith in accelerating numbers right now, and it is partly because they are exposed to ideas that end up making more sense to them than their original ideas did. If the school does not want to be blamed for adding to those numbers, it is wise to limit exposure to those ideas. If the school wants to strengthen those beliefs, they are better served by bringing in someone who doubted but ultimately kept their faith, rather than someone who doubted but ultimately lost their faith due to believable reasons that the student hadn't really thought of before. Ryan is also correct to hold up the mirror and show that this is what is going on. If it makes you feel better that PUC did this, then your student is probably at the right place.

Comment by Terry L Anderson:
Listening to serious people and ideas one disagrees with may be the best way to affirm one's own opinions and beliefs. It is never wrong to explore the reasons for your beliefs.

Comment by Keith Paulusse:
I am not an atheist, I believe in a God as modelled by Jesus Christ, I do not believe in a supernatural intervening God. I like many of Ryan's philosophies and ideas they are not rampantly anti Christ. He truly demonstrates critical thinking and assessment skills, these test for truth and expose error. By dis-inviting Ryan from PUC Heather Knights letter clearly shows her attempt to keep students passive and apathetic, and tries to manipulate their thoughts, frightened that they will be exposed to the great challenges of the great thinkers and scientist of our time. Iam a big fan of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hopkins, Thomas Paine , and atheist David Attenborough famed BBC wild life presenter. Yet I am a greater fan of Jesus Christ because I was able to use my critical thinking and reasoning skills while being exposed to great ideas and challenges in comparing the thoughts of these great men, testing for truth to ensure my faith is not a blind faith, but a reasonable faith open to change ( present truth ) when more truth is presented and proved using scientific methods and research. To think PUC student will miss out on hearing a great mind, just because the hierarchy wants to protect and patronise intelligent student who are quite able to think and make decisions for themselves. What a sad tragedy for PUC students that their hierarchy is acting in the name of God, NOT !

If you respond to this article, please:

Brunt.jpg

Senior pastor of California's Azure Hills Church, John Brunt, retired from his long career in the Adventist church two months ago. In this interview, he talks about the milestones of his ministry, the evolution of his faith, his greatest disappointment and his advice to the next generation.

Senior pastor of California's 2,000-member Azure Hills Church, John Brunt, retired from his long career in the Adventist church two months ago. In his 50 years of service, he has seen the church grow and change and has been present at some pivotal moments. Spectrum asked Brunt about the milestones of his ministry, the evolution of his faith, his greatest disappointment and his advice to the next generation.

You have spent your life working for the Adventist church as a pastor and administrator, from Walla Walla University to your final post as senior pastor of the Azure Hills Church in California. What is the best job you have ever had?

I have thoroughly enjoyed all 50 years, from starting my ministry as youth pastor of the Paradise Valley Church near San Diego on September 1, 1965, to my retirement from the Azure Hills Church on August 31, 2015 — 50 years later to the day. It seemed to get better and better, and in that regard the last thirteen-and-a-half years at Azure Hills stand out as the best. I not only had the opportunity to pastor a wonderful, gracious congregation and work with an incredibly dedicated group of associates, but I also had the privilege of teaching at La Sierra University and Loma Linda University during that time. Therefore I have able to combine my interests in pastoring, preaching, and teaching all at the same time. It kept me busy and (for the most part) out of trouble, and I have truly enjoyed it.

What has been the biggest challenge, or the most disappointing thing, about your career in the church?

It is sometimes a bit discouraging to sense that we have made progress on some issues and then see us slip backwards. A small and maybe trivial example: I thought we had gotten past the distrust of modern translations of the Bible and had educated the church to understand the process of the transmission and translation of the Bible, but then in some circles we see old attitudes that the King James Version is the only trustworthy Bible pop up again. Progress can never be taken for granted. We have to keep educating on issues that should have been settled.

Is there a particular moment you would consider the most difficult?

Yes. We went through a period at Walla Walla when the School of Theology was under attack by some of our own church leaders at the time. I was the former Dean of that School and was then serving as academic vice president, so I was very much in the center of the conflict. It was an extremely difficult time. Fortunately the board created a commission that investigated and issued a report that put a number of the charges against the School of Theology to rest, although it also made suggestions for improvement in the School. It didn’t totally solve the problem, but it did help mitigate the conflict.

What do you count as your greatest success?

I think I would rather think in terms of what has been the most rewarding. Success belongs only to God. We plant and water, but only God gives growth. I have found it especially rewarding to help mentor those who will carry on the future ministry of the church, both in the educational and pastoral roles. At Walla Walla I was privileged to search for and hire several young faculty members who have gone on to become significant teachers and leaders in that institution. At Azure Hills I have enjoyed working with young associates, some who continue to bless that congregation, and others who have gone on to other places to make significant contributions in ministry. Watching the next couple generations develop and blossom, and being able to have some small part in helping them along, has been one of the most rewarding aspects of my ministry.

What motivated you to become a pastor? When did you decide?

I grew up in the Glendale City Church where we had a long series of great pastors who were also excellent preachers. From a very early age I started looking to them as models and thinking about becoming a pastor. I like to think God was leading in that process.

How would you say the Adventist church has changed over the decades of your career? Has the way the administration works/how decisions are made/the hierarchy changed? What about the beliefs and general overall thinking of the church members?

In 50 years the church has changed a lot and most of it has been for the better. For example, at least where I have been working, congregations now have much more say in pastoral selection and pastors are much freer to make choices about their placements. I think this is good because it gives both congregations and pastors greater buy-in and commitment.

We have also grown theologically. I believe that over all we have become less legalistic and more Christ-centered. Many Adventists have become more involved in engaging with the social and ethical issues of the world as part of their Christian commitment. There is less preoccupation with trying to figure out when Christ will come and more with living the Kingdom now. We have recognized that we prepare people for the Second Coming not by scaring them with beasts but by inviting them to commit their lives to Jesus and His mission to bring the values of God’s Kingdom “on earth as it is in heaven.”

Yet such progress is never without setbacks. And there are areas where we as a church have regressed. When I grew up, to be an Adventist included a commitment to peace and a refusal to engage in combat. We were conscientious non-combatants. That has almost entirely been lost today, and I think we are the poorer for it.

Another area of regress has been the growing tendency to try and shore up the borders of Adventism by defining beliefs ever more precisely and divisively. Discussions on both the Fundamental Beliefs and the Church Manual at the recent General Conference Session are examples of this tendency. On the other hand, local churches seem to be flourishing by recognizing, as my friend Rick Rice has taught us, that church is about belonging as well as believing and behaving.

Have your personal beliefs changed or evolved in any way?

I think I can best answer this by expanding on what I just said. Over the years my basic theological beliefs have not changed as much as my approach to ministry. What we believe is important. It inevitably affects the way we live. Therefore theology is vital, and I have devoted much of life to it. But I hope I am more attuned to the personal aspects of our faith than I once was. I am much more engaged in the belonging aspect of church. I found over my years at Azure Hills that transformation comes less from theoretical beliefs than by involvement in a community of faith and caring. I still care about and work to do theology, but I also believe that Sabbath fellowship meals may have more to do with salvation than fundamental beliefs.

You were on the Southeastern California Conference Committee that helped to elect Sandy Roberts, the first woman conference president in the Adventist church, and you have spoken out strongly in favor of the ordination of women. What do you think will happen in the future as the Adventist church wrestles with this issue?

As my friend Gerald Winslow says, “You can’t hold back the dawn.” The church will end its discrimination against women, in spite of what happened in San Antonio. I remember all the supposedly “biblical” arguments that were used when I started my ministry for racial segregation and opposition to interracial marriage. Today we look back at those arguments with embarrassment and disbelief. The day will come when we recognize that the supposedly “biblical” arguments against the full involvement of women in ministry are equally specious. We are already seeing more conferences and unions take various actions to mitigate the General Conference vote. Even after the disappointment of San Antonio, more rays of dawn are becoming visible.

Let me add that I had the privilege of serving on the nominating committee that elected Dr. Roberts as our conference president in Southeastern, and I haven’t regretted it for a moment. She is one of the best administrators I’ve ever worked with, and the conference is flourishing under her leadership.

I have also had the privilege of working with several women associates at Azure Hills over the years, and every one of them has been a huge blessing to the ministry of that congregation. I can’t imagine some of the good things that happened there, especially in our generational ministries, without the dedicated women who have given their lives to ministry. And the idea that the church should not affirm their ministry in the same way as that of the men they work with is hardly in keeping with a God who shows no partiality.

You and your wife have moved north to Seattle, to be nearer to your children and grandchildren. Besides spending time with your family, do you have any other specific plans of how you will be spending your time now that you have officially retired?

It’s hard to think too much about that as we are still surrounded by boxes that we need to unpack. But once everything is settled I have some writing I would like to do and have already accepted several speaking appointments, most in this area but some internationally as well. I’m sure I’ll keep busy. But we really are enjoying lots of time with our grandsons, and we don’t want to become so busy that we infringe on that.

What advice would you have for young ministers in the Adventist church?

Keep your eyes focused on Jesus. The work will not always be easy, but then Jesus already made that clear. After all, ministry is about service. But there is nothing more rewarding and exciting than watching God work and being part of what God is doing to bless people. Also, when you get criticism, don’t become defensive. We all get criticism. You will be amazed at how God raises up saints who support you. Love the people, and they will love you as well.

What do you think the Adventist church needs to do or focus on if it wants to continue to grow, as well as keep the members it has?

Let me answer with a passage of Scripture: Ephesians 4:15-16 (NRSV)

But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.

I think we have been better at speaking the truth than we have at building up the body in love. But if we focus on Christ, truth cannot be truth apart from his compassionate love for all, especially those considered outcasts and unworthy by the good religious folk of the day. The church will succeed as long as our local churches are caring communities that demonstrate the compassion of Christ, by speaking the truth in love.

If you respond to this article, please:

academic_Freedom.png

My name is Aubyn Fulton, I have been a professor of psychology at Pacific Union College for the last 28 years, and I am the one who invited Ryan Bell to speak to my class. The decision by the PUC president to censor my class is the most egregious violation of academic freedom I have ever seen at PUC, and calls into question whether there is any meaningful academic freedom here.

My name is Aubyn Fulton, I have been a professor of psychology at Pacific Union College for the last 28 years, and I am the one who invited Ryan Bell to speak to my class. Those who are critical of this decision should direct all attacks at me, as the school was not involved in the invitation in any way. I did not consult with the president, academic dean, my department chair or department colleagues before issuing the invitation. For some this may seem unusual, or even, as one of my colleagues has suggested in a note on this site, unethical. I can only point out over the last 28 years that I have never once consulted in advance with any institutional supervisor about how I structure my class periods. I am aware of no requirement that I or any other faculty member do so, nor am I aware of any ethical principle that would make such notification advisable, even were it practical. I was aware that having Ryan present in my course might be controversial for some, and might cause problems for administrators; however the same could be said for many of the hours that I teach every quarter. We cannot teach effectively in fear of offending the most conservative (or most liberal) factions of our constituency. I treated my invitation to Ryan Bell precisely the way I have treated the thousands of class hours I have been responsible for preparing over the last 28 years. I understand and respect how difficult is the task of a college president. I worked very hard to find and suggest compromises that would address most of the concerns that were raised about my invitation while preserving most of the benefit of having Ryan present. All of these were rejected without comment, and it was made clear to me that the administration had no interest in working with me to find a solution.

I have no regrets about how I handled this situation; I believed two months ago, when I invited Ryan that he was an especially relevant and appropriate speaker for this particular class, and I continue to believe that. What I do deeply regret is the action taken by the PUC president to ban Ryan from campus and rescind my invitation to have him teach in my class without my permission and over my strong and repeated objections. I apologize to Ryan for the poor treatment he has been shown by my institution.

I always welcome feedback on the decisions I make while exercising my responsibilities as a teacher, and it has been a rare opportunity to receive so much unsolicited feedback in this case. As always, I have endeavored to open myself up to advice and correction from colleagues, students, administrators and other interested parties. At the same time, I have learned to live with criticism and disapproval. Higher education is not a popularity contest, and teaching decisions are not made based on what will offend the least number of people.

This comment is already long and will get longer, but I would like to state for the record several points about this episode in order to correct some misunderstandings that seem to have crept into the conversation, and make clear the context and reasons for the invitation. I am sure many will still be critical of my decision, but it seems best for such criticism to be made with a fuller understanding of the situation:

1. Discussion of this event seems most often to refer to Ryan having been invited to speak on campus, and comparisons are being made to similar controversies at other institutions involving commencement addresses or other general campus events. I am actually on record as being opposed to those types of censorship as well, including when the target is someone with whom I deeply disagree. It is important to keep in mind though that Ryan was not invited by “the college,” or to speak to some open, non-specific group of students. Ryan was invited by a teacher to speak to a formal, regular course. No one other than the teacher typically is involved in such decisions, and it is irregular in the extreme for anyone other than the course teacher to be involved in changing such decisions.

2. PUC is under no obligation to recognize academic freedom if it does not want to, but for many decades it has chosen to include an academic freedom statement in its Faculty Handbook and Faculty Contract. Academic freedom is not absolute, but if it means anything it must mean that faculty have the right to say and do things in their courses with which administration, the Board and significant fractions of the constituency strongly disagree. The decision by the PUC president to censor my class is the most egregious violation of academic freedom I have ever seen at PUC, and calls into question whether there is any meaningful academic freedom here. One can argue that my decision to invite Ryan to speak to my class was a mistake (I do not believe it was, but I have been known to have been wrong in the past); but it cannot be argued that censoring Ryan was consistent with PUC’s stated commitment to academic freedom.

3. I did not invite Ryan to persuade my students to give up their faith (this should be obvious and go without saying, but I have seen that it is not). I invited Ryan to share his personal story (his journey from fundamentalist to atheist) and to talk about his newest project (“Life After God” - which I highly recommend to interested parties) which is aimed at supporting people who are struggling with religious doubts. Obviously, supporting people struggling with religious doubts is a big part of the mission of an Adventist Christian liberal arts college as well.

4. The suggestion that the “Life After God” project is somehow inconsistent with the mission of PUC or any Adventist college or university could only be made by someone who intentionally ignores its stated purpose, which specifically not to try to persuade people to become atheists. The program also makes clear and explicit that “After God” often refers to people who are deeply committed to their faith, but are in transition from one understanding of God, that perhaps was too rigid, limited or immature, to another. No one should be surprised that an Adventist college campus is full of people in this situation.

5. I made the decision to invite Ryan to my class because in my judgment his story and current project was uniquely relevant to the specific learning objectives of the course, one of which is to help students better appreciate the tensions and the compatibilities of faith and learning. This has been a learning objective for our Department and this course for many years, and no administrator has ever challenged it. For any conversation about faith and learning to be honest, it must include the real option of arriving at an anti-faith position. To censor or ban that position is to invalidate the faith development of the majority of students. In the course I invited Ryan to speak to, we regularly schedule class periods devoted to the faith and learning conversation, almost always by people who have clear and unapologetic commitments to Adventist faith. My judgment was (and remains) that it is appropriate to occasionally invite someone to participate in this conversation that has different commitments. This is how students learn.

6. Arguments that college students are too young, unsophisticated or immature to handle presentations by atheists are insulting to these young adults and badly misunderstand what higher education, and religious maturity, are all about. In my experience, more Adventist young adults reject their faith because they have experienced a closed system unwilling to interact with differing points of view than because they have listened to people with whom they disagree.

7. The censorship of my class and the banning of Ryan Bell strengthens the atheist argument that religious faith is incompatible with intellectual honesty and exposure to a wide spectrum of perspectives and evidence. I of course am not an atheist, and I dispute the claim that faith is incompatible with an open and honest search for truth. I wrote my doctoral dissertation in psychology on mature religious faith. My argument then, and my subsequent 28-year teaching career at PUC, has been based on the premise that religious maturity is undermined by attempts at indoctrination and censorship of alternative views, and is strengthened by exposure to and genuine exploration of a spectrum of viewpoints. Mature religious faith requires open and honest confrontation with all critical voices, and is best formed in what psychologist Gordon Allport called the “workshop of doubt”. As I told my class last week, if I thought it were true that exposure to contrary positions was damaging to faith, then I would be an atheist too. Fortunately, this is not true. Sadly, the censorship of Ryan Bell at PUC last week made it that much more difficult to argue that Adventist education is anything more than indoctrinating students to parrot back the beliefs and thoughts of their elders. I wish the administrators at PUC, and many in its constituency, had more confidence in their faith, and more courage to stand for its basic values. As one of the most influential writers in my own faith development once famously wrote, it is the work of true education to train our young people to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men’s thought.

Aubyn Fulton, PhD, is Professor of Psychology with an emphasis on Clinical Psychology at Pacific Union College.

If you respond to this article, please:

preaching.jpg

We must learn anew what it means to encounter and bear witness to the one who lived, died, and rose again. This is surely a dying art in Adventism, as the last General Conference Session made clear.

“Whoever speaks must do so as one speaking the very words of God.”--1st Peter 4:11

I was in San Antonio during this year’s General Conference Session. Although I was not able to observe the business meetings as much as I would have liked because of other duties, I was struck by a phenomenon that made me uncomfortable. It is a phenomenon shared by many other Protestant denominations whose church meetings I have guest-attended. I noticed that the arguments made for or against any position were almost always devoid of theological content.

Some might find my last statement odd. After all, did not people regularly refer to the Bible, God, and other similar theological categories? While it is no doubt true that people spoke like Christians by appealing to Christian theological categories, few were able to do so in a theologically consistent manner and in keeping with some recognizable standard of Christian speech.

For instance, I heard a lot of people “proof-texting,” that is, using scriptural passages to buttress particular positions without regard for the exegetical context or the narrative shape of the Christian gospel. I heard others appealing to secular norms of justice, tolerance, and “progress,” but without any explanation as to how secular norms are to relate to confessing Christians and why they should be normative for Christians. Still others engage in anti-Catholic rhetoric as if the fact that something smells like Catholicism is enough to reject it.

I found myself asking, more often than I liked, “What does this argument have to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ?” We seem to have lost the grammar of Christianity. That is, a coherent way to talk about our faith and, since every language is embedded in a way of life, how we should live as Christians. We have somehow acquired the habit of bypassing rigorous theological argumentation. How did the church become this way? I would to make some suggestions.

Whenever Christians are confronted by a reified ecclesial institution and intransigent dogmatism, one very tempting response is to turn inward and retreat into a personal religiosity. This makes tremendous sense. Hegel observes in the Phenomenology of Spiritthat external pressures and limitations often force our consciousness to withdraw into itself (e.g., stoicism, scepticism) in order to gain some degree of freedom. In Christianity’s case, this turn enabled Christians to explore and experiment with neglected dimensions of their faith.

Pietism was such a response to rigid Lutheran scholasticism. Its emphasis on personal piety, according to its proponents, enlivened Christian faith and yielded ecclesial practices that many Adventists still cherish today. For instance, we must thank pietism for institutionalizing the priesthood of all believers and for challenging a kind of rigid clericalism that was present in both Protestant and Catholic traditions at the time. However, this inward turn is also risky when taken to the extreme.

Pietism prepared the way for both theological fundamentalism and liberalism. Needless to say, both traditions are very much alive today. Though very different, they share a basic similarity: that religiosity is primarily about the individual. What the two traditions disagree on is what should be taken as normative by the individual. For the fundamentalist, it is a particular understanding of “the plain reading” of the biblical text, independent of interpretive mediation by tradition or other authority. For the liberal, it is experience, reason, desire, and so on. A shallow form of liberalism today is largely relativistic. Its proponents say things like, “I think Christianity should teach that...” or “Jesus Christ is my Lord, but that doesn’t have to apply to everyone.”

Of course, what both perspectives miss is the fact that the private and the personal are always already colored by our social existence: by our cultural, political, and economic life. Texts are always interpreted, as are reason and personal experiences. Alasdair MacIntyre points out that reason is always rooted in particular traditions that define the parameters of what is thinkable. More importantly, the reverse is also true: our personal beliefs and confessions also imply a particular view of social life, even if this social life is defined by individualistic norms.

This is why in a modern liberal society--in the non-pejorative sense of political liberalism--it is quite easy to subordinate the content of the Christian faith to the dominant social norms or hysterias of our time. That is, it is easy to privatize religion. By hiding behind the abyss of their individuality, both fundamentalists and liberals render their very “personal” faith immune to criticism. Any criticism of their spirituality, then, amounts to an attack on their personality. Fundamentalism and liberalism both give rise to their own rigid forms of spirituality.

It is, therefore, not accidental that Adventists particularly and Christians more generally have rarely encountered a Christianity that could stand radically opposed to the presupposed values of the day. For example, today there are more people willing to die for their nation than for their faith. We have assumed for far too long that we can preach and listen to the gospel without moral transformation.

When we hear things like, “Christianity (or religion) is just about being a good person,” the underlying assumption is nearly always that the common sense view of goodness is to be taken for granted. Here we are to heed the warnings of Karl Barth. Barth dedicated his entire career to warning against the dangers of a Christianity that stands impotent before the principalities and powers. After all, he saw the same sophisticated liberals become belligerent nationalists during the First World War and join the Nazi Party before the Second World War.

Many viewed and continue to view Barth as a reactionary. I certainly thought so when I first read him. But this is mistaken. Whatever we might say about him, he is right about one thing: a Christianity that is grounded in our arbitrary wants and needs is not really worth our time. We have two options. Either there is a Christian gospel that is capable of confronting us when we go astray or there is Feuerbachian projectionism--the projection of our deepest wishes into, for lack of a better word, an idol.

But if the Christian gospel is something objective, then we must discover again the grammar of Christianity. In other words, we must learn anew what it means to encounter and bear witness to the one who lived, died, and rose again. This is surely a dying art in Adventism, as the last General Conference Session made clear. As a result, we are just as confused about the proper shape of Christian life as we are about the meaning of that city which has our true citizenship, the church.

It is not a simple task. It requires that we listen to and debate with one another, and attend faithfully to the long tradition of witnesses and thinkers who came before us, whose voices should hold us intellectually accountable. It requires us to engage in serious conversations about the terms of the conversation. After all, this is what it means to, borrowing a phrase from Paul, build up the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12). Are we not called to embody, for the sake of the salvation of the world, a peace that only Christ can give (John 14:27)?

Yi Shen Ma is a Ph.D. student in Claremont School of Theology. He is the Development Director of Adventist Peace Fellowship. Prior to his service in the United States Navy as a religious program specialist, he worked as a young adult pastor. He blogs with Matt Burdette and Shane Akerman at Interlocutors.

If you respond to this article, please:

Inline Images:

Cheryl Doss.png

Cheryl Doss, director of the Institute of World Mission at the General Conference, talks to Spectrum about the need for training missionaries, the explosion in numbers of short-term volunteers, and why the word “missionary” is still relevant.

Cheryl Doss, director of the Institute of World Mission at the General Conference in Silver Spring, Maryland, talks to Spectrum about the need for training missionaries, the explosion in numbers of short-term volunteers, and why the word “missionary” is still relevant.

Question: The Institute of World Mission at the General Conference, which you direct, is focused on training Adventist missionaries. Why is this important?

Answer: Because living and working in another culture is difficult, requiring attitudes and skills beyond what one normally acquires in ones homeland.

Do you have a greater focus on training career missionaries, or short-term missionaries and volunteers?

Our primary responsibility is the training of career missionaries for the General Conference, although in actual number we train more AVS (Adventist Volunteer Service)

volunteers through our online class than any other type of missionary.

Where are most of your trainees from? Where are they going? Do you train missionaries going the reverse of the historical direction, i.e. heading to the US and Europe to work as missionaries there, instead of leaving those places to work in Africa, Asia, etc?

About one-third of the career missionaries and approximately half of the AVS volunteers are from North America. Our missionaries truly are from everywhere and go everywhere. This year they came from every continent and went to serve in more than 40 countries on every continent. A substantial number this year were coming from all over the world to the US, elected to serve the world church at the General Conference.

How many people do you train every year?

We train between 100-150 career missionary adults and 40-50 missionary children every year at our Mission Institutes. 200-300 volunteers take our online classes yearly. Leadership and other types of training varies greatly from a few dozen to several hundred participants each year. We hold re-entry debriefing seminars for 50-70 missionaries each summer.

Can you tell us more about the specific training courses you offer, online vs in-person, and so on?

In-person teaching includes three-week Mission Institutes (held in different places around the world), one week re-entry seminars, leadership workshops for pastors and administrators, tentmaker training, and occasional seminary classes in mission. Mission Institutes include age-appropriate training for missionary children concurrent with their parents’ classes.

Online Preparation for Mission classes for volunteers are offered in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Korean will be available next year. Our textbook Passport to Mission is also available in those four languages, plus Russian. This year we began offering open online classes on various mission topics available to everyone through our website.

How are your training programs developed, and who develops and teaches them?

Missionary training for career missionaries began in 1966. Over the years the curriculum has evolved to meet the changing needs of missionaries.

The current curriculum has five objectives: To empower missionaries to Grow Spiritually, Think Biblically, Reason Missiologically, Live Holistically, and Serve Incarnationally. Through research and study, Institute faculty identified these objectives and then developed a curriculum to support them.

Participants list their learning expectations at the beginning and complete extensive evaluations at the end of each Mission Institute to provide ongoing feedback and suggestions to improve the program. Thus the curriculum is continually being upgraded and refined in a dialogue between Institute faculty and missionary participants.

When was the Institute formed? Was there a specific incident or specific reason that pushed it into existence? How has the training of Adventist missionaries changed over the years?

Mission Institutes were begun in 1966 as one of the functions of the Department of World Mission at Andrews University. The post-war boom in numbers of missionaries going out had highlighted the need for better preparation.

The Institute of World Mission was formed as a entity separate from the Department of World Mission in the early 1980s although the two were still closely connected. In 2011 the Institute of World Mission was moved to the General Conference building.

Academic credit for Mission Institutes is still provided through Andrews University.

How would you describe the relationship between the Institute of World Mission and the GC's Office of Global Mission?

The Institute is a separate entity under the GC Secretariat. Global Mission is part the the Office of Adventist Mission, another entity under the GC Secretariat. We are organized and funded in completely different ways, although we have a collegial and collaborative relationship.

There has been a trend toward training people to work as missionaries in their own local communities and countries, rather than "sending" missionaries to "foreign lands." How has this change affected the work of the Institute?

We are receiving more and more requests from individuals and church entities for training in how to work in an increasingly diverse world and multicultural church.

But we also see a growing awareness that mission requires multi-focal vision; that is, we have a responsibility both for mission at home and mission abroad.

The Institute's work remains the same: to empower (home and foreign) missionaries to cross every cultural, religious, and social barrier for Christ wherever that takes them.

What other changes/trends have you seen in the way that missionaries are recruited and work in recent decades?

Missionaries are being sent out by a much greater diversity of senders. Supporting ministry, division, union, and self-sponsored missionaries are increasing in number and variety. Recruitment varies greatly between types of senders.

The single greatest change is the growth in numbers of short-term mission trips, with upwards of 50,000 people going each year from North America alone. Many of these newer types of missionaries go without any training in cross-cultural issues.

Is the term "missionaries" becoming outdated?

I personally believe the term missionary still serves an important function. It merely means someone who is sent on a mission. No one has yet thought of a better term for what we do. Interestingly, the term “mission” is quite acceptable in other uses, such as diplomatic mission, mission statement, mission control, military mission, etc. Why not keep it attached to its original purpose: God’s mission?

Did any of the decisions or outcomes from the General Conference session in San Antonio have any kind of serious impact on the work of the Institute?

Not that we know of.

How long have you served as director of the Institute of World Mission?

For five years. I was associate director for ten years before that.

What do you like most about your job? What do you find the hardest?

It is a great privilege to get to know many of the missionaries of our church, wonderful people who have accepted God’s call to go and serve wherever He sends them. The hardest thing is all the travel.

Where does your work travel take you?

We hold three or four Mission Institutes a year, mainly outside the US, and we do shorter training and speaking appointments in between.

The location of Mission Institutes vary by year. This year they were held in Brazil, Thailand, US, and Mexico. Other trips by the team have been to Brazil, Korea, Turkey, Ethiopia, Kenya, and several places in the US.When we go for a Mission Institute we are gone about four weeks. Other events are shorter.

We serve the world church and there is more of the world church outside of the US than inside.

Do you visit missionaries?

We do when we are in their proximity. Our missionary psychologist also makes personal visits as needed.

What is your background, and what qualifies you for this position?

I have a PhD in Christian Education with a minor in Intercultural Studies and am a faculty member of the Department of World Mission at the Seminary at Andrews University. I am a missionary kid, married to a missionary kid. As adults, my husband and I served as missionaries in Africa for 16 years where our children were born and raised. Our daughter and her family just recently returned to North America after eight years of mission service. Our son and his family are missionaries in Egypt. Mission and missionaries are my life.

I’d love to hear a little more about your missionary background.

I was born in Niles, Michigan while my dad was a student at Andrews University. I grew up as a preacher’s kid in Illinois and Michigan until we went to Helderberg College in South Africa when I was an earliteen.

I loved being a missionary kid and have found the experience helped me raise my own MK children and minister to families raising their children in the mission field.

My husband and I met as high school students at Helderberg College. He grew up as a missionary kid in the country of Malawi.

Where in Africa did you work, and where were your children born?

In Malawi. For the first two years we lived in the north of the country where Gorden was field secretary and then associate ministerial secretary and I was in charge of six rural clinics.

For the rest of our 16 years in Malawi, we were at Lakeview Seminary where Gorden was business manager and principal of the ministerial training course and I taught classes in the seminary and homeschooled my children.

If you respond to this article, please:

Rainbow_Prism_Adventist.jpg

Oh, is that it? The fact that this church has evolved and is treating us a little bit less like second-class citizens?

Just over a week ago, the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists released a statement on human sexuality. As far as I could tell, the document only clarified the unspoken standpoints that were already understood within the current Adventist community. I was disappointed with the document, though I wasn’t expecting to be particularly pleased with it either. After reading it a couple of times, I closed the tab on my browser, sighed heavily, and moved on with my evening. During the following two or three days, I read other people’s comments on the NAD’s statement on social media. Some people seemed pleased with the statement, others were unimpressed, and many more fell somewhere in between. What particularly grabbed my attention were the responses of people who believed the document was progressive and that the church has made a huge stride in a positive direction.

I went back to read the statement over and over again, trying to find the groundbreaking portion. The statement differentiated between sexual orientation and sexual intimacy, saying that while one’s sexual orientation wasn’t a choice, the church doesn’t condone the companionship or the sexual intimacy of same-sex couples. The statement encouraged the LGBT community to engage in all elements of church worship. The statement also urged the Seventh-day Adventist church to be sure to point everyone to Christ, to display Christ-like behavior, and to treat everyone with love and respect. After reading the document for about the fourth time, I wondered to myself, Oh, is that it? The fact that the church has evolved and is treating us a little bit less like second-class citizens?

I can appreciate that this statement on human sexuality is a significant improvement over the way Seventh-day Adventist institutions used to handle the presence of the LGBT community. Not that long ago, lesbian and gay individuals faced the choice between living their lives deeply closeted or undergoing damaging reparative therapy. That said, as a queer woman of faith from Generation Y, the fact that this statement is considered a giant leap forward saddens me. This statement's guidelines are all my generation has ever known (with minor variations depending on one's local church family). According to this document, monogamous, Christian, same-sex relationships are not recognized. They are condemned--not only by churches, but also by educational institutions. Dedicated educators and longstanding church leaders could be fired for participating in a same-sex wedding--some already have been. LGBT support groups on Adventist campuses go without faculty sponsors because of the fear of losing one's job. Young adults who hold leadership positions in their churches could be unable to fulfill their duties because their open views would be considered a liability. While the Adventist church our parents knew is different from the Adventist church we grew up with, we must be careful not to use the slow evolution of the church's standpoint to downplay the issues that queer people of faith currently face.

The most fundamental flaw of the document is that LGBT Adventists were not invited to be a part of the very conversation that specifically concerns them. The statement openly admits the church’s ignorance on people who identify as transgender. This could be easily remedied by inviting transgender people to the discussion. Their omission was not for lack of their presence in the Adventist community. How valuable can queer people of faith really be to the Seventh-day Adventist church family if they will not offer them the opportunity to be heard? The thinly-veiled theme running through this statement is that this church loves the LGBT community, yet it simultaneously condemns LGBT individuals. I do not disagree that this statement represents a step in the right direction. We have come a long way from turning the LGBT community away from church fellowship. However I urge people of all generations in the Adventist church to remember that there is, and will always be room for better demonstrating God's love for all people. The conversation on the LGBT community is a good starting place.

Sydney Portela is a psychology student at Washington Adventist Univeristy and the president of Queers & Allies of Washington Adventist University, an unofficial club on the WAU campus.

If you respond to this article, please:

Culture_Change.jpg

Of course we should keep talking. But some are going to have to lead change. Leading up to the vote there were significant hindrances to change, and they all could be observed. Talking alone will not finally resolve these.

"Change is glacial. Glacial!" Charles. E. Bradford's voice thundered through our living room, demanding attention from the pastors serving in southern Oregon gathered there. As president of the North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist church, he had agreed to join us via telephone, pray with us, and provide conversation on issues important to us. The amplified speaker in the middle of the room served its purpose. One of the young pastors had asked about the continuing dialogue regarding ordaining women in ministry, and Bradford's response was memorable. Change takes time he asserted. Be patient. The year was 1979.

Just Keep Talking?

Of course we should keep talking. But some are going to have to lead change. We need a perspective on the summer of 2015 to consider that assertion. Few expected the initiative to refer the ordination of women in ministry to various divisions to pass. Leading up to the vote there were significant hindrances to change, and they all could be observed. Talking alone will not finally resolve these.

First, people are people. We are from various cultures and hold beliefs formed within those cultures. Those beliefs include gender discrimination. It is not the mean-spirited kind, nor even recognized as discrimination where it exists. But it is discrimination just the same. That leads me to a second hindrance - culture trumps theology. Unfortunate. But true. Thus a third condition was apparent in San Antonio, the reality that the broad consensus and best work of our biblical scholars regarding the nature of ordination, of male headship, and of our theology of ministry was generally set aside. Fourth, there is the reality that the church is the church. It is a global organization, hierarchal, and led by humans. Those humans can take too much responsibility for influencing others. Further, the worldview of the majority populations in the church places a very high value on community. That is a strength, but it also translates into insistence that all do things in the same way as others. Otherwise community would be threatened, in the minds of these dominant cultures. That means a variance of policy is a threat to unity. Sensitivity to influence from the West is another very human factor. Perhaps more worrisome is the tendency of our historical view of plenary revelation to yield to popular biblical literalism, or what I see as an emerging brand of neo-fundamentalism.

So I am not hopeful that the weight of these perspectives will change through talk alone. Of course we pray, and God works His will. I have always believed when we pray God expects us to act.

Gender discrimination in the church is simply wrong. It is a matter of conscience. Tolerance to this wrong can no longer be excused by pleas for patience.

Searching Scripture Together

The conversation about affirming women in ministry has been long.¹ The General Conference received a recommendation from its own resolution committee to ordain women to gospel ministry in 1881; the initiative was referred. In 1950 A. V. Olson indicated his wish for a study committee. Study committees were voted in 1970 and 1973. In 1973 the Council on the Role of Women in the Seventh-day Adventist Church met and recommended that women be ordained for gospel ministry by the year 1975. The Annual Council in 1975 voted, however, that continuing study be given. The General Conference Session of 1985 again voted to study the matter further. An action was considered in 1995 and failed. More recently, a study committee was established by the church at its 2011 annual council. And in 2015 positive action on the question was rejected.

A partial review of those studies may be helpful. In 1990 and 1992 Women Church God: A Socio-Biblical Study² and A Woman’s Place: Seventh-day Adventist Women in Church and Society³were published and affirmed the service of women.A group of scholars and pastors offered a pastoral appeal for inclusion of women in ordained ministry in their 1995 work, The Welcome Table.⁴ Their work contributed a historical account of 150 Adventist women in ministry from 1844 to 1994.

An ad hoc committee of faculty from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in 1998 published Women in Ministry.⁵ Their work asserted the scriptures support the ordination of women who serve as elders and pastors. A differing group of Adventist biblical scholars countered with Prove All Things: A Response to Women in Ministry in2000.⁶ Interestingly, they affirmed the hermeneutical approach of Women in Ministry, that men and women are equal as created by God, the need to see more women in the “service of the Lord,”⁷ that women are called to soul winning, that women are to utilize their spiritual gifts, that women are to receive equal treatment, and that ordination does not confer special grace, but differed with the contributors to Women in Ministry on the matter of women serving in the particular roles of elders or pastors based on an assertion that there was no precedent in scripture.⁸

More recent works by biblical scholars include those of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary affirming that headship is not given to human beings over the church in matters of ecclesiology,⁹ and historical perspectives outlining the adoption of ordination from secular society as a means to distinguish clergy from members of the body, a practice that contradicts a biblical theology of ministry.¹⁰ Writing in Servants and Friends: A Biblical Theology of Leadership, a 2014 publication, Jo Ann Davidson, professor of Old Testament at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, cites five Old Testament women called by God for significant leadership roles at a time when women were not empowered within their culture.¹¹

The 2012 Theology of Ordination Study Committee published its reflections within three varying viewpoints. The study committee did offer a consensus statement on ordination. That statement asserts; "…Seventh-day Adventists understand ordination, in a biblical sense, as the action of the Church in publicly recognizing those whom the Lord has called and equipped for local and global ministry."¹² A vote was taken among the study committee members, asking them to indicate their preferences for three statements. Of the 94 votes registered, 62 favored statements authorizing denominational entities or organizational leaders in their respective territories to determine if women as well as men are to be ordained, while 32 of the 94 favored restricting ordination to males alone. It is apparent the consensus of those assembled views the scriptural record as not prohibiting ordaining women as the church may see fit in particular territories where doing so would not impede ministry due to cultural attitudes.¹³

The Scriptural Foundation

It is not the purpose of this writing to examine the biblical material. It may be helpful, however, to reference the foundation Adventist scholars recognize for the affirmation of both males and females in ministry. Doing so risks oversimplifying the biblical account, but provides a trajection of the biblical record.

Christ commissioned His followers to make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). He promised the presence of the Spirit as the church sought to fulfill His purposes (John 14:16-17, Acts 1:8). The New Testament describes the universal priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5-9; Revelation 1:5, 6; 5:9, 10). He empowers every believer with spiritual gifts and calls them to minister accordingly (Romans 12:6-9; 1 Corinthians 12:6-11; Ephesians 4:7, 11-13; 2 Corinthians 5:20; 1 Peter 4:10). The New Testament contradicts a distinction of pastor from membership (Romans 12: 1-6, 1 Corinthians 7:7). Ministering gifts were not to be assigned for prestige or power over others, rather, all serve in humility (Matthew 23:8; Mark 9:33-35; Luke 22:24-27; John 13:14-17). The church is charged to recognize the gifts among followers of Christ (Ephesians 4:1-16).

One must examine the post-biblical record to discover how ordination became a common practice distinguishing clergy centuries after Christ. The first clear account of a Christian ceremony of ordination appears in the Apostolic Tradition.¹⁴ The distinction between a New Testament theology of ministry and the nature of the priesthood found in the Apostolic Tradition is noted by Protestants and Catholics alike. The church, some four centuries after Christ, had reset ministry into a distinct priestly function including matters such as confessions and administering sacraments.¹⁵ The sixteenth-century Protestant reformers recognized this error and sought to correct it. The reforming process was partial, and the separation of clergy from laity has largely continued. Seventh-day Adventists, among others, have called for a restoration of a biblical theology of the priesthood of every believer. We too, however, find it challenging to act on that renewal.

God's Affirmation

One fact is undeniable. Women have been serving as church planters, evangelists, and pastors, often providing remarkable contributions, throughout Adventist church history. We recognize the formative prophetic ministry of Ellen White. Other women led churches in the early days of the movement, like Maria Huntley who served as president of the Tract and Missionary Society (the future Publishing Department), and Louise Kleuser, a pastor and evangelist who became an associate in the General Conference Ministerial Association. There are many more. I have seen firsthand the lasting contribution in churches established or strengthened by the evangelistic and pastoral ministry of LuLu Wightman,¹⁶ Sarah Lindsey,¹⁷ and Mabel Vreeland¹⁸ in upstate New York in the early to mid 20th century. The ministry of women like Elsa Luukkanan, the Finnish evangelist and pastor, and Margarete Prange, the German evangelist and pastor are notable in other areas of the globe. Today in China, hundreds of women serve as pastors. In North America alone there are over 100 women serving as pastors, and many hundreds more serving as elders. There are churches throughout North America that would not exist were it not for God calling and gifting women to lead them.

We humbly acknowledge God's sovereignty. So what are we to do?

Following Christ

Change is hard. But it is inherent in following Christ. Disciples change.

We Adventists have of course changed our beliefs (we came to Christ and we left traditions behind), our lives, and our opinions. That has distinguished us as a movement rather than an institution. We are a people whom God can transform as we study scripture. Our early leaders drew back from ecclesiastical structures that might threaten dynamic openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Forming positions through study and prayerful conversation, Ellen White reminded nervous church leaders that change is part and parcel of following Christ. "Those who think they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have an occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed" (Ellen White, Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, p.30).

So why affirm the ministry of women? Simple obedience to God, who is affirming His calling of both men and women to ministry through the gifts of His Spirit, and calls us to affirm His grace, is enough reason.

But I find a further compelling reason; hope. Hope for a better world where we respect the creative initiatives of God. Our young adults can discern when we are following the dictates of culture or tradition rather than the bidding of God's Spirit. And on this matter they clearly recognize our deference to institutional culture by our denying what God is doing. They hope for better.

There is arguably a still more compelling reason. We are a missionary movement. "When a great and decisive work is to be done, God chooses men and women to do this work, and it will feel the loss of the talents if both are not combined.¹⁹ As my pastor at Andrews University, Dwight Nelson, often reminds us along with a chorus of other voices, we need all hands on deck. We must today be about the Father's work without letting our past traditions hinder the assignment and affirmation of ministry. Ordination, which simply confirms God's grace filled calling, should be humbly and joyfully expressed to whom He calls, men or women.

Still another reason to change can be asserted. Love. Love embraces obedience. Though we sometimes are loathe to acknowledge it, the scripture confirms our primary reason to progress through change. "God is love." When we love, we change. That is why love has always been hard. To forgive sin, to submit to God, to change our lives; that is the language of love. Perhaps the most hopeful witness for God is that we do love, and that we do change.

What We Can Do

Women should continue to respond to God’s calling, and to prepare for their service. And institutions of the church that support them in doing so need significant recognition and affirmation. Those who find their way to ordain them deserve our respect.

Men in ministry should find ways to express equality. Many are. I, and 8 other faculty on their own initiative at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, have requested a commissioned ministers credential rather than a ministerial credential for that reason. True, such actions are symbolic, but symbols are meaningful. I took that step for the following five reasons; 1) our shared theology of ministry enlists every believer in Christ into ministry regardless of station in life, nationality, race, or gender, 2) ordination as practiced by the church has drifted away from a biblical understanding of affirming ministry to the present practice of the church distinguishing position or status, 3) in the context of the credential category of “commissioned minister” as distinct from “ministerial” we (the Adventist church) have institutionalized gender discrimination, 4) as a matter of conscience I can no longer, after sufficient decades of protracted biblical study, contradict biblical teaching and Christ like relationships in favor of church policy, and 5) male headship is not affirmed by the best and prevailing work of biblical scholars in our movement, nor is such a notion a fundamental belief.

Organizations within the church such as conferences or unions that take steps toward equality in ordination practice should be seen as faithful and hopeful expressions of the church. We need to affirm them, and peacefully express our support for the courage of their conscience.

Some suggest it would be wiser to keep silent, and to simply encourage continued study. Those who do not keep silent open themselves to criticism. But this is a matter of conscience. The church is not well served when we ignore matters of conscience for our own political gain. Then should we leave the church, or resign ministry, in protest? No. That would concede the opportunity for an ongoing demonstration of conscience.

Conclusion

What happens as we follow Christ, as we allow our life and practice to be conformed to His leading? Change. We are blessed in that process, though it is difficult.

What will happen when we ordain women to ministry in some parts of the world in this global movement? We will continue to experience the blessing men and women provide as they dedicate gifts and talents in service. We will be giving evidence that we are an authentic biblical movement of disciples. We will be expressing the nature of a global church. In a world where God gracefully reaches our various cultures, unity means willingness to be led in our context and to be patient with the distinctions in the way the church works out its life in various other cultures.

Change is inherent in renewal, mission, and new life. We all recognize that. It is in the heart of who we are. We are disciples of Christ. We have been willing to change. We have a conscience.
__________________________

For documentation of the several initiatives to set up study committees or consider ordination of women ministry see Alberto R. Timm Seventh-day Adventists on Women’s Ordination: A Brief Historical Overview, a paper presented to the Biblical Research Committee of the Inter-European Division in Italy in 2012, and the work of Banks, Habada, Brillhart, Rosado, and Vyhmeister referenced in this work.
Caleb Rosado, Women Church God: A Socio-Biblical Study (Riverside, CA: Loma Linda University Press, 1990)
Rosa Taylor Banks, editor, A Woman’s Place: Seventh-day Adventist Women in Church and Society (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1992)
Patricia A. Habada and Rebecca Frost Brillhart, The Welcome Table: Setting a Place for Ordained Women (Langley Park, MD: TEAMPress, 1995)
Nancy Vyhmeister, Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1998)
Mercedes Dyer, editor, Prove All Things: A Response to Women in Ministry (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventists Affirm, 2000)
Dyer, p.8.
Dyer, pp.8-9.
On the Unique Headship of Christ in the Church: A Statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Website, 2014)
For an examination of the formation of ordination practices in early church history see Darius Jankiewicz, The History of Ordination, (Memory, Meaning, and Faith, a blog maintained by the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary: Berrien Springs, Michigan, April – June, 2013)
Skip Bell, editor, Servants and Friends: A Biblical Theology of Leadership (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2014), pp. 259-276.
General Conference Theology of Ordination Study Committee Report June 2014 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, MD, 2014, p. 21
The reader is encouraged to read: General Conference Theology of Ordination Study Committee Report (General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, MD, June 2014)
See Paul Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson, and L. Edwards Philips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary. Hermenia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), pp. 26-37, 55-66, regarding material from the Apostolic Tradition on the practice of ordination of the bishop and of presbyters and deacons in the church.
For a discussion of the historical pattern of priestly and ordination function see Darius Jankiewicz...
For an insightful examination of Lulu Wightman's evangelistic ministry in New York see Josephine Benton, Called by God, (Smithsburg, MD: Blackberry Hill Publishers, 1990), chapter 3.
See Brian Strayer, Adventist Heritage, Sarah A. H. Lindsey: Advent Preacher on the Southern Tier Fall 1986 Vol 11, Nu 2, pp. 16-25.
Benton, chapter 8.
Ellen G. White, Evangelism (Washington DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1946), p. 469.

Skip Bell is Professor of Church Leadershp and Director of the Doctor of Ministry program, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University.

If you respond to this article, please:

General Conference.jpg

This series of five posts draws from the General Conference Session Minutes from the first Annual Session in 1863 through 1882.

Maybe I’m weird, but I enjoy reading the minutes of General Conference meetings! You never know what you may find. So, just in case you haven’t had enough of GC debates and intrigue for the year, here are some nuggets from the early days of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.¹ I have included the first 20 years because it is a nice, round number, but also because that covers the period of the founding of the church and its major institutions, and the period of James White’s presidency (three separate time blocks totaling 10 years). The selections are based on my personal taste, but highlight particularly significant early actions, human interest items, or simply actions that reveal how different things were 150 years ago compared to today. Original (mis)spellings have been retained. I have added a few personal observations in parenthetic italicized text.

The series will be presented in five parts. The first four parts will review highlights from the General Conference minutes—providing the historical data. The fifth part will offer concluding remarks based on these data. Since even these “few” selected highlights make for a lengthy read, readers bored by such details may wish to wait for Part 5. (But, they’ll miss most of the fun!).

May 1863 (1st Annual Session)²—Battle Creek, MI
The first GC session organized the Seventh-day Adventist Church. There were a total of 20 delegates from eight states (NY, OH, IN, MI, WI, IA, MN). James White was nominated president but declined, leading eventually to John Byington’s election. (James White later served as president starting in 1865). Uriah Smith was elected secretary, and E.S. Walker, treasurer. The GC Executive Committee had three members, one of whom was the president. The nominating committee originally nominated John Byington and J.N. Loughborough to serve on the Executive Committee (along with president James White). After James White declined the presidency, J.N. Andrews and G.W. Amadon were elected as the members of the Executive Committee, along with Byington. (One is left wondering why Loughborough wasn’t elected).

A constitution and bylaws were drafted and adopted for the GC. Voted a recommended constitution for state conferences.

Recommended the Publishing Association to publish a new prophetic chart and a chart of the Ten Commandments, suitable for public lecture. Voted that a committee of the Battle Creek Church be empowered to “prepare for publication a record of the action of the Battle Creek Church relative to the accusations against Brother James White.” (James White was accused of financial improprieties and other misdealings in the publishing work; an investigative committee found no substance to the accusations).³

A committee was formed to recommend regulations for those building and holding meeting-houses.

May 1864 (2nd Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI
Cash on hand in the GC treasury: $1139.29.

Voted that state conferences “choose a committee of six to act with the executive committee in the settlement of accounts with ministers for the preceding year.” (The appearance of impropriety with ministers deciding their own remuneration was recognized).

The following motion by J.N. Andrews was unanimously adopted:⁴

“WHEREAS, We deem the recent work of Sister White, entitled, An Appeal to Mothers, a work of great importance for general circulation, therefore--RESOLVED, That we earnestly commend this book to the attention of our brethren everywhere, and that we especially call the attention of parents and guardians to the duty of placing it in the hands of the young.” (This is the first of many GC actions promoting Ellen White’s publications).

May 1865 (3rd Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI
James White was elected GC president (and accepted). The nominating committee was unable to settle on the Executive Committee members, so they made no nominations for it! James White then moved that J.N. Andrews be elected as an Executive Committee member, and the motion passed. James White then moved that J.N. Loughborough be the other Executive Committee member; that, too, was passed. (Thus, James White chose his own Executive Committee. In several later GC sessions, by motion of the delegates, the GC president appointed the nominating committee. Modern GC presidents have that much control over elections only in their dreams!).

Several resolutions were unanimously adopted, among them the following:

“RESOLVED, That in our judgment, the act of voting when exercised in behalf of justice, humanity and right, is in itself blameless, and may be at some times highly proper; but that the casting of any vote that shall strengthen the cause of such crimes as intemperance, insurrection, and slavery, we regard as highly criminal in the sight of Heaven. But we would deprecate any participation in the spirit of party strife.” (Ben Carson and Sheila Jackson Lee, among others, take note.)

“RESOLVED, That we acknowledge the pamphlet entitled Extracts From the Publications of Seventh-day Adventists Setting Forth Their Views of the Sinfulness of War, "as a truthful representation of the views held by us from the beginning of our existence as a people, relative to bearing arms.”

“RESOLVED, That we recognize civil government as ordained of God, that order, justice, and quiet may be maintained in the land; and that the people of God may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. In accordance with this fact we acknowledge the justice of rendering tribute, custom, honor, and reverence to the civil power, as enjoined in the New Testament. While we thus cheerfully render to Caesar the things which the Scriptures show to be his, we are compelled to decline all participation in acts of war and bloodshed as being inconsistent with the duties enjoined upon us by our divine Master toward our enemies and toward all mankind.” (This seems to be a minority viewpoint among Adventists today, even among some conservatives who otherwise claim to believe as historic Adventists did).

“WHEREAS, Abraham Lincoln, the noble-minded and upright chief magistrate of this nation, has fallen by the hand of an assassin, RESOLVED, That we hereby record our deep distress at the loss of this "prince and great man," 2 Samuel 3:28-38, who was stricken down by his enemies at the very moment when he was studying how to forgive them all, and that we recognize in this most atrocious crime the true character of the slaveholders' rebellion.” (Adventism at this stage was a Yankee enterprise).

“RESOLVED, That a field is now opened in the South for labor among the colored people and should be entered upon according to our ability.”

It was voted to build a meeting house in Battle Creek to host the annual GC meeting.

May 1866 (4th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI
“RESOLVED, That Brother J. N. Andrews be requested to prepare an article setting forth the teachings of the Scripture on the subject of war.”

“RESOLVED, That Brother G. W. Amadon, superintendent of the Battle Creek Sabbath School, be requested to prepare immediately, question books for the use of Sabbath Schools, in a progressive series adapted to the use of infant classes, children and adults.”

“MOVED by Brother Andrews, that we refer the subject of issuing a small collection of revival hymns to the General Conference Committee, with a request that they give it their favorable consideration. Carried.” (More on the above three actions at next year's session…)

The GC adopted several resolutions of the Battle Creek Church, including, "We think the brethren greatly err from the sobriety of the Christian in wearing the moustache or goatee." The ladies didn’t get off either, with the GC voting to republish non-SDA missionary to Burma Adoniram Judson’s "A Letter to the Women of America on Dress,” in recognition of the fact that, “The Scriptures enjoin the use of modest apparel, prohibiting the wearing of broidered hair, gold, pearls, and costly array.”

Since B. F. Snook and W. H. Brinkerhoff, the two delegates from Iowa to the first (1863) GC session, had “openly renounced the work of the Third Angel’s Message,” it was voted to recommend that the Iowa State Conference drop their names from their minutes.

“RESOLVED, That in our judgment the expulsion of members from church fellowship should never be effected by less than a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of the church in question; and such action should not take place without previous faithful labor with the erring member, and also due notice of the trial.” (One senses the painful memory of former Millerites expelled from their churches without fair trial. That memory has faded; the current Church Manual only calls for a simple majority of members present at a duly called business meeting).

“WHEREAS, The subject of health is now attracting much attention among us as a people, and we are now learning the great truth that the proper way to avoid disease, or to recover from it, is to adopt correct habits of life, therefore--RESOLVED, That this Conference request our brother Dr. H. S. Lay, whom we deem fully competent so to do, to furnish through the Review a series of articles on the health reform.”

“RESOLVED, That we acknowledge the health reform as set forth in the testimony of Sister White, as part of the work of God incumbent on us at this time; and that we pledge ourselves to live in accordance with these principles, and that we will use our best endeavors to impress their importance upon others.”

“RESOLVED, That in the judgment of this Conference it is much to be regretted that in small churches where two or three substantial and efficient members constitute the chief pillars of strength, these members frequently move away with no weighty reason for so doing, leaving the church of which they were members to be scattered and extinguished.” (The “Great Advent Movement” is still problematic for small churches; see also the 1867 action).

“RESOLVED, That we empower the General Conference Committee to solicit aid for Brethren Cornell and Cottrell, in their efforts to obtain for themselves a humble home; and that they solicit this aid through the Review, or in any other way that they may think proper.” (Systematic Benevolence apparently didn’t fully meet ministerial needs).

May, 1867 (5th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI
“Brother White stated that he had simply come to excuse himself from serving as chairman of the meeting, and in view of his state of health, and his anticipated change of location, as he wished for rest and retirement awhile, he requested to be released from all office in the Conference during the coming year.”

J.N. Andrews elected president, replacing James White.

“Brother Cornell being called on to report in reference to the amount raised for his benefit, gratefully acknowledged the liberal donations of the brethren, in the sum raised, $648.10, and reported that he had no need of further help in this direction.” (Presumably this was enough to procure a “humble home” in 1867).

“Brother Andrews being called upon to speak in reference to the task allotted him at the last Conference of writing on the subject of war, reported that for want of time the work was in an unfinished condition.”

“On the subject of question books for children, youth and adults, Brother Amadon reported that from sickness, and press of labor what time he had been able to work, he had not been able to carry out the instructions of the Conference. He made some progress on a question book for small children, and marked out a plan for the whole, in which condition the work now stands.”

“The General Conference Committee to whom was referred the subject of issuing a collection of revival hymns, reported that nothing had been done on it, but they had had under consideration the subject of a hymn book for general use.”
(Andrews, Amadon and the GC Committee were 0 for 3! The Adventist pioneers weren’t superhuman).

Cash in treasury: $652.92

“RESOLVED, That we deem it worthy of severe censure that our brethren frequently move from churches to which they belong when there is no sufficient reason for so doing, and when the churches of which they were members are thereby so weakened as to have their very existence endangered: and, that in our judgment such churches may at its discretion withhold letters of commendation from members moving under such circumstances.” (Last year’s resolution wasn’t enough, apparently; now the GC recommended church discipline for members who moved frequently!).

“RESOLVED, That in our judgment, the ordinances of the Christian church belong only to those who accept the duties and responsibilities of church membership.” (Adventists now practice an open communion).

“RESOLVED, That we deem it duty to caution our brethren against purchasing patent rights; and that we express our surprise and regret that our friends should so often forget the warnings given on this subject through the Testimonies.” (See 1T 455. Exploiting trusting fellow believers for business or investment sales continues to harm the church; perhaps these 1867 GC delegates wouldn’t have fallen for post office building schemes or nutritional supplement MLM opportunities).

“RESOLVED, That in the judgment of this Conference, it is to be regretted that some persons travel about without a license from the Conference, introducing a few points of present truth, and those points in an objectionable manner; and we hereby enter our protest against such a course.” (Independent ministries are an old but persistent challenge to the GC).

“RESOLVED, That we express our solemn convictions that in some places our brethren have been more anxious to impress upon the public the idea that they were an upright worthy people, than to call their attention to the awful importance of the truths we cherish.” (One suspects these GC delegates might have been sympathetic to anti-papacy billboards).

“RESOLVED, That we request Brother U. Smith to prepare for publication in pamphlet form his argument in answer to the objections against the visions.”

“RESOLVED, That we deem it important to call anew the attention of parents and guardians to the work of Sister White, entitled Appeal to Mothers, and that we earnestly invite them to place this work in the hands of such young persons as are under their care.”

May 1868 (6th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI
J.N. Andrews re-elected president.

The hymnbook committee reported some progress: “The Hymn Book Committee reported through brother Waggoner, showing the progress that had been made in the work, and the general plan which the Committee would recommend. Remarks by Brother White.” Later in the session the delegates voted: “MOVED, That the matter of hymn book be referred to the Executive Committee to take such action as they see fit. Carried. They were instructed to attend to this thing at their earliest convenience.” J.N. Andrews reported that the publication on war required much study and he was still unable to complete it. (No word on Brother Amadon’s project).

“WHEREAS, A wrong use has been made of the resolution passed by the General Conference of last year relative to our brethren moving from place to place,--RESOLVED, That we hereby rescind the above-named resolution of last year.” (The GC admitted its mistaken policy. One can well imagine the futility of trying to prevent Americans from moving!)
In response to Joseph Bates’s motion to address the needs of the poor, a committee was formed that recommended the formation of the Seventh-day Adventist Benevolent Association, supported voluntarily by members at $10/year, with the funds raised distributed to elders and deacons of churches to act as agents of the Benevolent Association.

“RESOLVED, That we feel called upon to renew our request to our brethren to abstain from worldly strife of every nature, believing that war was never justifiable except under the immediate direction of God, who of right holds the lives of all creatures in his hand; and that no such circumstance now appearing, we cannot believe it to be right for the servants of Christ to take up arms to destroy the lives of their fellow-men.” (One wonders if a President Ben Carson would require God’s direction before leading America into war).

“Brethren and sisters united in considering the subject of dress. Sister Doctor Lamson was chosen chairman; Sister Van Horn, secretary, and Sisters White, Chamberlain, and Burnham, as committee of a convention of sisters, to take into consideration the matter of deciding upon a proper style and manufacture of hats for their use.” (Apparently manufacturing appropriately styled hats for women was a pressing matter, worthy of GC attention!)

“RESOLVED, That we heartily indorse the efforts lately made to circulate Spiritual Gifts, and recommend to the brethren at large to continue their efforts by contributing to the book fund, and placing our works in the hands of honest inquirers.”

May 1869 (7th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI
James White elected president, replacing J.N. Andrews.

The hymnbook is finally finished: “Brother White reported on Hymn Book, as the matter was left in hands of General Conference Committee. Reported the book in the hands of the binder, to be here before the Conference closes.” “RESOLVED, That this Conference accept the new Hymn Book at the hands of our Executive Committee, and return our thanks to them for a book which we can so cordially recommend to our people, as well suited to our wants, both in public and social worship.”

No mention of J.N. Andrews’ writing project on war, but it was voted that he, “be invited to write an appeal to young men in reference to entering the ministry.”

“RESOLVED, That we wish to express our unabated interest in the California Mission, and our pleasure in the prospect before the ministers in that field; and we still extend assurance of our hearty sympathy and co-operation in their work, and our fraternal greeting to those who have embraced the present truth in that State.”

“…we earnestly recommend to all the scattered flock a more careful reading of, and more strict compliance with, the Testimonies to the Church.”
______________________________

All minutes downloaded from http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Minutes/GCSM/GCB1863-88.pdf.
Note: GC sessions were held annually in the early years.
This document, published by Uriah Smith, may be downloaded here: http://www.adventpioneerbooks.com/Text/pioneer/USMITH/BUSINESS.pdf.
Throughout this series, if a resolution was adopted, that generally will not be specifically stated. If a resolution failed, was tabled, or was referred, that will always be stated.

Image: Original building of the General Conference office and Review and Herald, 1907. Courtesy, General Conference Office of Archives, Statistics and Research.

Robert T. Johnston is a retired research chemist who lives with his wife in Lake Jackson, Texas, where he enjoyed a career developing new polymer technologies for The Dow Chemical Company and DuPont Dow Elastomers. He is a graduate of Andrews University and a member of the Brazosport Seventh-day Adventist Church.

If you respond to this article, please:

Paris.png

A few days ago—before the attack on Paris—I wrote that there is no mythical demon prowling the world called “Terrorism,” which does not mean that there aren’t people who commit acts of terror. What I was denying was the reality that there is some “essence” of terrorism that, in its self-same identity, is instantiated in various places throughout the world. I stand by that denial, because I remain convinced of that we can only deal with the world honestly when we deal with things in their particularity; so, it is not that there is no connection between Al Qaeda and ISIS, but that clumping the two together as “the terrorists” obfuscates more than anything else. More than that, a war on “terrorism” is categorically endless, because, by identifying no particular object of war, those who wage the war can in principle never know when they have reached their objective. (For those who care for the just war tradition, that itself is a basic disqualifier.)

The point is to reject ideological thinking, and I am aware that the refusal to think about generalities can be just as ideological as the inability to think about particulars, and I hope to avoid that too. So, of course I was disturbed and saddened by the news of the attack in Paris on Friday, and of course I immediately wondered if ISIS was responsible. And since hearing that ISIS has claimed responsibility, I have been bracing myself for what seem to be the inevitable calls for war, and the ritual of liberal responses which attempt to differentiate Islam-the-faith from Islamist “extremism.” With France’s airstrikes on Sunday, and the explosion of articles over the whole weekend, my expectations were confirmed.

At least in this instance, I have no desire to challenge war as a response, nor do I intend to wholly reject the liberal response. What I do want to say is that those responses are of themselves not the Christian response. This can be but does not have to be competitive; a Christian response is what it is, and may find an ally or an opponent in other responses, and how this exactly looks shouldn’t be determined beforehand. I will say this about the liberal response: I generally think it is done in bad faith, not least because of the bipolarity of liberal attitudes about religious conviction generally, and the overwhelming ignorance about matters of faith that liberals expose in those attitudes. Their basic measure for what makes an “extremist” is that an extremist is a religious person who won’t accept the privatization of his or her faith when entering into the secular public square. By that measure, I and a host of other people are extremists. Additionally, I doubt very much that the deluge of liberal responders is in fact populated by people who know what they’re talking about. Most Christians that I know couldn’t explain Christianity, and even fewer nonbelievers have a decent handle on Christianity; liberals are generally liberal Christians or just secular, and if they are so ignorant of the dominant religion on the West, I have no interest in their opinions, positive or negative, about Islam.

Indeed, the entire ritual after such events can be summarized as getting across one point: Islam is peaceful, and Muslim people are not our enemies.

This isn’t wrong or right; it is useless. “Peace” is a concept that only operates within a particular logic, and so within the logic of each religion that religion is peaceful, having defined what peace in fact is. The meaning of peace is not self-evident. When people insist that Islam is peaceful, they mean that Islam accepts the definition of peace that the liberal nation-state intends; but this is patently false, just as it would be false to say that Christians or Jews accept that definition of peace. By secular standards, we “Abrahamic” faiths are not peaceful. As for Muslim people not being “our” enemies, an appropriate Christian response is first of all, “So what?” And then the second Christian response is, “And who is ‘our’ in that statement?”

Islam may or may not be the enemy of Christianity. It is meaningless to refer to practitioners. There are doubtless Muslim individuals who count themselves the enemy of Christians, and there are certainly Christians who are enemies to Muslim people. But the Christian has no investment in denying that a person or even a group is an enemy. It simply makes no difference. Those who follow Jesus are under obligation to love their neighbors, and to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. Christians do not deny that there are enemies, nor refuse to acknowledge that people hate them. So if there are a group of people claiming to be Muslim who are our enemies, Christians must still think creatively about how to love those people. For those who find this too demanding, there are a number of other lords to follow besides Jesus.

Christians must also come to call into question this notion of “our” having an enemy. It is not that Christians should not care when the nation has an enemy, but thinking through the right response has to involve a reframing of the problem. We may say, “Among the victims in Paris, some of our fellow Christians were killed. But it is France that has an enemy.” Nor is this a position of neutrality. The attack on Paris was evil, and there can be no equivocation about that. The point is that Christians cannot simply identify themselves with the state or nation. There are places in the world right now in which Muslim people are persecuting Christians; our response to those situations is not the same as our response to the attack on Paris, but this difference hinges on our insistence that we identify ourselves as Christians.

A Christian response to this is one that draws together the Christian community to act as a singular communal agent in the world to announce Christ’s reign and so his peace. The state will do what the state will do, and—not to be resigned—the church has little say in the matter. But the church may do what the church may do, and this doesn’t mean that we Christians are not implicated in the state’s actions. All this means is that we must act in the world as agents of Christ and his justice. This surely involves building relationships with Muslims, not because they are “not our enemies” or because our faiths are not all that different, but because we follow Jesus and because we must win them too to his peace. In this we do not fear death, nor do we avoid hatred. And acting in the world as Christ’s agent means also calling the nation to his justice. If the state is to go to war, the church must agitate for the war to be fought with some semblance of justice, and with a concrete end; indiscriminate air strikes and total destruction are unjust, no matter how justifiable the anger and hurt. The church must agitate to welcome refugees of war, and the church must ready itself for the hospitality that it demand. We must say to the state, “Let us welcome them.” Anything less is just sentimental talk.

Matthew Burdette is a two-time graduate of La Sierra University, with an undergraduate degree in religious studies and a Master of Arts in religion. He is currently a doctoral candidate in theology at the University of Aberdeen, writing a dissertation on the theologies of James Cone and Robert Jenson. He writes at Interlocutors, where this article originally appeared. It is reprinted here by permission.

If you respond to this article, please:

White_Butler.png

RESOLVED, That we recognize in the present condition of the Pope of Rome and the Sultan of Turkey, unmistakable evidence that we have reached the very conclusion of the great lines of prophecy, and that our confidence in the speedy advent of our Lord is unwavering.

This five-part series is highlighting actions taken by the General Conference during the first 20 years of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The selection is based on my personal taste, but highlights particularly significant early actions, historical or human interest items, or simply actions that reveal how different things were 150 years ago. Original (mis)spellings have been retained. I have added a few personal observations in parenthetical italicized text.

May 1870 (8th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI
15 states plus Switzerland are represented.

GC is in debt to the tune of $272.90.

“RESOLVED, That in view of the repeated admonitions of the Spirit of God of the alarming prevalence of licentiousness in its various forms, and of the purity of life requisite to stand before a holy God; and of the sad instances of depravity manifested by some professing to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ, we regard the book recently published, entitled, Solemn Appeal, as most timely, and we cordially recommend it to all as a valuable and much-needed work.”

“RESOLVED, That we express our high regard for the labors of Brother James White, not only as a minister and a writer, but also for his efficient management of our publishing department; and we further express our perfect confidence in his integrity as an honest man and a devoted Christian; and we request him to accept the oversight of our business affairs, for the coming year.”

“RESOLVED, That we deplore the errors and wrongs committed by those who had the management of the Publishing Association and the Health Institute during the period of Brother White's prostration by sickness, and that we acknowledge the painful experience as teaching us the lesson that those who neglect the Testimonies of the Spirit of God, will be sure to commit serious errors in the work of the third angel's message.”

“MOVED, To pay the California missionaries their own fare to field of labor, transportation of tent, and tent and traveling expenses for themselves, and a weekly allowance equal to the highest amount paid to any laborers in the Conference.” (California was an early focus of the GC; it continues to receive considerable GC attention).

Feb 1871 (9th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI¹
GC cash balance: $453.36

“RESOLVED, That we recognize in the present condition of the Pope of Rome and the Sultan of Turkey, unmistakable evidence that we have reached the very conclusion of the great lines of prophecy, and that our confidence in the speedy advent of our Lord is unwavering.”

(In hindsight, the results of their correlational approach to prophetic interpretation look rather silly. That doesn’t stop Adventists, including GC officers in San Antonio, from continuing this tradition of triangulating from current events to claim the nearness of Christ’s Second Coming).

“RESOLVED, That we express our deep interest in the work of Brother Matteson in carrying the truth to the Danes and Norwegians in our country, and that we assure him of our sympathy and support.”

“RESOLVED, That we regret the lack of a missionary spirit among our people, and that we encourage proper men and women, especially the young, to consecrate themselves to the work of God…” (Some GC admonishments haven’t changed).

Dec. 29, 1871 (10th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI
(Battle Creek in late December? What were they thinking?!)

George Ide Butler elected president, Uriah Smith, secretary, and Mrs. A.P. Van Horn, treasurer.

Cash balance $916.99.

“On motion, all visiting brethren were invited to participate in the deliberations of the Conference.” (This was common in the early years, but certainly is not true today).

Continuing an effort towards reconciliation begun 4 years before, a Seventh-day Baptist delegate is welcomed for the second time, J.N. Andrews reports his attendance at the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference as the first SDA delegate, and warm words are expressed by James White, apologizing for his earlier overzealous approach and that of other Adventists, spurning the Seventh-day Baptists and treating them as competitors instead of colaborers for the Sabbath truth. Despite differences, James White says they share the main pillars of the faith. “In some points of theory we may see an importance that our Seventh-day Baptist brethren do not see. We are not inclined to urge these. And we will try to remember that, on these points, they do not differ with us any further than we differ with them.” (The entire exchange is an example of true Christian graciousness and humility, and well worth reading).

“RESOLVED, That in view of the great saving of money, and the increase of health and strength, and of the general blessing of God enjoyed by us as a people, because of adopting the health reform, we hereby recommend that ten thousand dollars be raised as a thank-offering, to be used as a fund for the issuing of health publications.”

March 1873 (11th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI
Treasury balance: $4376.63

“RESOLVED, That we regard it as the imperative duty of Seventh-day Adventists to take immediate steps for the formation of an Educational Society, and the establishment of a denominational school.”

(Later, the GC Committee was given responsibility to establish a school. A primary motivation was the need to educate people to speak several languages so they could “teach the word” in other lands).

“RESOLVED, That we recommend to the Trustees of the Publishing Association that they put forth an earnest effort to secure the preparation of a suitable series of tracts for translation into other languages, and to secure the best translators for these tracts, and also, by all possible means to oversee this work of translation, that it be done in the best manner possible.”

“The committee to whom was referred the question, ‘What can be done to render our General Conference of greater interest to the mass of our people?’ recommend the following as worthy of trial:” There followed recommendations including special speakers/sermons, and an invitation to visiting members to participate in the proceedings. (I wonder what the 1873 GC delegates would have thought of a full Alamodome!).

The committee on removals to Battle Creek, reported verbally through the chairman, recommending "that this Conference request the General Conference Committee to continue the same course of action as that which has been pursued the past year, relative to removal of families to Battle Creek." Which recommendation was adopted. (This continued an effort begun earlier, to recruit families to move to Battle Creek to provide more labor at the publishing house and other institutions there).

Nov. 1873 (12th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI
Due to short notice, many conferences were not represented with delegates, so by vote of the delegates, other attendees were appointed by President Butler to represent those conferences.

(Many delegates have been unable to attend recent GC sessions because of visa problems. Can you imagine the uproar if the GC president were allowed to appoint attendees to take their place?!).

“Brother White made remarks explaining the call for a Conference at the present time. It was for the purpose of arranging matters preparatory to extending the work on the Pacific Coast, sending a missionary to Switzerland, etc.”

“RESOLVED, That we fully indorse the position taken in the paper read by Elder Butler on Leadership.” (This later developed into a controversy with James White taking an opposing view).

It was “with deep regret [that] we have noticed a declension from both the health and dress reforms.” Members were urged to take a stand.

“RESOLVED, That we feel the deepest interest in the work among people of other tongues, and recommend to our Executive Committee to take steps for the speedy publication of tracts and periodicals in other languages…”

“RESOLVED, That our confidence is increased in the gift of the spirit of prophecy which God has so mercifully placed in the third angel's message; and that we will endeavor to maintain an affectionate regard for its presence and its teachings; and we hereby request our Executive Committee to prepare or cause to be prepared a work giving our reasons for believing the testimonies of Sister White to be the teachings of the Holy Spirit.”

“The Conference Committee, having been intrusted with the matter of raising funds for a denominational school, reported through the chairman. Fifty-two thousand dollars have been pledged.”

Aug. 1874 (13th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI
James White returned to the presidency, replacing George Butler.

Missionary and Tract societies in each conference were reorganized on a common basis for better representation at the GC and coordination of work.

“RESOLVED, That the General Conference, feeling the same interest in the Swiss Mission that has been expressed in former sessions, instruct the Executive Committee to send Elder J. N. Andrews to Switzerland as soon as practicable.”

Aug. 1875 (14th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI
Recognition was given, and gratitude expressed, for the new school (Battle Creek College) that had been built.

“RESOLVED, That we hereby express our confidence in the principles of health reform, and urge its more thorough adoption by those among us who have as yet made but little progress in this direction.”

“RESOLVED, That we recommend the Executive Committee to take immediate steps to establish a printing office in Europe, to issue periodicals and publications in the French and German languages, and also to enter the openings presenting themselves in Great Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Hungary, Africa, and Australia.”

“RESOLVED, That we have great cause of gratitude, in the continued prosperity of the work on the Pacific Coast.”

“RESOLVED, That we approve of the invitation extended by the Michigan Conference to Elder J. N. Loughborough, to labor for a time in Michigan, to help the suffering cause in that State.”

(One might wonder why Michigan Conference was suffering when all the major church institutions were there, along with a new school. However, there was considerable turmoil in Allegan, Michigan due to W.H. Littlejohn’s involvement in the Butler-White leadership debate, denunciation of the Whites, disfellowshipment, and work against the Adventists. A reconciliation led to Littlejohn’s restoration in 1877).

“Leadership. The following resolution was submitted to the Conference by Elder George I. Butler: WHEREAS, In the session of the General Conference held in the autumn of 1873, a resolution was passed endorsing a tract entitled ‘Leadership,’ written by Elder Butler; and WHEREAS, It has been shown that some of the sentiments contained in said tract were incorrect; therefore, RESOLVED, That the resolution above referred to be, and the same is hereby rescinded.”

“Pending the adoption of this resolution, Elder White made very clear and forcible remarks on the subject, setting forth the manner in which his mind had been led in this matter, resulting in his writing out almost immediately the articles which subsequently appeared over his signature in the Signs and the Review, before he knew that any objection was raised against the address referred to. He also set forth ably the principles of leadership which, according to the Scriptures, must hold in the church of Christ. It was then moved to amend the resolution by striking out its second and third clauses, and substituting in their place the following:

"WHEREAS, Further examination has shown that some of the sentiments contained in said tract were incorrect; therefore, "RESOLVED, That the tract referred to be placed in the hands of a committee (said committee to be appointed by this Conference) to be so revised as to correspond with the better understanding which now exists on the subject of leadership." The amendment was carried, and the resolution as amended was then unanimously adopted.

“Evening session, Tuesday, August 17. Prayer by U. Smith. A brief history was given by Brother White of the embarrassments under which he had labored in connection with Brother Butler. On motion, Elder Butler was invited to make an explanation of his course as set forth by Brother White, whereupon he responded. Brother White rejoined. The following resolutions were then passed: RESOLVED, That we cannot so interpret the testimony given by Sister White to Brother Butler, as to justify the course he has taken, in withdrawing himself from important positions in this work. RESOLVED, That we consider it very evident that this course on the part of Brother Butler, has had the effect to throw distrust over the minds of the brethren, and thus most effectually throw a weight of discouragement upon Brother White, and cripple his energies in the work. Therefore, further, RESOLVED, That we consider that Brother White has had cause for his feelings in reference to the action of Brother Butler, and that Brother White's position in this respect, is such as to entitle him to our sympathy and support.”

(There is obviously a back-story on this discussion, worth an article of its own! Butler had written that the GC president should be given special respect, standing in a position of authority as Moses was to Israel; James White repudiated that view, arguing that the GC president and all ministers are subject to one another, and ultimately to Jesus Christ, the true leader of the church; there must be no papacy in the Adventist church. An account of this leadership conflict was recently published by Kevin Burton).²

“On motion, it was voted to appropriate one thousand dollars ($1000) to Elder James White from the general missionary fund, toward the debt incurred by him in establishing the Signs of the Times, on the Pacific Coast.”

“Special session called Wednesday, August 18, at 11:30 a.m., at the church. Prayer by U. Smith. After remarks by Brother Butler that he would accept the judgment of his brethren in his case, and try to act upon it, it was VOTED, That we recommend that Brother Butler immediately visit Allegan County, to help affected brethren there, and that we pray that he may have the help and blessing of God in the undertaking. Adjourned sine die.”

Mar. 1876 (Special Session)—Battle Creek, MI¹
“The session was occupied by an address from the president stating the wants of the cause, and some of the questions to come before us at this meeting. The meeting was not called to meet the emergency of any difficulties that are pressing upon us and threatening to distract and divide us; for there is nothing of the kind. There never was a stronger influence for unity among us, generally considered, than exists at the present time. This meeting is called to consider what we shall do next, not in the sense of men who are out of work and are looking about for something to do, but as those who have so much pressing upon them that they know not what to take hold of first. We have come to confer together how we may best husband our strength to meet the demands of the work which is rising in such magnitude before us.”

“Brother Canright reported he had never found such unity among brethren in any state. With the exception of the slight defection in Allegan County, he found no place in the state where there was any murmuring or complaining.” (G.I. Butler did not attend this GC meeting. Was he working in Allegan?)

“RESOLVED, That we believe it to be the duty of all our brethren and sisters, whether connected with churches or living alone, under ordinary circumstances, to devote one-tenth of all their income from whatever source, to the cause of God.” (Systematic benevolence had previously used a percentage of property and a different income-based approach).

In response to Brother Strong apparently complaining about James White in a private letter, he was examined at the conference. Then, “Brother White having made certain remarks on the subject of church order, and the course to be pursued with murmurers and complainers, it was VOTED, That we endorse the sentiments expressed, and request him to put them into the form of a resolution to be incorporated into the resolutions of the Conference, whereupon he presented the following, which was heartily adopted: --RESOLVED, That it is the sense of this Conference, that the simple organization of our churches, state conferences, and the General Conference, is good and satisfactory, therefore should be respected by all our people.

RESOLVED, That church and Conference officers should be sustained in the performance of their duty while held in office, and that all persons whether preachers or common members who carelessly or willfully disregard the rules and by-laws of our organizations, become subjects of censure and discipline.” (Freedom had its limits…)

“RESOLVED, That D. M. Canright be a committee to address Elder M. E. Cornell, now in the State of Texas, and request him to either take immediate measures to give satisfaction to the Michigan Conference Committee that he is a proper person to preach the gospel, or to cease teaching the doctrines held by Seventh-day Adventists.”

(No word on what happened to the house the church raised money for him to buy in 1867. In other records we find that he was counseled by Ellen White about his improper conduct with women, 3T 227-243, dropped out of the ministry for a time, had his credentials revoked at the Sept. 1876 GC session, spent some time working in Colorado with White’s encouragement, then after 13 years of freelance ministry, returned to the organized ministry for the last 3 years of his life).³

Sept. 1876 (15th Annual Session)—Lansing, MI
The denomination now had over 10,000 members and 398 churches.

Resolutions were adopted to again remind members of the need for health reform (in the face of backsliding in this area), and another call for more young men to enter the ministry as there was a need for more ministers in the rapidly growing denomination.

Revoked M.E. Cornell’s ministerial credentials for immoral conduct.

Nov. 1876 (Special Session)—Battle Creek, MI
“Elder White mentioned the representation of our publications at the Centennial, the expense of which would be presented for consideration at the evening session after Dr. Kellogg should report.” (Later) “Dr. J. H. Kellogg presented his report of the exhibition of our publications at the Centennial as follows:

“RESOLVED, That this Conference recommend to the several state conferences that each individual raise a sum equal to one-third of his systematic benevolence pledge for the year, to meet the demand for means to be used as far as necessary in the proposed increase of the circulation of the Signs, the Reformer, and other publications, this offering to be paid, if convenient, the first of January 1877, or, if more favorable, in four installments, the first to be paid January 1; the second, April 1; the third, July 1; and the fourth, October 1, 1877.”
__________________

Location not given in the minutes but was Battle Creek, MI, according to the General Conference Office of Archives, Statistics and Research.
Kevin Burton, “The Adventist Leadership Controversy of the 1870s: A Brief Historical Overview,” downloaded from Adventist Archives.
“Some Highlights of the Life of Merritt E. Cornell (1827-1893),” downloaded from www.APLib.org.

Title Image: James White and George Ide Butler, two early presidents of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

If you respond to this article, please:

Inline Images:

Ordination_Perspectives.png

David Thiele investigates whether women are disqualified from ministering for physical, intellectual, spiritual, ontological or cultural reasons. He concludes that Scripture doesn’t disqualify them for any of these reasons.

Graeme J Humble and Robert McIver, (eds), South Pacific Perspectives on Ordination: Biblical, Theological and Historical Studies in an Adventist Context (Cooranbong, NSW: Avondale Academic Press, June 2015). 290 pages. Available in both paperback and Kindle editions.

This book, a collection of research papers, has been authored by fifteen Adventist academics from the South Pacific, and mostly from Avondale College of Higher Education, including two women. Most chapters were commissioned by the Biblical Research Committee of the South Pacific Division (SPD) of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Before publication, all but one of these papers was peer reviewed. These papers were designed to provide guidance to the SPD during several years of intense study of the theology of ordination and most especially of how to affirm women in ministry. Thus, the volume contains discussion of aspects of ordination to gospel ministry while providing both academic and missional insights on the topic. Though written from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective, Christians of many persuasions may well be interested.

The book is well structured to lead the reader toward an appreciation of the united conclusion of the individual authors that God can indeed use persons of both genders in one ordained gospel ministry. To this end, the book divides easily into five parts, each of which will be briefly treated in the hope that this useful collection of essays will be of help to a more global audience.

Three senior Adventist academics, Professor Ray Roennfeldt, a member of TOSC, Dr. David Tasker and Dr. David Thiele lead readers to introductory but informed conclusions to the question ‘May Women be Ordained as Gospel Ministers?’ Roennfeldt sketches the broad outline of both responses to this question. The he suggests that the Wesleyan Quadrilateral might provide the fresh methodology necessary to bring resolution to this seemingly intractable issue. Tasker argues that one’s Christology and Eschatology must be carefully and properly balanced. Thus he sees Adventists, not only as an eschatological movement but also as a Spirit-saturated Body of Christ, involving people of both genders in proclamation of the Word. Thiele investigates whether women are disqualified from ministering for physical, intellectual, spiritual, ontological or cultural reasons. He concludes that Scripture doesn’t disqualify them for any of these reasons.

Two biblical studies, one from Dr. Ross Cole, an Old Testament scholar, and the other from Dr. Kayle de Waal, a New Testament scholar continue to provide helpful perspectives. Cole deliberately titled his chapter “The Language of Appointment to Offices and Roles,” and without significant reference to ‘ordination.’ Here he maintains that the laying on of hands “comes at the beginning of the office or task, not long afterwards as a reward for work done” (pg. 85). He also concludes that “the use of gift language in the context of appointment to ecclesiastical office emphasises the wide range of offices and roles that may be involved” (pg. 85). De Waal’s paper is a short, preliminary theology of ordination, once again based on lexical analysis. He finds no scriptural evidence for different levels of ordination, or that ordination was understood differently by those with differing roles. Rather it references God’s calling to proclamation and service.

The two historical studies treat early Christian history and the experience of Ellen White respectively. Two Polish-Australians, Drs. Darius Jankiewicz and John Skrzypaszek enlighten the reader here. Darius Jankiewicz discusses the ‘problem of ordination’ as he draws lessons from early Christian history. Skrzypaszek, however breaks new ground as he seeks Ellen White’s perspective on her own divine ordination early in her life. Accordingly, Ellen White first gained a revelation of God’s love, followed by a matured burden for people together with a real understanding of her task.

Jankiewicz returns in the theological studies section and provides his widely appreciated perspectives concerning the authority of a Christian leader. Then Dr Wendy Jackson provides a very helpful essay which strongly suggests ways that help readers distinguish between a sacramental and non-sacramental model of ordination. In a non-sacramental model, such as Adventists embrace any hierarchical or status distinction between the so called clergy and the laity has no New Testament precedent.

The fifth and final section of the book is titled “Moving Forward.” A scientist, and former president of Avondale College of Higher Education, Dr. Geoffrey Madigan leads by providing a helpful way for the reader to look at our corporate Adventist past and future, and thus to process the concrete proposals and recommendations found in this section of the book. Then comes a helpful and research based discussion of the “lifeworlds” and of Adventist female pastors in Australia by Dr. Drene Somasundrum, an Adventist academic and chaplain. This allows us to glimpse the challenging world of Adventist female pastors. Next, Dr. Ronald Stone, a Fiji-based Tongan ministerial practitioner reflects with the reader concerning the possible ordination of local church departmental leaders. The present writer authored the penultimate chapter which provides a solid theology of the laity or whole people of God. This is based on the twin biblical teachings of the priesthood of all believers and of spiritual gifts. Several practical and organizational principles are then drawn from this theology, which in turn inform a renewed understanding of the theology and practice of ordination.

Dr. Barry Oliver, missiologist, immediate past President of the South Pacific Division, and a member of TOSC, titled his paper “Moving Forward in Unity.” It describes in broad brush strokes a way forward through this issue that respects the global diversity while maintaining unity. It resonates very much with the final proposal made by the General Conference in 2015. The rather orthodox perspectives from which he writes are carefully outlined and he is careful to build on our Adventist history and heritage. Oliver affirms allegiance to God and to fellow Adventists and then the involvement of all in seeking a final solution to this issue.

For the present writer there are several key issues taken up repeatedly by more than just a single author. These issues may well serve to illustrate the poise and balance with which the South Pacific region of the Adventist faith communion has sought to handle this issue. In this way, they encourage continuing discussion and research by all who are willing to be led by Scripture.

Firstly, both Ray Roennfeldt and Barry Oliver, at the beginning and end of the book have emphasized their respect for “the reality … [of] the differing [Adventist] perspectives on ordination” (pg. 272). And this, at the same time that they hold strong and well researched views for themselves. It is probably these two authors in particular who may have done more to suggest a more united hermeneutic for Adventists to use. Such a hermeneutic may well assist Adventists toward reaching a more satisfying resolution as far as the nature of ordination in the Adventist context.

Secondly, both Wendy Jackson and the present writer have explained in some detail that the distinction Christians, including Adventists, draw between the status of the clergy and the laity is unbiblical and unhelpful. As Jackson says, “Christians are rightly called the laos of God. Both words, laos and kleros, are used in ways that signify the idea of the Christian community as a whole. The NT context does not support a difference between them” (pg. 202). This division results from a very unbiblical model of ministry. And if this be so, Adventists can’t easily use arguments against the ordination of women clergy, as many do. Thus the contributions of both authors deserve special attention.

Thirdly, both Ross Cole and Ronald Stone open up to Adventists the possibility of appointing, or ordaining people of both genders to a variety of officers and roles in Adventist leadership, both for salaried and unsalaried Adventist members. As Cole so eloquently says, “the OT and NT language of sanctification or separation shows how God calls every one of his people to a variety of different offices and roles. The installation comes at the commencement of the role, if not beforehand. Therefore it is not a reward for a job well done” (pg. 86). To extend ceremonies of appointment to more fully embrace the whole people of God would certainly emphasize the missional nature of the Adventist movement, and help establish a renewed ministry of all believers.

This collection of research papers will reward the careful reader. It doesn’t pretend to be the final word on the subject. It was never the intention of the book to provide a final theology of ministry and of ordination, supported by all the present authors. However, I trust that this present volume will be accepted as a reasonable and significant contribution to an ongoing debate of this nature. In many senses, it may lead the way for contributions by other sectors of the global Adventist faith communion. Whether it is acknowledged or not, each of the various regions of the Adventist world face differing challenges and issues when it comes to articulating the theology and practice of ‘ordination.’ It is wise to listen to all quarters!

Peter Marks has studied at Avondale College of Higher Education; Newbold College of Higher Education and the University of New South Wales. He has an MA (Religion) and a Master's degree in Information Management. He served in the Adventist ministry in Australia and New Zealand before spending five years as a lecturer in English at Sunchon National University and Sahmyook University, both of which are in Korea.

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.

Directing 'Everyone'.jpg

Leslie Foster, Southern graduate and filmmaker, brought the beginning of his Ritual Cycle film installation to our UltraViolet Arts Festival in September. Now he is placing the project at an art gallery, hoping to push viewers into discomfort and exploring God beyond the little boxes.

Question: In your latest project, called Ritual Cycle, you are creating an art installation made up of five short films portraying God in various guises, including a woman and gender queer. Is that right?

Answer: Ritual Cycle is a film installation that explores divine identity through five short films, which incorporate unique rituals. These include explorations of the Divine as feminine, as genderqueer (or as a genderqueer person, to phrase it in a slightly different way), as sibling, and as lover. I would say these are not guises, but God in all God's amazing possibilities. It is an attempt to show God in a way that dissolves the boxes in which we normally place Her. God beyond our gender binary and even our conceptions of God as simply a trinity. The five rituals explore lament, cleansing, hope, rest, and celebration.

So far, two of the five short (five-minute) films have been completed (and can be viewed on online). In the first, called "Mother Godde, a Ritual of Lament," a woman in white walks into the dessert and performs a ritual — you describe it as exploring "the concept of divinity as undeniably feminine and as a grief-stricken parent." Can you explain your process of inspiration and how you came to create this scene?

Inspiration for me is always a spiritual thing, but it happens in all kinds of different ways. Most of the time through hard work, spending each day in the practice of creating, sometimes through amazing flashes that just hit me. "Mother Godde" happened in one of those flashes. I saw the scene, the ritual, all at once, then I just had to flesh it out. I've always enjoyed liturgy, ritual spaces, and the surreal. I think those all fused in the creation of Ritual Cycle.

Experimental film is such an amazing way to explore the divine. God is so far beyond what we can imagine or verbalize. Sometimes it takes burying the words we have into images so we can explore things we can't express at all and emotions for which we have no words.

Without reading the title or description, how would a viewer know you are depicting an image of God?

I would say that it's likely that the viewer won't know explicitly that this is a depiction of God if they don't read the title or description. I'm okay with this. I think God has a beautiful way of approaching us in a wonderfully quiet and subtle way at times, often without announcing any presence.

For the few people who see this without title or description, I hope we have created something that allows them the safety to feel their emotions fully, to explore their own rituals a little more closely. In this, I hope we've opened a door to the divine, as Jesus would say, for those of have ears to hear and eyes to see. But this also must be a safe space for those who claim no religious belief. If someone wants to come into the space and have an experience stripped of any religious or spiritual trappings, they should be able to do that; I want them to feel safe too.

The amazing thing about art is that we just started the journey — people will come with their perspectives and interpretations and have their own experiences that we can't dictate at all. We have created a space that has the potential to be a gentle guide, but doesn't force the viewer to head toward our ideal definitions.

I think this is the perpetual dance between the artist, the Divine, and the audience. We let it go and hope beyond hope that we've created something that will create a spark in someone else. We want to be visual parable-makers and if we can leave viewers as curious (and sometimes) confused as Jesus left his listeners, I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

In the second film, two men perform a ritual dance in an abandoned warehouse, holding mops of fire. How was this specific dance decided on? Is this an actual ritual performed somewhere? How was it choreographed?

The second ritual, of cleansing, has several points of inspiration. A few years ago, I was at a Burning Man-relates event and was watching fire dancers perform. When the performance was over, a dancer came and mopped the stage with flame to clean off the remaining fuel. I was captivated by how beautiful it was and knew it had to be incorporated into a project.

The ritual of cleansing is also a ritual of service — God as servant. Scott Arany, my creative partner and I, thought creating a dance with flaming mops would be an excellent ritual for this concept. I worked with a fantastic choreographer, Angelina Prendergast (who also co-stars in the third ritual) to craft the dance seen in the ritual.

Scott and I thought it would be important to create unique rituals for the project. So many faiths have injured people and we didn't want visitors to the gallery space to be triggered or feel defensive before they even have a chance to explore the films. In wanting to break down the walls we place around the divine, we found it was important to craft rituals from scratch.

I believe you have lived all over the world, including Asia, Europe and America. Were your parents Adventist missionaries? What accounted for your constant movement?

I have lived all over the world, due at first to the fact that my parents were and still are Adventist teachers (they currently work in Thailand; my mother is the administrator of an elementary school and high school and my father is a business professor).

As an adult, I've moved around because I've had the amazing chance to work in a few different countries as a filmmaker and I'm an urban nomad, I truly love traveling.

Clearly, your travels have inspired your filmmaking, as the images you portray feel very "ethnic" for want of a better word. Is there any specific culture, religion or country you had in mind as you were creating these films?

There isn't a specific culture or religion we had in mind when we created these films. The words we kept repeating in our creative meetings was "otherworldly" or "alien." We wanted the rituals to feel novel with touches of familiarity. The music for "Mother Godde" was created by Scott with the aid of Rainbow Underhill who has studied Jewish and Balinese music, and Britta Kay, a Jewish cantor.

And speaking of music, it seems you worked closely with musician and composer Scott Arany to create these films. How did you come to work together? How much of a creative influence did he have?

Scott is my collaborator and creative equal for this project. He composed most of the music and as a gifted liturgist and theologian, worked with me to craft each of the rituals. We met at the Hollywood Adventist Church and quickly found we shared quite a few interests (and a birthday). We worked on little projects for years and when I was first inspired to create "Mother Godde," I knew that he would be the perfect creative partner.

I believe you are raising money right now to help place your installation at the Level Ground Film Festival in Pasadena, and so far have about $3,000 — half of your goal. Why do you need to raise these funds for the festival? Where is the money coming from in general?

While Level Ground Film Festival is our main presenting sponsor and I serve as their artist-in-residence, the gallery show will not take place at the festival proper. We are currently raising funds in order to have a five-day run at a gallery in Hollywood or downtown Los Angeles at the end of February. Our goal is $6,300 and we have currently received pledges for $4,300. The budget includes funds for materials (wood, cloth, projectors, speakers) needed to build the installation, rent for the gallery space, and payment for our installation designer.

What has been the response to your films in Ritual Cycle so far? Who has seen them? What message do you hope that people who have seen them come away with? What would be your ultimate goal for this installation, if it could go anywhere?

Over the last three years, the first two films of Ritual Cycle have been shown at group gallery shows as well as at several Level Ground film festivals. We've had a pretty wide variety of people view the projects, though at this point, the audience has leaned majority Christian, which is something we'd like to change. The exploration of the divine is far larger than any one belief group. The response so far has been very positive, with the occasional confused reaction (which I don't mind at all!). It's been exciting and humbling to see a group of people become avid supporters of the project.

Scott and I want people to leave the installation having found a safe space to express their joy or grief or hope. We want them to be empowered to push into discomfort and explore God beyond the little boxes in which they have placed God. I hope we have created visuals that stay with people for a while and that are aesthetically nourishing for them.

As far as where we'd like to see the project go? We'd love to create a package with the project that we can use to help people create unique rituals for their own communities. We're already working with some folks to create Ritual Cycle workshops. We'd also really like to take the five rituals on tour around North America and perhaps beyond.

How did you become a filmmaker?

My journey to becoming a filmmaker is a pretty tangled one, which involves spending three years studying pre-med biology, a German degree, and a few different countries; but the short answer is that I discovered that it was the perfect synthesis of so many things that I loved, from technology to fashion design, and a perfect way to explore a lot of things I hadn't found any other way to express.

Tell us about some of the other projects you are working on.

I'm currently working with a group of filmmakers on pitching a miniseries based on the life of young Frederick Douglass. We've written the pilot and have been working with our representation to get it to studios over the last year. I'm also working on a sci-fi webseries with some of the same filmmakers. Finally, I've been working on a documentary about violent homophobia in Jamaica since 2001.

I believe you studied filmmaking at Southern Adventist University. What made you choose Southern? Do you feel Southern helped you to hone your craft and become the filmmaker that you are?

I did study film at SAU and finished up in 2006. I think the Southern film program was very important in helping me hone my craft and giving me a strong set of tools that I was able to use in my professional career. It allowed me to challenge myself and stretch my artistic wings, something for which I am very grateful.

If you respond to this article, please:

Inline Images:

Christ_Cross.png

When William Johnsson preached on Sabbath in Atlanta, he invoked the example of Jesus as determinative for Christian life. Ironically, his fellow Adventist scholars had earlier balked at making Jesus determinative for the interpretation of Scripture.

Insight outstripped irony.

Scholars with the Adventist Society for Religious Studies (ASRS) were gathered in Atlanta for reflection on the church’s witness in “the Public Square,” the theme of this year’s annual meeting. Now, with members joined in Sabbath morning worship, William Johnsson, the former editor of the Adventist Review and, in 1979, the first president of ASRS, was the preacher.

His remarks, entitled “Leaving the Comfort Zone: From John the Baptist to Jesus,” lifted off from the base of passages in Matthew on the two figures in his title. Both of them, he said, preached a message of repentance, and both died young. As for John the Baptist, he stuck to the desert, and people traveled out from the cities to hear him. By contrast, Jesus went where the people were, to the cities, to “the Public Square.”

Johnsson noted that Adventists “have followed John more than Jesus,” wanting to keep to the country, away from the risk of engagement with city life. Now, however, it is “high time” for the church to move “from the desert to the city,” from “John to Jesus.” Johnsson was calling his fellow scholars—his fellow Adventists—to set themselves on a new path, a path “beyond our comfort zone.”

At the request of meeting planners, Johnsson then told the little-known story of several interactions, in which he himself was involved, between high-level Adventist leaders and the leaders of other faith communities. With Gerhard Hasel, William Shea and Bert Beach, he met with evangelical leaders headed by Kenneth Kantzer, who was the editor of Christianity Today. Later he participated in conversations with leaders of the Lutheran World Federation, and still later with leaders of the World Evangelical Alliance. In each case the key question was whether Adventists could be seen as authentically faithful by the rest of the Christian community, and in each case (though with varying degrees of difficulty) discussion led to consensus that the answer is Yes. They conversations were difficult, and took the Adventists participants out of their comfort zone. But Johnsson was grateful for the end result, and also grateful, as he put it, that “my own thinking was broadened.”

After his retirement from the Adventist Review, Jan Paulsen, then the General Conference President, authorized Johnsson to engage in inter-faith dialogue with Muslim leaders who were living in Australia, and he found great satisfaction in that process as well. But in this case, leadership skittishness finally brought an end to the official interaction.

This was deeply disappointing, and having said so, Johnsson turned again to the Bible, now Hebrews 13, where Jesus is described as having suffered “outside the city gate,” or “outside the camp.” From the highly priestly standpoint, this was an unclean place. But the author of Hebrews nevertheless charged his Christian readers as follows: “Let us, then, go to him outside the camp…”

Now the sermon’s point sounded forth again. “No place is off limits,” Johnsson said. Christ is Lord of all, “including the Public Square.” At his final words—“Let us go outside the camp; let us go outside our comfort zone”—ASRS worshipers arose in applause.

But here was the irony. Although Johnsson had just invoked the example of Jesus as determinative for Christian life—as somehow superseding that of John the Baptist—his fellow Adventist scholars had earlier balked at the suggestion that Jesus is determinative for the interpretation of Scripture. The ASRS leadership had presented a draft statement on the “Centrality of Christ” for resolving apparent differences (as concerning, for example, violence) among biblical passages. The draft noted that “‘selective’” mining of biblical texts can lead to mistaken and even dangerous conclusions, and said “internal evidence” from the Bible “makes the risen Christ the ultimate criterion for interpretation.” The point of coming to agreement on a statement was to bear witness to church leaders and other Adventists with respect to sound principles for reading Scripture.

But for one reason or another many members were unsatisfied, some because they did not agree with making Christ the key to biblical hermeneutics. So on Friday a small taskforce was asked to return with something different. The new draft came back during the Sabbath School hour, and reference to Jesus had been completely eliminated. This new draft did warn against confusing “the ‘plain reading’ of Scripture” with “a selective or superficial reading of the text.” And it did affirm the “unity of Scripture,” while allowing that “we always read the bible as broken people who need the Spirit of God and each other’s correction in order to read well.” But Jesus as a methodological principle, as the criterion for determining how to apply the biblical witness to our actual lives—was gone.

Partly with this in mind, members decided on Sabbath morning to leave the second draft on the table for further consideration. The support given to Johnsson just an hour later may, together with the earlier discussion, portend a change of heart when the draft statement on biblical interpretation comes up again. Johnsson’s sermon was itself an instance, it seemed, of Jesus as Scripture’s ultimate voice.

Below is the revised Statement on the Interpretation of Scripture drafted by the Adventist Society for Religious Studies on November 20, 2015.

As our church community gives renewed study to how Scripture is read and interpreted in the church, the members of the Adventist Society for Religious Studies believe that it is important to participate in this process. ASRS affirms that an adequate hermeneutic asserts the full authority of Scripture in its plain and intended meaning. The “plain reading” of Scripture, however, is not to be confused with a selective or superficial reading of the text.

An adequate hermeneutic facilitates the sharing of the wonders of Scripture so God’s Word can live anew in our worship, ministry and mission. It affirms the unity of Scripture even as it acknowledges the diversity within it. It affirms the full authority of Scripture as the inspired word of God, even as we admit that we always read the Bible as broken people who need the Spirit of God and each other’s correction in order to read well.

The hermeneutic needed suggests that a true plain reading of Scripture is not a superficial reading. As scholars, we long to assist our church as it seeks to be ever more faithful to the Word.

Charles Scriven is board chair of Adventist Forum, the organization that publishes Spectrum Magazine.

If you respond to this article, please:

syrian.jpg

The national discussion (screaming match?) regarding the treatment of refugees from Syria presents this question: Are we called to extend compassion only when there is no risk in doing so? Committed members of a faith community ought to first ask themselves that question as members of their community even before asking it of themselves as Americans. I believe that, for a Christian, there can be only one answer: Of course not.

Christ’s Sermon on the Mount makes it plain enough. There we are told to love our enemies, pray for those who persecute us, walk the extra mile, and volunteer our tunic when someone steals our cloak. These are hard teachings, but we know the passages well. “If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?” Matthew 5:46 (NIV). None of these admonitions is conditional. Jesus did not say, “Love your enemy only when he cannot possibly harm you.” If these teachings set the standard for treatment of our enemies, are they not even more compelling in the case of the mere stranger?

According to Leviticus 19, the Lord told Moses to instruct the assembly of Israel to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Verse 18 - NIV). The Parable of the Good Samaritan teaches us the full meaning of this command. When the legal expert sought to know who our neighbor is, Christ instead responded with a story that taught how to be a neighbor. “’Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who feel into the hands of robbers?’ The expert in the law replied, ‘The one who had mercy on him.’ Jesus told him, ‘Go and do likewise’” (Luke 10:36-37 - NIV). The parable teaches that “doing likewise” requires us, as neighbors, to transcend geographic, cultural and ethnic boundaries and to instead respond to any victim in need. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul put a punctuation mark on the lesson: “The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:14 - NIV).

The Sabbath commandment, lying at the very heart of the Decalogue, extends its blessings to the “stranger that is within your gates.” Listen, too, to the words of the prophet Jeremiah: “Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow . . . ” (Jeremiah 22:3 - NIV).

The writer of Hebrews hearkens back to the story of Abraham – father of three great religious traditions – and reminds us, “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares” (Hebrews 13:2 - NIV). We are not cautioned to avoid hospitality to strangers for fear that some may be devils; instead, we are taught to be hospitable on the chance that some may be angels. Christians place bets on their hopes and not on their fears.

We know these things, but in seasons of stress it is hard to remember.

While we are taught to be “harmless as doves,” we are, in the same breath, told to be “wise as serpents,” Matt. 10:16, and so Christians are not called to suicide. We need not invite across our thresholds those whose only and obvious purpose is to eliminate everyone inside. We are, however, called to take a measured chance, to take a risk for the sake of kindness. Is it possible, therefore, that for a Christian, a reasonable screening of refugees is enough? Is it possible that we cannot be true to our Teacher while closing our arms until that tantalizing moment when security can be guaranteed beyond any doubt? That moment never comes in life. It does not come in our relationships with each other or with domestic strangers. Why, then, would we claim entitlement to that moment in the case of foreign strangers?

A nation’s traditions are an inadequate standard for Christian behavior. Therefore, whether hospitality to immigrants truly is part of the American ethos is irrelevant to the question of Christian duty and the two discussions should not become confused with one another. Nonetheless, our national history does point to one salient observation. As context, let us recall that the record on American attitudes towards immigrants is mixed. On the one hand, there is the American self-conception embodied, for example, in this quotation from Harry Truman, which I saw on display during a recent trip to the Truman Presidential Museum and Library: "Whether discrimination is based on race, or creed, or color, or land of origin, it is utterly contrary to American ideals of democracy." On the other hand, there are many instances in American history where our behavior toward the “other,” whether domestic or foreign, fell far short of this ideal. Nevertheless—and here is the observation—it is not those particular moments that we view with pride as a people. Instead, as we study past times when our anxieties squelched the inherent American spirit of optimism and manifested themselves in prejudicial treatment toward the “other,” we cringe in embarrassment. Somehow in our hearts we know that, just as with individuals, national greatness blossoms when we surmount our fears and overcome evil with good.

There is reason for concern when national rhetoric draws so much strength from our fears. Calmer and more measured souls may sit back quietly in the storm, believing that it will blow over soon enough, but history teaches the dangers of waiting too long. Analogies to Nazi Germany are at risk of being overblown and, perhaps worse, of trivializing the darkness of that era. Still, it is worth remembering that Hitler did not take control by force. His path to leadership was cleared in a democratic election in 1933. It was incomprehensible to many Germans that such a rude, narrow demagogue would remain in power. For example, consider this passage from Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, by Eric Metaxas: “The Bonhoeffers saw through Hitler from the beginning but no one believed his reign would last as long as it did. Surely the Nazis would have their moment, perhaps even a long moment, but then it would be gone. It was all a terrible nightmare that, come morning, would disappear. But morning never seemed to come” (pg. 143).

National fear quickly can empower forces that call out our darker instincts, instead of appealing to, as Lincoln so beautifully put it, the “better angels of our nature.” Therefore, at such a moment as this, when our nation celebrates the very holiday instituted by that rag-tag band of immigrants seeking a religious haven so long ago; surely at just this time, it would be well for a powerful Christian voice to be raised against the demands for a risk-free guarantee in exchange for American compassion.

Image: Abdullah, a Syrian refugee with a blood disease, who sleeps outside the Central Station in Belgrade, Serbia.

Jeffrey S. Bromme, Esq. is the Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer for the Adventist Health System.

If you respond to this article, please:

birthday_Ellen.png

Ellen Gould Harmon and her twin sister Elizabeth came into the world on November 26, 1827.

Ellen Gould Harmon and her twin sister Elizabeth came into the world on this day (November 26) in 1827. Ellen married James Springer White on August 30, 1846. They had four sons. Only two, Edson and William, survived into adulthood.

Ellen White is best known for her prolific writings on health and spirituality. She was one of the founding members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

2015 also marks the 100th anniversary of Ellen White's death. She died on July 16, 1915.

Happy Birthday, Ellen!

Inline Images:

ADRA Serbia Aids Migrants

First Person: I'm A Mom, A Pastor's Wife, and I'm Asexual

Best of Comments October 19 - 23, 2015

Perspective: Avondale Lecturer’s PhD Reveals Keys to Church Unity

Viewpoint: I Thought About Leaving the Adventist Church

Reader Response - October 25-30, 2015

John Brunt Reflects on 50 Years of Ministry

PUC Professor: Why I Invited Ryan Bell to Speak

Viewpoint: Does Speaking Christian Still Mean Something?

Training Missionaries in a Multicultural World

Why the North American Division Sexuality Statement is a Disappointment

On Culture, Change, and Conscience: A Reflection on Women in Ministry

Twenty Years of Minutes: Proceedings of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (GC)—Part 1 (1863-1869)

Viewpoint: A Christian Response to Terrorism

Twenty Years of Minutes: Proceedings of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (GC)—Part 2 (1870-1876)

South Pacific Perspectives on Ordination – A Book Review

Filmmaker Explores a God of Multiple Identities

At ASRS, Christ in Scripture and Sermon: A Puzzle

A Thanksgiving Meditation – Betting on our Hopes

Happy Birthday Ellen Gould Harmon White