brass.png

Pastor Stephan G. Brass, pastor in a three-church district in the Southern German Union, has asked for commissioned credentials, in solidarity with Adventist women pastors. He talked to Spectrum about why he made the decision, and the reaction of colleagues, churchmembers and administrators.

Question: In October, you turned in your ordination certificate and ministerial credentials to the Southern German Union during a meeting of the conference committee, asking for commissioned credentials instead. This was because the Southern German Union (unlike the Northern German Union) has not voted to ordain women as pastors. What was the response of the conference committee and your colleagues when you did this?

Answer: They accepted my move with respect and they assured me that nothing in my work commission and position will change. When we talked about the decision of San Antonio I made a speech before the conference committee, of which I am a member, and to make it clear I walked up to the conference president and handed him my ordination certificate along with my pastoral ID card.

There was a moment of silence (probably showing astonishment) and some women expressed their esteem for this move. There was no response from the executive officers. They have merely taken note of it.

What response have you received since that day, from administration, other pastors and church members?

The majority of responses I received were from women in the church — both women pastors and lay members. They were all positive and supportive. Male colleagues made comments like: “I don’t want to mess up my career” and “Why all the fuss? The women can do everything that we male pastors can do, except become a president.” One other male colleague told me he was considering handing in his ordination credentials for the same reason.

On Sunday, during a pastors’ family retreat, our conference president asked all pastors not to follow my example and hand in their ordination certificates. He explained that our goal is not to give up our ordination but to support the ordination of women. I understand that some administrators urged our conference president to cut my salary. 

Do you believe the Southern German Union in time will change its stance? Why do you believe it has acted differently than the Northern German Union?

I really can’t tell if there will be a change. I do hope so. There is a shift generally in Germany’s culture when you go from north to south. The south is generally considered more conservative. I am not sure what will happen. The union president was just last week called to the family ministry department of the division, so next week’s union constituency meeting is more concerned with finding a successor than handling the women’s ordination question.

Do you have colleague pastors who are women?

Yes, I do. Interestingly enough the conference in which I serve (the Bavarian conference) has employed the most women as pastors in all of Germany (4,550 members, 70 churches, 29 male pastors, and three female pastors).

You clearly have strongly-held views about ordaining women. Why do you feel they should hold the same ministerial credentials as men?

I have read all of the TOSC material. I have listened to all of the debates at General Conference sessions (I have attended all sessions since 1975 in Vienna, where I decided to enter the ministry). I was translating the debate in Indianapolis in 1990 and also in Utrecht in 1995. I heard the plea of Gerard Damsteegt against women’s ordination and the response of Raoul Dederen in Utrecht. None of those incidents convinced me of a biblical argument against women’s ordination. 

In contrast, I find equality when it comes to spiritual matters for both male and female. And since the New Testament endorses a kingly priesthood of all believers, the distinction we experience is a merely cultural one. I will respect those cultural practices and their underlying understanding. 

However, I do live in an environment that supports equality of male and female, and  which is also rooted in its constitution. So I do believe that God empowers male and female likewise with his spirit and makes no distinction. When it comes to leadership roles the Bible also makes no distinction between male and female. And finally, I have worked with women in pastoral and administrative leadership that far outreach their male counterparts. So why not have men and women fill positions according to their abilities and gifts rather than according to their sex? 

Were you surprised by the outcome of the discussion on ordination at the GC session in San Antonio?

No, I was not. Knowing the cultural setup of the delegates I expected that outcome. I don’t believe that we will solve this question by democratic procedures. So in my opinion the questions we are asked to vote on need to be asked differently.

What do you believe the Southern German Union should do about this issue, and why? What about the world church? What would you suggest as a way forward post-San Antonio?

With my move I wanted to keep the discussion alive. I also want equality in pastoral ministry. We should seek a solution within the Adventist setup that enables equality and does not discriminate against woman pastors. 

Unity is not at stake in this question, I believe, but the authority of the GC and its president have suffered a lot since San Antonio. 

Do you think it's possible, with various cultural differences to overcome, that the church in Europe and North America can continue to co-exist with the church in Africa and South America?

Yes, I do. Unity in diversity is a healthy challenge and not a threat. It is obvious that it must be intended by God.

How long have you served as a pastor? Where did you study, and where have you served? What kind of church do you pastor now?

I began serving in September 1981 after I felt called to the ministry by E.E. Cleveland’s appeal at the ministerial conference prior to the GC session in Vienna, 1975. I started my studies at Marienhoehe Theological Seminary in Darmstadt, Germany. I then continued at Newbold College in England (Jan Paulsen was principal at that time) with a break of one year, in which I served as language teacher in my home town in Germany. In 1980-81 I caught up with my studies at Columbia Union College in Takoma Park, Maryland, and finished in the summer of 1981 with a B.A. in theology and a minor in radio and TV communications. 

I have served in differnt conferences within the North and South German Unions. I have also worked for the Adventist publishing house, as well as with ADRA as public relations officer.

For the last eight years I have pastored a three-church-district in the Bavarian conference northeast of Munich. The churches are very different. The biggest one has 150 members with about 60% of German-Russian background, quite a group of Romanian citizens and the rest native Bavarian people. In addition to being a pastor for those three churches I am the leader of one of the seven pastoral districts in Bavaria (called a convent). 

I have also been asked to be the press spokesperson and public relations officer for the conference, and look after the internet presence of the conference. Every five years I conduct “footprints of the pioneers” trips to the US and the GC session on behalf of the two German unions.

What do you love the most about the Adventist church? What keeps you as an Adventist pastor? 

I do believe that the Adventist church has a peculiar message for an end time generation. I also believe in the ministry of EG White and that this movement has prophetic importance. 

I have the impression, however, that more and more this church establishes a presidential and kingly power within its administrative structure that is neither healthy nor helpful. There should be much more freedom for the different cultural aspects of our church.

I stay in this church because my calling is not from humans but from God. I still believe in the divine nature of the calling into the existence of the Adventist church. 

What advice would you have for your fellow pastors, in Germany and beyond, both women and men, as the Adventist church continues to evolve into the 21st century?

Let’s serve our Lord in whatever capacity and let’s do our best to get rid of injustices that may be obstacles for others to find the Lord.

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.

Church_ISIS.jpg

With the worst refugee crisis since WWII and at a time when over half of the U.S. governors are rejecting Syrian refugees for fear of ISIS, we have to ask ourselves: What is the place of the Church? 

'Til now, political analysts have been the main voices interpreting “the facts.” They speak in terms of demographic explosion, poverty, alienation, historical grievances, and they speak of religion as a dangerous force harnessing emotional and irrational powers. Those are the glasses through which we are to view and understand the "other." They drive the “we know what is going on” narrative, and their storyline is seldom contested.

What is missing? The passionate and relentless voices of the prophets of old, for one thing! People of God who discerned the ways in which spiritual forces were at play, and who could explain the unexpected ways in which God remained engaged in their convoluted world. Prophets who exposed fear and deception, and boldly invited God to take center stage.

Our voice is missing . . . the Church’s counter-cultural narrative has gone silent. How come our response is not different from the rest of society? Could it be that we also have put our trust in the next presidential candidate? Is the government our savior? Let’s be clear, no presidential contender, no matter how religious his views are, can replace God’s church. 

The solution for the refugee and terrorist crisis is the Church. The Church is God’s answer to the millions of prayers reaching out to Him from the quivering lips of Syrian, Afghani and Iraqi people.  The Church also understands the principles that sustain Satan’s government: fear of the other, deception, destruction, and death. These can only be defeated with God’s good. Not just managed, but defeated; for the answer to any deathly ideology is the Kingdom of God tearing down every other false kingdom.

Upon us God has bestowed his Son’s authority to challenge every nationalistic or utopian narrative which promises peace and security away from God’s appointed way: Jesus. This is an opportunity for the Church’s finest hour. The darker the night, the brighter the light shines. 

Till now, the Church and the American society have been coexisting comfortably with each other. After all, at the heart of this great nation we find that biblical principles, and Christian mores have shaped the very institutions that gave the US its particular identity among other nations (democratic vision, the generous spirit of its constitution, its national institutions and laws, etc.).  

This is changing though, as highlighted by the recent decision from the Supreme Court of Justice to redefined marriage. One thing is clear, whatever your views are, the one thing we cannot do is to sit blindly and grieve for “the good old times”.  God’s people should expect that as the time for the return of Jesus gets closer, the divide between secular America and the Church will become grow. 

Is ISIS Winning? 
At the very heart of the ideological appeal of ISIS, there is a warped theology and eschatology that promises “God’s Kingdom” in a Muslim homeland. This is a kingdom that the “believers” are rallied to “bring down” with their own hands, even bloodied hands if need it be. Violence and death are not the aim, but rather the costly price to pay in the way to self-made theocracy. The end justifies any means. 

ISIS is built on an eschatological vision which sees Islam victorious after a massive Armageddon type of war. The media is unable to fully understand the theological underpinning for this ideological movement because it no longer takes religious beliefs seriously. God is assumed to be a personal choice, powerless to feature in the public arena, so the interpretation of what is going on is missing a critical dimension: ISIS particular view of how history started and how it ends. 

Dabiq, which is the name of their slick magazine, was named after a town in Syria where ISIS supporters expect to see the final war. Their strategy is clear:

“…compel the Crusaders to actively destroy the gray zone themselves. . . Muslims in the West will quickly find themselves between one of two choices, they either apostatize. . . or they [emigrate] to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the Crusader governments and citizens."

ISIS is counting on a small number of terrorist attacks shifting the way by which European and American societies views its more than 50 million Muslims. If American Muslims are suddenly perceived as potential threats, (a fifth column), this will impact the way in which Muslims in the West view themselves: as victims of discrimination and therefore needing to protect themselves. 

When this happens, we play into ISIS social engineering strategy that seeks to polarize the world into two camps: ISIS a place of safety for Muslims (to where Muslims are encouraged to emigrate to), and the rest of the world, the land of the infidel, where Muslims are under threat. Yet it is important to know, the Syrian refugees are not fleeing from the territory Assad controls, they are fleeing from ISIS controlled lands. 

This means that every Muslim refugee who is welcomed among us deeply undercuts the Islamic State's vision and narrative in two ways. First, it proves that we do not buy into the fear of ISIS’s strategy. Second, refuges that have suffered under ISIS barbaric violence, are better positioned to challenge its illegitimate promises of a place of peace and security. Their stories tell of horror, rape, hate, slavery and devastating destruction. Potential recruits in the West, who may be entertaining utopic dreams of Islamic greatness, may come face to face with the hideous reality that ISIS is a cult to death.

Is ISIS wining? It depends on how many will cave into fear and unwittingly support their “two layered” vision of the world. Let’s be clear, terrorism is not about killing per se but terror. ISIS carefully stages its barbaric acts to create maximum fear, and fear is the indispensable ingredient for their recipe on how to exercise control. No fear, no ISIS, for without fear ISIS will starve to death. 

This is where the Church can step in. For we have faith in Jesus who has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). Whatever is born of God overcomes the world and this is the victory that has overcome the world our faith (1 John 5:4). We are not to live in fear but to advance His Kingdom by faith.

Contrarily, have you noted how many political decisions are taking place in a climate of fear? Fear is never a good advisor, but who will speak up? Who will expose reactionary measures as weak? As people of faith we ought to respond from a position of moral strength, away from revenge and hyped emotions.

 “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7). A sound mind comes not from reacting in fear, but from the boldness under the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:31) and the love that proceeds from God. 

ISIS has concocted a powerful narrative that combines: community, love of power and global domination, safe space for Sunni Muslims under the protection of a powerful caliph, God’s approval for those keeping up to the “letter of the law’, and a personal sense of fulfillment and meaning as a “history maker”. This is true for disenfranchised and powerless youth who believe that they can change the destiny of Islam with a Kalashnikov in one hand, and God’s banner in the other.

The Muslim community seems at a loss, confused.  Much of their leadership has denounced ISIS in every possible way, and explained that ISIS does not represent how Muslims have historically understood their faith. We should take them seriously.  But in the end, the fact is that no one has ever defeated darkness by cursing the night. This war is ideological, and no amount of denunciation, nor drones will decisively end it. Muslim leaders, security forces, and politicians are all at a loss for ideas for defeating ISIS, but the Church is not!

The Gospel as A Story to Inhabit
We, the Church, have no reason to be grasping at society's solutions; Scripture issues this call: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). 

Just as light pushes away the darkness, so the truth about God and his Kingdom is the story that can counteract ISIS narrative. In the end, before the coming of Jesus there will be two sides: God’s people, driven by the love of God, and those who oppose God and are driven by fear and love of power. 

The Gospel is not one story among many, the Gospel is “The Story”, which calls every other story into judgment. The problem is that many have reduced the Gospel to information, truthful information, but information in the end. When this happens, the Gospel becomes powerless, it looses its relational and community building dimension. Thus, when it no longer drives our views about reality, and right or wrong, then our culture does.

We need to recover the Gospel as a story to inhabit, the power of God that transforms lives, and boldly present it before our dying world. God in Christ healing the world, reconciling it to himself. God winning the world’s allegiance back from a position of apparent weakness, as a “cruciform” God. God empowering the believer with a power that originates in him and that is truly transformational. Muslims all over the world have expressed how irresistible to their longing hearts is the “Sermon on the Mount”. They are captivated by the father who receives his prodigal son (Luke 15). The person of Jesus brings new life, and how they are yearning to be part of a community as the one described in Acts 2. 

Hamid, not his real name, desisted from joining ISIS after being exposed to the message of God’s Kingdom and his Constitution as described in Matthew 5. Today he is a peace activist. Hamid’s Muslim friends invited a Christ follower to help them where they failed. Hamid found in the Kingdom of God a better and more real story.

A Call to Action
What does this mean? I want to suggest that the Church is the answer to the ISIS ideological crisis and to the refugee crisis. 

The Church’s message is not to focus on how misguided ISIS supporters are, but to offer a better story; one in which God is truly the Lord, and transformation is in Christ. One in which victory is guaranteed because it is not rooted in humankind’s frail efforts, but in God’s love that was made visible at the cross of Christ. We also have a different ending in which God, and not Satan, takes center stage, and this is the source of our hope. 

The Church is also the welcoming arms to which God thrust his hurting people to receive healing in practical ways. When society fears them, the Church is God’s shelter. Recently a Muslim refugee, Abdul Wahab, told me this:

“I thought we were emigrating to America, but now I know we were emigrating to God. You (followers of Jesus) have helped us to know how to live like godly people in America. You see we come from many years of being bottled up in the Middle East and then we come here and we do not know how to manage this freedom. In America Satan is quicker than God in getting us. Please continue to help my people to remain on the side of God.” 

This is the Church’s privilege, this could be our finest hour. Let us seek to bring Jesus to these refugees and the other Muslims living among us.

Gabriela Profeta Phillips is Director for Adventist Muslims Relations for the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists.

If you respond to this article, please:

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

Wonha Kim + GRW Advocacy.jpg

Adventist healthcare providers around the country have joined forces to talk to Washington's lawmakers about transforming healthcare and a focus on prevention. Dr. Gerald Winslow, director of the Institute for Health Policy and Leadership at Loma Linda University Health, was one of the representatives of the Adventist Health Policy Association who traveled to Capitol Hill to present a plan called Five Steps to Health in America to members of Congress. He talked to Spectrum about the plan and the assoication behind it.

Question: The Adventist Health Policy Association, representing five major Adventist health systems in the US, presented its ideas for healthcare policy and reform to members of Congress recently. In a nutshell, what do you believe needs to change in healthcare in America, and how should the focus be adjusted?

Answer: We might be able to put this in a “nutshell” if the nut is very large.  The big message is that we need to redirect some of the immense sums of money and time we invest in healthcare to the work of disease, accident, and violence prevention and the work of health promotion.  

Our nation is more ready for this move than at any time in my memory.  The reason is that more policy makers understand that we must find more cost-effective ways to secure health for our nation’s citizens.  Of course, thoughtful people have made this case for decades.  But the financial incentives simply didn’t foster investments in health promotion.  There was little or no monetary reward for efforts to prevent encounters with illness care.  

Now this is beginning to change.  And the five Adventist health systems are prepared to help lead the way.

Your 72-page booklet, titled Five Steps to Health in America, listed 75 recommendations to "improve the physical, emotional and spiritual health of the communities we serve." That's a lot of recommendations. How did the Adventist Health Policy Association decide on these specific ideas?

Each of the five hospitals and healthcare systems convened focus groups of knowledgeable professionals who work at the intersection of healthcare and public policy.  From the work of these groups, we developed the framework of the “five steps” within which we organized the 75 proposals. 

Your group met 40 congressional officers on October 21 to present the document. Was that a good turnout? Did it meet your expectations? What do you think the members of congress will do with the booklet and its suggestions? What impact do you expect it to have? Are the Adventist health systems you represent a big enough chunk of American healthcare to catch the attention of the national government?

Let me answer the last of those questions first: Yes the five systems do represent a potentially powerful force for good in the arena of health policy.  One of the systems (Adventist Health System) is the largest Protestant faith-inspired healthcare organization in the nation, and it includes one of the largest private hospitals in the country.  Taken together, the five systems represent over 80 hospitals, hundreds of clinics, and well over 100,000 employees.  Often our healthcare institutions are among the largest private employers in their region.  So, yes, this magnitude of healthcare services does get the attention of the nation’s policy makers.  But there is a much more important reason than the size of the Adventist systems.  We are known for our commitments to health promotion, disease prevention, and community health development.  We have well over a century of experience in this work.  And there is evidence that we are trusted to do the work well.

And yes, we were pleased with the participation of all five of the Adventist systems, all of which sent representatives to Washington, DC for “Advocacy Day.”  We were able to visit with over 40 offices and more than two dozen members of Congress or their staffs.  As might be expected, we concentrated our efforts on those members of Congress who have Adventist facilities in their districts or states. This is the second year we have made the trek to Capitol Hill, and I believe we are learning to be more effective in this work.  The number of participants on our teams increased this year, including CEOs who joined in the work. 

One of the main purposes of the Five Steps to Health in America was to present non-partisan initiatives that we believe are both aspirational and potentially transformational.  We were met with considerable gratitude for the work.  One congressman from Missouri, for example, voiced his appreciation because he said he felt he and his colleagues needed some fresh ideas in the often highly charged environment of our current political scene.  Others expressed both surprise and thanks for the fact that instead of asking for some special favors, we were offering our services.

Beyond whatever effects the booklet may have in the various offices of Congress and with the presidential campaigns to which the work was also given, there was the energizing reality of having our five systems work together to clarify what we see to be our best opportunities for the betterment of our nation’s health.

Besides the presentation some weeks ago, how else are you getting your policy recommendations into the hands of lawmakers?

The process of sharing our perspectives on healthcare reform doesn’t begin or end in a day.  This is ongoing work that the Adventist Health Policy Association is doing constantly. Representatives from each of the five Adventist systems meet telephonically on a regular basis to ensure continuing collaboration on many different issues.  We believe that it’s imperative for our nation’s leaders to understand that we are eager to collaborate in evidence-based interventions for whole community health.  Going forward, we will be seeking other avenues for sharing this basic commitment which is an outgrowth of our Adventist faith. 

Why is it important to have this dialogue with American lawmakers? 

Most members of the US Congress are not experts in healthcare.  They are constantly pressured by special interest groups.  Our hope is that we can be influential in providing information and proposals that are genuinely motivated by an abiding commitment to improve health outcomes in communities all across the nation. 

Do you feel that members of the Adventist Health Policy Association, including its 84 hospitals and 400 other health centers and entities, are already implementing these policies to the extent possible?

The answer would have to be a mixture of Yes and No.  We are in a period a major transition.  One executive described this as having one foot on the dock of the existing payment system and another foot on a boat that is headed into new waters.  Along with all healthcare organizations in our nation, the Adventist systems are navigating their way through this time of transition.  The advantage we have, in my view, is the foundational purpose that gave rise to Adventist health ministries — namely our faith. 

What impact do you feel the upcoming US presidential election is having/will have on healthcare policy in America?

Well, the topic will certainly be front and center again.  And this will give us new opportunities to express our convictions about focusing on health and not just healthcare. 

Has the Adventist Health Policy Association, since its founding five years ago, previously made similar recommendations/presentations to congress?

Since the Adventist Health Policy Association (AHPA) was founded, it has produced a steady stream of position statements and policy briefs.  Examples of these can be found on the organization’s website.  And in addition to the organizing “Advocacy Day” for two years, there have been many other communications with members of Congress and with policy makers in various departments of government at both the federal and state levels. 

Does the Adventist Health Policy Association have any full-time staffers and/or a permanent presence on Capitol Hill?

Some of our systems do engage individuals or firms that help to convey our messages at both the state and federal levels of policy making.  AHPA itself does have full-time employees, but they do not spend most of their time on Capitol Hill. 

Do you feel that the Adventist health message has evolved over time in its basic principles? As the tenets of wholistic health and preventative medicine gain more adherents generally, are they receiving more widespread acceptance? Or are they becoming subsumed by the way healthcare is now generally perceived, and thus less relevant as it is no longer unique?

My belief is that the Adventist health message has developed an increasingly strong basis in evidence that has been gathered over decades of diligent work.  I’m often amazed these days by the high level of interest in principles we Adventists have espoused for generations. Paradoxically, at the same time, we live in a society beset by a rising epidemic of poor health resulting from lifestyles that lead to chronic diseases.  

The basic tenets of the Adventist health message are not going out of style.  They are increasingly being recognized as effective for better health and greater longevity.  But it would be impossible to contend that these principles are being adopted by the vast majority of our fellow citizens.  There is a lot of work to do!

You are the vice president for mission and culture for Loma Linda University Medical Center and director of the Institute for Health Policy and Leadership at Loma Linda. What do you most like about your job/s? What do you find the most challenging? Did you help to create the Adventist Health Policy Association?

I wish I could claim to have helped with the founding of AHPA.  But others have this distinction. I’m proud of what AHPA has accomplished and of its current goals.  

The Loma Linda University Institute for Health Policy and Leadership was established in large measure to aid AHPA in its work by having an academic institute, with faculty scholars sharing their expertise.  I’m pleased to have helped with the founding of the Institute.  I have been working in different roles within what we now call Loma Linda University Health (our corporate name for our University and its health system) for over 25 years.  And this is now my 47th year as a professor in Adventist higher education.  

Since I genuinely enjoy nearly all of my work, it’s impossible to single out one superlative aspect.  But I’d answer your question this way: I find greatest satisfaction in taking the best of Adventist beliefs and seeking to make them practical in our world.  My academic field is Christian ethics.  My work in health policy is simply an outgrowth of the belief that our ethical convictions are not intended only for the elevated towers of academic reflection, but should find expression in the ways they shape better lives for whole communities.  I believe this is why Jesus sent out His disciples to share the good news of the Kingdom and to heal. 

Note: The members of the Adventist Health are comprised of Adventist Health in the northwest with 19 hospitals; Adventist Health System with 45 hospitals, including Florida Hospital, the nation's largest Medicare provider; Adventist Healthcare with five hospitals in the MidAtlantic states; Kettering Health Network in Ohio, with eight hospitals; and Loma Linda University Health with seven hospitals in southern California.

Photo: Dr. Gerald Winslow and Dr. Wonha Kim on Capitol Hill. Dr. Kim is Associate Director of the Institute for Health Policy and Leadership.

Horsemen.png

President Ted Wilson, in his inaugural sermon in Atlanta/2010, said the following:

"Signs of Christ’s coming are increasing in frequency and intensity every day. Destructive events in nature, the great confusion of world politics, the pervasive and compromising activities of ecumenism, the dramatic increase and influence of spiritualism, the deterioration of world economies, the disintegration of societal and family values, the disbelief in the absolute authority of God’s Holy Word and the ten commandments, rampant crime and moral decay, wars and rumors of war, on and on. All point unmistakably to the climax of earth’s history and the Lord’s return to take us on the final journey home to heaven."

Five years later, in his San Antonio post-re-election sermon, he made essentially the same points:

"I am more convinced than ever that Jesus’ return is near, even at the door! … We know the signs of Matthew 24 and realize political challenges are now beyond the control of most governments today, economic conditions are fragile and untrustworthy, natural disasters are increasing in intensity and destruction, social changes are challenging the very Word of God, ecumenism is rapidly growing in its false, non-biblical and neutralizing influence on society and yet we are still here."

These ideas are familiar and core Adventist belief since the church began, post 1844. And, as the most visible and representative spokesperson of Adventist belief, Wilson’s statements are unsurprising, even expected. But they are problematic.

Two Problems

1)      They are framed as a possibly circular argument. That is, he says that becauseof: destructive nature, political confusion, economic deterioration, etc., therefore: the 2^nd Coming is at the door. However, no justification for these premises is given. And one would not expect that in the context of a sermon. But much more central is the reality that justification for these presumed causes is never really explored substantively within Adventism. They are just assumed to be true – because of longstanding Biblical and Ellen White interpretations. Then stated and re-stated because this general argument has always been a part of Adventism.

But the correctness of all these premises is not obvious to those not already persuaded. Each of Wilson’s stated premises (e.g. moral decay, war), need to have been initially conclusions, supported by their own unique, specific rationale. And those arguments, I assert, are frequently in the implicit form of: because we know the Advent is very near [premise], we expect: increasing social, economic, political and religious unrest [conclusion]. But what this two step process then amounts to is a circular argument. Thus validation of the “signs of the times” is often because of faith in the Adventist position that Jesus’ coming is “even at the door”. Then those now presumably valid signs become premises to generate the conclusion that “All point unmistakably to the climax of earth’s history and the Lord’s return”.

2)       Unsupportive data. Are Wilson’s premises [disaster, politics, economy etc.] defensible on grounds other than belief that they must be true because we are at the end of time? If so the circularity charge can be removed. That is, if Wilson is asserting “end-ness” based on a faith-position alone, his above-quoted statements – if considered by the listener as an argument – are circular. However, if grounded by evidence, they are not. Thus much depends on this. But the evidence is problematic.

Evidence

While a robust examination of what events and/or metrics God has in mind as tipping points to the 2^nd Coming would be most welcome, that would far exceed my space limitation. Instead I will consider here a small sample of at least plausible data.

If the world is getting worse, let alone “unmistakably” at the end of time, one might expect the life situation of a world citizen to be also getting worse – on average. Yet consider:

This graph shows real (not nominal) Gross Domestic Product since A.D. zero. Note the dramatic increase in productivity, notably for the past 150 years. And average individual prosperity correlates to this dramatic increase. Especially in the past 30 years. Places like China and India have seen an astonishing rise in the middle class, and overall economic gain, as shown here:

(Apologies for the small size. The website restricts the size of uploaded images.)

The above graph shows the steady, then accelerating, decline of poverty from 1820 – 2011. The Y axis moves upward from 0% to 100% world poverty. The X axis moves from year 1820 to 2011. Yellow line shows world poverty, red line shows extreme poverty, black line shows % of the world living on less than $1.25/day.

Along with more per capita income one might expect to see an improved living standard translate into better health. It is undeniable that there has been an explosion of medical knowledge in the past 150 years. And, indeed:

The worldwide GDP curve (1^st graph, above) looks quite similar to the increase in an individual’s lifespan, which ought to suggest better average overall health. These metrics obviously make one wonder whether a persuasive case can be made that the world is instead actually getting better, not worse.

Next, consider world conflict. Pastor Wilson, quoting Matt. 24:6, mentioned “wars and rumors of war”. However:

There are spikes correlating to the Korean and Vietnam War timeframes. Perhaps the 1980’s rise is due in part to the Cambodian genocide. But the dramatic downward trend is obvious.

Each of the graphs show shifts which have occurred during the timeframe that Adventism has presented the warning that Elder Wilson articulates above. But the directions seem to be at odds with the expected Adventist conclusion.

Some other end-time categories/events mentioned by Wilson are also commonly considered significant within the Adventist community, including:

-        Economic deterioration. There was, of course, the recent 2008 “melt down”. That must be solid evidence, right? Except that I doubt very much whether those typically propounding this opinion have done any macro economic analysis. It is just “bad” and “scary” and on the news a lot. Digging into the actual underlying issues[1] would not produce anything as simplistic as the person-in-the-pew is likely to have in mind when forming an opinion about economic risk.[2]

-        Religious liberty. But, at least in America, the so-called “Religious Right” has (arguably) less clout than in the former, Jerry Falwell / Pat Robertson days.  And Christianity overall is in decline[3] in the U.S. Consider[4]:

This disturbing trend seems at odds with the Great Commission being fulfilled any time soon.

-        The Catholic Church.  But Francis is not making many obvious beastly pronouncements these days. Would his words be suspect to Adventists if he were not pope? We risk circularity again here. If whatever the pope says gets interpreted in a way that “confirms” an Adventist view of Catholicism’s eschatological role, then those interpretations can morph into “evidence” that the end is near.

-        Natural disasters. We have more people these days and better reporting mechanisms. But, for example, has modernity had anything comparable in physical size/scope to the Krakatoa eruption[5] in 1883? Or the Tambora eruption[6] of 1816 resulting in the “year without a summer”?

Reactions

What reactions might there be, among Adventists, to what I’ve presented here? There are many possibilities, including but certainly not limited to:

1.       Believing I have bad motives for casting doubt on the traditional Adventist assertion that we are in the “last days”. I would deny this but, far more importantly, motives are irrelevant, and to shift discussion from what the possible end-time indicators might be, to the character of anyone who raises questions – is an example of ad hominem. Still, this is a frequent reaction people have when an important, but perhaps under-examined belief is questioned.

2.       I am cherry-picking data. Are there are different data out there that, had they been presented, would corroborate President Wilson’s assertions? To this question/possibility I would say – make the case. Provide the additional conflicting data and let’s all begin the investigative process.

3.       I have chosen wrong or at least incomplete metrics. Again, I would welcome any responsible exposition of this possibility. It brings into view the broader, yet even more important and problematic, question of just what is God waiting for?

4.       President Wilson is speaking purely on a faith basis, sans analysis, and perhaps premature in his estimation of where we are in time. This to me is the most plausible, because the data I’ve shown above can be considered damaging to his conclusion and somewhat persuasive toward the opposite view, at least in absence of any other metrics and plausible scenarios.

Conclusion

My intent in this brief essay is not to disprove anything. Certainly not that the 2^nd Coming doctrine is false, or even that it is necessarily not in the near future. My goal is much more modest. Adventists have been making assertions about being in the last days for a very long time. We usually have anecdotal evidence in mind to buttress the belief. And likely a loose and shifting set of categories that we deem significant end-time markers.  

I am suggesting a possible disconnect between some of our end-time assertions and reality on the ground. If the economy, religious liberty, Catholicism – or anything else – is relevant, we should try to think this whole subject through and propose rationale that correlates with the data. We should not go from GC to GC saying the same thing without supporting our assertions. The only ones willing to accept this would be those who already uncritically believe and are sufficiently invested in that belief (for a wide variety of sometimes problematic reasons) to find any scrutiny unwelcome. Thus a circular argument suffices. But if we hope to be honest with ourselves and persuasive to potential converts – we have to do better than this.

Inline Images: 

Skid Row Messiah.png

Skid Row, Los Angeles. No one is quite sure how many people live on these streets, but we do know this 54-block area of Downtown LA is home to the largest number of homeless individuals in the United States. A number which, according to most estimates, has doubled in the last year, prompting the city of Los Angeles to discuss declaring a State of Emergency.

1.2 miles to the north-west stands Walt Disney Concert Hall, a cultural and architectural icon of Los Angeles. A gleaming beacon on a hill. A palace for the fine arts: home to the LA Philharmonic, LA Master Chorale, and host to hundreds of world-class performances each year.

This month, both venues have mounted performances of Handel’s Messiah. The music of this oratorio is ubiquitous this time of year. Church choirs and student ensembles perform it. Community orchestras stage sing-alongs and audiences flock to the performances, belting out the strains of For Unto Us A Child is Born and the Hallelujah Chorus at full-volume. The LA Master Chorale gave three performances of The Messiah at Walt Disney Concert Hall this year: one sing-along and two “please don’t sing along,” as music director Grant Gershon likes to call it.

But this year marked the first time in its 274-year history that Handel’s masterpiece was performed in the homeless capital of the U.S. And, of all the myriad Messiah performances this year, I think this one on Skid Row was the most important. It was put on by a friend of mine in the LA Phil, Vijay Gupta, who founded a performing arts and advocacy/activism organization called Street Symphony a few years ago after being inspired by the story of the homeless and mentally ill cellist Nathaniel Ayers, whose story has been chronicled by LA Times Columnist Steve Lopez and in the book and movie The Soloist. Street Symphony has performed hundreds of free concerts at Skid Row homeless shelters and Los Angeles County Jail facilities and it also presents public events aimed to raise awareness for the intersection of mental health, homelessness and incarceration through the power of musical expression.

The recent Street Symphony performance of Handel’s Messiah took place at Skid Row’s Midnight Mission and featured musicians from the LA Phil and other local orchestras plus chorus members, some of whom are themselves formerly homeless individuals.

In other words, exactly how George Frideric Handel intended it.

The very first performance of Handel’s Messiah was a benefit concert for charity. The German-born composer who spent time in Italy before moving permanently to London had been writing Italian operas. These were popular with audiences in London, but only for a time. As the public’s tastes began to change, Handel changed the kind of music he composed. He began writing oratorios--a musical form similar to opera, but with stories on biblical subjects and not staged.

Londoners ate them up.

One series of performances at Oxford became such a hot ticket that the university students there sold their furniture to buy tickets.

A few years into his oratorio-writing career, Handel received a package from one of his collaborators: the librettist Charles Jennens. Jennens had sent him a libretto for a new oratorio. In a letter to a friend, Jennens wrote, “I hope [Handel] will lay out his whole Genius & Skill upon it, that the Composition may excell all his former Compositions, as the Subject excells every other subject. The Subject is Messiah.”

Jennens’ text for The Messiah comes from the King James Version of The Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. It took Handel only 24 days to set the entire text to music. The famous Christmas portion of The Messiah (Part 1) took Handel just six days to compose.

In the winter of 1741-42, Handel traveled from London to Dublin for a performing residency. He did not plan to give the first performance of The Messiah on that trip, but he brought the music along with him. Just in case. 

The residency went well, so Handel added some gigs. He decided to premiere The Messiah in April, 1742. He shipped his own personal organ from London to Dublin for the performance. A new oratorio by Handel was, understandably, a huge event. It was so big, that the concert presenters asked the women of Dublin to remove the hoops from their dresses and skirts, so they could pack more people into the church pews. For the same reason, the gentlemen were asked to please leave their swords at home.

The concert raised funds for three different charities in Dublin: two hospitals (Mercer’s Hospital and the Charitable Infirmary) and an organization that provided financial relief for people who had been incarcerated in debtors’ prison. 700 people attended that first performance of The Messiah. In total, the concert raised £127 (approx $25,000 today) for each charity and secured the release of 142 indebted prisoners.

Later, beginning in 1750, Handel instituted an annual performance of The Messiah at Foundling Hospital in London—an organization set-up to provide health care for abandoned children of London. Foundling Hospital was Great Britain’s first charity dedicated to serving children. The chorus at the performances that Handel led there consisted of these children, many of whom were blind. Handel presented The Messiah there every year from 1750 until his death in 1759. Those nine performances raised the equivalent of $1.3 million to care for the children of Foundling Hospital. Handel donated an organ to the hospital and, in his will, he specified that the only existing copy of the score to The Messiah was to be given to the Foundling Hospital.

These are the incredible circumstances surrounding the earliest performances of Handel’s Messiah. This is why, for me, the perfect setting for a performance of this great oratorio is not a concert hall, a school auditorium, or even a church. The perfect setting for a performance of Handel’s Messiah is a gymnasium in the heart of Skid Row.

In this context, the words “Comfort ye, my people,” mean more—just as the words, “Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened” must have had a more powerful impact when sung by the blind children of the Foundling Hospital. In this context, when the soprano sings, “The Savior speaks peace,” and the alto sings, “He shall feed his flock,” the message of Christ’s healing and redemption takes on an even more tangible and concrete meaning.

In a strange way, the ubiquity of Handel’s Messiah this time of year can actually cause us to lose sight of its incredible spiritual and artistic power. Just like the ubiquity of twinkly lights and shopping mall Santa Clauses can cause us to lose sight of the radical revolution that is the Christmas story.

Neither are simply about the event. Handel always meant The Messiah to not just BE a piece of music that sounds nice and people like to listen to. He meant for The Messiah to actually DO good in the world.

Christmas is about more than just the birth of a baby boy. Christmas is a revolution. The event is interesting enough, but it’s not the event that’s the point. The point is not that the Messiah came, the point is what came next: a life that is a model of liberation, empowerment, justice, mercy and salvation. The Messiah lived the redemptive love we so desperately seek. The words he spoke, the people he cared about, the causes for which he fought all give us a template for our own lives.

King of Kings. Lord of Lords. And he shall reign forever and ever. Amen.

Brian Lauritzen is a host and producer at Classical KUSC-FM in Los Angeles. He is the resident host for the Salastina Music Society and hosts the concert series Inside the Music at the LA Philharmonic.

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

Inline Images: 

CSM-130928-Stairs2-2134793.jpg

Christmas in My Heart Book 24 is out this year in time for Christmas. This series, edited by Joe Wheeler and published by Pacific Press as well as other publishers, has lasted for more than two decades. Wheeler, 79, has edited or authored 91 books and still keeps busy full-time. He talked to Spectrum about how the series began and why he still isn't tired of Christmas.

Question: Dr. Wheeler, you have been working on the Christmas in My Heart series for 24 years. What is it like to edit these Christmas books?

Answer: The selection process, writing, and editing lasts most of the year. The media interviews and book-signings take up virtually all of each November and December.

Last week, I signed books at Focus on the Family for the twentieth Christmas in a row. I've now done 31 books with Focus on the Family and Tyndale House.

And then there are so many other things that happen throughout the year. I write a weekly blog called Wednesdays with Dr. Joe, and I have been running Dr. Joe’s Book of the Month Club or about four years. I also have a Quote of the Day that I send out.

Are you planning to retire and rest anytime?

I discovered a quote when I was approaching 70, which I have quoted many times since.

“A life may be over at 16 or barely begun at 70 — it is the aim that determines its completeness. I would rather wear out than rust out.”

I still write everything with my Pilot pen. My wife Connie handles inputting everything into computer, contacting people, dealing with significant correspondence, and much more. She has typed out every one of the 91 books I have written or edited. It is very much a joint venture.

You left your position as professor of English at Columbia Union College (now Washington Adventist University) in 1996. Do you miss teaching?

I could say, as CS Lewis said, that I was dragged kicking and screaming from the classroom. I do very much miss the energizing interaction with students. But I don’t miss evaluating term papers.

We were so overwhelmed by our book-related involvements, on top of teaching and chairing, that, in 1996, I took early retirement so I could devote full-time to our book ministry.

Not many authors are able to make a living by writing full-time.

How did you get started creating anthologies of Christmas stories?

My student Naomi Snowdy, who was in my creative writing class, stopped me after class one day in 1989 and said: “If I have to stay one more weekend in the dorm here I will go mad.” So Connie and I invited her to our house for the weekend. 

This was the weekend I had my first key epiphany. It was a cold winter’s night and we were sitting by the fire. Naomi said: “Dr Wheeler, have you ever thought of writing a Christmas story?”

“Yeah, I’ve thought of it,” I answered lazily.

“Well, why don’t you?”

“I will — some day.”

“Why don’t you do it tonight? It’s going to be snowing all weekend. What else are we going to do? Besides,” she added maliciously, “I want to proof your story. . .”

The tables had been turned on me!

So, under duress, I sat down and wrote “The Snow of Christmas.”

Naomi snatched the pages as I wrote them, scribbled notes and made me fix them, and then made copies for our creative writing class that Monday.

The story made its way into the hands of many colleagues, friends and family members.

So the next year, they asked for another Christmas story, and the tradition began.

The next year I wrote “The Bells of Christmas Eve” about Louisa May Alcott, for my American Lit class.

And how did you end up getting published?

One day I was at the Review & Herald and I wandered into Penny Estes Wheeler’s [no relation] office; she was the acquisitions editor. She asked me what I had been writing lately. “A couple of Christmas stories,” I answered.

“What kind of Christmas stories?”

“Oh, the kind that incorporate the spiritual dimension of Christmas — and you can’t read them without choking up.” 

“But you have only written two?” she asked.

“Yes, but I was raised on them, so I’ve been collecting them all my life.”

Penny Wheeler would not let me leave her office until I promised to send her a collection of my favorite Christmas stories. 

I procrastinated. She kept asking.

Finally some time later I sent her a collection of my favorite Christmas stories.

Sometime later I heard her voice on the phone: “Joe, the committee has cried its way through your manuscript. May we publish it?”

And so it began: timeless woodcut illustrations inside and a horizontal Currier & Ives cover illustration. Result: a horizontal book.

When Christmas in My Heart came out in 1992, I thought I had finally gotten Penny off my back. But the book went through two printings before Christmas. 

So she came back and asked for a second. I had enough stories for a second, and they had enough woodcuts for illustrations. So we went ahead. 

One pivotal day, the thought came to me: Why not send a copy to Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family? For if there was another male crybaby as bad as me where emotional stories were concerned, it had to be him. He did not respond, but his vice president did — she loved it.

Next year, same scenario.

Then came that never-to-be-forgotten phone call: “Joe, are you sitting down? Dr. Dobson has fallen in love with Christmas in My Heart — he wants to use "The Tiny Foot" from Christmas in My Heart 2. May he do so?”

Earlier, I had been warned that if Dr. Dobson decided to use my book, my life would never be the same. 

Truer words were never spoken: By the time Dobson sent out three million copies of that story, and read it on the air around the world, Connie and I lost control of our lives.

Result: We signed on with agent Greg Johnson of Alive Communications, Inc. He flew out to Annapolis and we discussed our future options with him. After an exhaustive discussion, especially our nearing the breaking point because of full-time day-jobs and full-time book-involvements, Greg leaned back in his chair, paused, then asked me a life-changing question: "Well, what are you going to do with the rest of your life?"

I answered, "I always thought I'd continue teaching until the end of my teaching career — but God appears to have other ideas."

"So what would it take for you to answer God's call?"

I told him we just couldn't take early retirement without a solid foundation of contracts to build a new life on.

Greg said he'd see what could be done, and left.

The next thing I knew I got a series of contracts, mainly with Focus on the Family, for other books, including Great Stories 1, 2 and 3. Focus on the Family also asked for the Classic Book series, and later the Heart to Heart series. All of this just piled up.

But we were still living in Annapolis, both Connie and I working long hours at our day jobs, with long commutes.

My agent said: “You have enough contracts, what is stopping you from answering God’s call and doing this full time?”

“We need medical benefits,” I countered. Greg was clearly a bit disillusioned by my unwillingness to step out in faith.

Just a few days later, I got a letter from a Dr Phil Burgess, who had picked up a copy of Christmas in My Heart and was intrigued by an English professor who created Christian story collections and also loved the Old West of Zane Grey. Burgess asked if we could meet.

We did, and bonded. After considerable conversation, Dr Burgess posed the exact question Greg Johnson had: "So . . . what are you going to do with the rest of your life?"

I answered that we just didn't feel we could retire from teaching without full-time medical.

Several days later, I received another letter from Dr. Burgess. "You have expressed your interest in moving back to Colorado. As of this morning, you are Senior Fellow for Western Studies, Center for the New West, headquartered in Denver's World Trade Center. Furthermore, as of today, you and Connie are on full-time medical — so now what's keeping you from answering God's call?"

So what could we say? God had boxed us in. So we made the move to Conifer, Colorado, and our new life.

Since then, we have worked very very hard. You don’t produce this many books without working your tails off. But we are very blessed.

So Pacific Press is not your sole publisher? How many books have you sold?

I have worked with 16 different publishing houses — there has been a very significant broadening from the world I had when I was at CUC.

First, Christmas in My Heart was at the Review & Herald for 16 years. When the Review terminated the series, Pacific Press immediately picked it up. We also created other Christmas books with Focus on the Family, Tyndale House, Doubleday/Random House, Howard/Simon & Schuster, RiverOak/David C. Cook, and Thomas Nelson. We also created genre collections with other publishing houses.

All the books together have probably sold about 1.5 million. That’s not a lot compared to top sellers, but it’s 1.5 million more than I ever expected to sell!

Where do you get your ideas?

In terms of my own creativity, I had another major epiphany one day. I was getting lots of mail from people everywhere telling me how wise I was — but I knew I wasn’t.

I was randomly thinking about this thing we call wisdom. I thought about Solomon. God asked him what gift he wanted. Solomon said he felt very dumb, and God granted his wish and made him the wisest human who ever lived.

Nowhere in the Bible does God say he wouldn’t grant that gift to anyone else who asked. 

I didn’t have Solomon’s chutzpah, so I asked God for just one day of wisdom.

From that day to this God has been there for me.

I ask him every day for access to his wisdom, so that what I say and write will be worth listening to and reading.

And that has had a profound effect on everything that I do and everything that I write. It has resulted in a very personal relationship with God. Though I have been a Christian since I was young, this is something new.

I prayerfully consider every story. I ask God for help deciding which stories deserve to live on.

For each collection, I go through hundreds of stories, and I start winnowing them down. I ask God if it is satisfactory, and usually I know I have to keep working. I go through many drafts — maybe an average of 12 — until I feel I have something God has signed off on.

I am different from most anthologizers, in that it is not the name of the author that counts, but the power of the story.

“Meditation in a Minor Key” was the first story of yours that I read. I thought maybe the Christmas in My Heart books all began with that.

Yes, that has been one of the stories that people really remember. I usually include one story that I write myself in each Christmas in My Heart book, but there were two of my stories in the first book.

When I wrote “Meditation in a Minor Key”  Ingrid Vargas, one my students at CUC and a musician, asked if she could help, and proof it. I have never written a story as perfect as that one. She signed off on every last sentence, and every last word. She would call me in the middle of the night and say: “This line — it doesn’t quite ring true.” After editing and reworking and multiple drafts, she would say, “This draft is not as good as an earlier one. You need to try to regain the power.”

Because of her input and the endless fine-tuning and editing, the piece turned into about as perfect a story as it’s possible to get. 

Usually I struggle all year long with the Christmas story I write. I feel God makes me wait and wait. It is only as I get toward the final deadline that he gives me some characters and a setting, and each day I ask him to take it where he wants it to go.

A story can be good, but not perfect. A story can be well written, but not have power. I remember in one particular story, after about 30 pages, the characters were dead, lying on their backs, and I simply could not bring them to life. I prayed again and again. One night, in a dream, God brought my characters to life. When I woke Connie about 3am, telling her what God had done, she ordered me downstairs to write it all down before I forgot a word of it.

The manuscript for Christmas in My Heart volume 25 [for next year, 2016] has already been sent to the publisher. If there is any valid reason for the success of our story ministry, it is because God is at the helm and not me. I am only a very grateful understudy. It is the Lord’s ministry.

After 24 books, and 25 next year, aren’t you running out of Christmas stories?

I have more good stories now to choose from than at the beginning. For every story that makes it in, between 100 and 300 don’t. We keep acquiring stories, and people keep sending them.

Every now and then, a story slams you against the wall. It’s emotional. It leaves you limp. You remember it, like it or not.

My mother had the ability to read and recite stories so she left her audiences limp. Those stories are incredibly rare. But I discovered after a while I was actually raising the bar every year, and becoming more and more demanding as to what stories make it in.

This is a key reason why people keep reading them, and keep buying the books.

Do you ever get tired of Christmas?

No, I never get tired of Christmas. It is a very energizing topic. People who are “Christmasy” are happy and joyful. 

I would say there are thousands of people who have all 24 books. You would be amazed at how many people tell me: “Don’t you dare give it up. I couldn’t face a Christmas without your collection. I was raised on these tearjerkers.”

I once asked famous concert pianist Roger Williams what was his greatest concert ever. He told me with great seriousness: “The concert tonight.” 

People loved him because he gave everything he had — after a concert his tux would be wringing wet, and the piano always had to be retuned at intermission. 

He told me that most performers work really hard until they get to the top, then they start thinking they don’t have to practice so hard anymore and they lose their edge. He determined to make every concert the greatest of his career.

Now every year I ask God to give me the guts to just hang it all up if I come up with a collection inferior to the ones before. But every year I have to say: “This might just be the best one yet.”

How long will you keep at it?

I notice at alumni gatherings there are two kinds of people among the older ones: Ones who watch TV, play golf, look after grandkids — but have no real goal. Then there are the people who are still creating things, still doing, still achieving, still becoming. They live longer. In Scripture, there is no such thing as retirement. God expects us to keep on creating as long as we live. 

Is it difficult to get permission to publish all the stories?

It can be very difficult, especially with very old stories. My attorney says that if we have a paper trail showing that we really tried and did our very best to find the owner, and are willing to pay them, we are covered. Connie and I do all that.

Tell us about some of your other projects.

I have a new series: “My Favorite. . .”

It includes “My Favorite Angel Stories,”  “My Favorite Miracle Stories,” and next will be “My Favorite Answer to Prayer Stories.”

I have published two Abraham Lincoln books with Howard, Simon & Schuster: one about his spiritual life, and one collection of Civil War stories. The first, a biography I wrote called Man of Faith and Courage, was issued in a proprietary edition by Barnes & Noble this year, and sent to all 650 stores. It was such an honor to be chosen.

Do you have a favorite Christmas tradition in your family?

The trading game (which has been memorialized in “Hans and the Trading Game” in Christmas in My Heart 5). It involves picking and trading gifts.

What else would you like people to know?

Please make sure you tell your Spectrum readers about my conviction: No matter what aspect of your life you are talking about, and no matter what your career is, this prayer for divine wisdom is something God would grant to anyone. This might be the most significant epiphany of all: God will partner with us no matter who we are. God can work with anyone.

From beginning to end, this ministry of stories and books has never been a Joe Wheeler-thing, but rather a God-thing.

Interviewer Alita Byrd was a student of Joe Wheeler's at Columbia Union College, and spent many hours working for him, photocopying stories from old Youth's Instructor magazines in the library.

Visionary_Leadership.png

This morning I write from a position of joy mixed with pain.  In total self-disclosure, I am a die hard, Jesus loving Christian Seventh-day Adventist.  I have been to GC Sessions since I was a baby, Campmeetings, Adventist Academy, Adventist College and University.  I worked on nearly every level of this church before I was 22 (in maintenance cutting grass or in facilities services). I went to Seminary.  I became a pastor and pastored in 3 states.  I got ordained.  I still work for the church.

However, through nearly 15 years of service to the church I have found one cord that is strong and seems to never go away.  The church seems to often discount ideas, vision, progress, and questions that pushes cultural and ecclesiastic norms.  The three people I speak of as the title to this piece are three people whose vision would have catapulted the church eons ahead of where it is today. 

Joseph McCoy who gave me my first job in ministry, was a visionary who was tired of seeing his fellow colleagues retire with nothing and dying penniless.  He decided to do something about it.  McCoy also desired for scholarship inside of the ranks of his pastors and sent and encouraged several to go and earn doctoral degrees and give back. 

Robert Folkenberg, Sr.  was an evangelistic visionary who used the internet as CompuServe before the expansive world wide web existed.  He even pushed the agenda of Women’s ordination two times at GC Sessions during his tenure.  I wonder what we would be talking about now if women’s ordination was passed in 1990 or 1995?  May be we would be talking about abuse of children, women, cultural identity, or may be a structural change that has been needed for more than 80 years. 

Charles D. Joseph, Sr. had a vision to create an urban center for health wellness and education in Chicago and urban centers across the country.  His vision like the one in New York City like J.K. Humphrey in the 1920’s was shot down.  However other centers like that now exist all over America and the world in what National Geographic calls Blue Zones.

You may part horses with me on how they implemented or structured ideas or plans. Fine. Am I saying the people are perfect? NO. Don’t kill the vision or the person.  Sit at the table and talk, we are all human. The thing about visionaries that people don’t know is that they like seeing the idea implemented more than anything else.  How it happens is not the most important thing…the most important thing is that it happens. 

I know two of these men and their families well.  Another I can only read about.  The things I am learning about Robert Folkenberg, Sr.  now are astounding.  A real man of vision. 

There are some common elements with all three men.  All three resigned for the good of the church. All of them sacrificed and labored for the good of people.  All three are and were in love with their wives and families. All three never stopped working with the church to win people for God’s kingdom. 

I long for the day where ideas, questions, and disagreements with implementation and structure will be able to be challenged, accepted and implemented. 

I long for the day when the organization will realize its an organism and alive and move according to the needs of the culture and community. 

I long for the day when a microphone at a meeting is not a threat to anyone’s personal position but a welcome sight for facilitating discussion. 

I long for the day when people can separate themselves from the item they write about realizing only God owns the keys to the church.

I long for the day when going to church gatherings will not be about agenda’s but about an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that is not restricted to one cultural expression.  

To kill vision for compliance is telling the devil it's not worth it to try anything new.  Sabotaging mission and vision for compliance and mediocrity will only allow us to see the same patterns over and over again.  

What will heal this chasm between visionaries and the structure and idea police?  I do not have all the answers but I would like to offer a few suggestions:

• Study together - I have heard before of the great 1974 Bible Conference.  I think its time for one of those again.  I have heard it suggested before by a female colleague of mine. (Her name is not here because I didn’t speak with her before publishing this piece).

• Connect- I think there is a deep opportunity to connect with other parts of the world on a real social level.  Pentecost did not happen as a result of people liking each other.  There were disagreements that the spirit worked out while these people were in a room together.  I say find a room with someone you don’t know or like and hash it out over lunch. 

• Learn - Be open to respecting and learning about another’s cultural identity and perspective. These elements include music, worship, food, child rearing, family to name a few. 

• Make mission real - I feel we could take advantage of the idea that the world is getting smaller and making mission a regular part of worship.  It’s easy now to Skype, Oovoo, or Facetime with someone from another culture (in America or the world) and learn about them every Sabbath.  The mission story becomes alive and enjoyed, and  friendships are developed. 

• Educate and Release -Allowing money to be encouraged by mission.  If we educate in Adventist universities and colleges the best and brightest but limit them as soon as they enter the Adventist workforce, why are they getting an Adventist education?  Why work for the church? Use the minds of those who have not been tainted with the Adventist King or Queen’s mentality and use them. 

• Real Discipleship - Preaching is not enough.  Well crafted sermons are not the only way to heaven. Community presence is key. Discipleship as a process for evangelism.  Sowing, Keeping, Reaping.   

• Reward - Reward every worker for their labor.  Everyone is not a visionary, some are reapers, some are sowers, some are ground breakers.  Reward every worker. 

• Get Active  - Get an active devotional life. An active devotional life encourages a deep spiritual connection. The book Five Minutes on Purpose on Kindle is an excellent way to start a spiritual connection.  I know the author well.

Finally, don’t stop giving ideas, or desiring more.  You may be Joseph of Josephine in a pit now, but your vision will help your people far more than they ever know. Keep dreaming, keep planning, Keep praying. 

Juleun A. Johnson is a chaplain who writes from Orlando, Florida.

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.

Sin.s_Creation.png

While most things around us exist in their own right and substance, some prominent things do not. A hole, for example exists only as a subtraction from something else. After being dug from the ground, a hole can neither be transported on a truck nor disposed of on your neighbor's roof. It can only come into being when deducted from a structure not of its own nature, such as a stocking, or a slice of Swiss cheese. We call the resulting space, a hole. That is, nothingness!  

Likewise the condition we call cold. Even though we feel it and have a name for it, as a physical entity or energy it does not exist, a very improbable thought as we tightly button up our jacket. But while heat can be measured in thermal units, cold has no force of itself. Its existence is derived solely through the removal of thermal energy. Absolute zero Celsius (minus 273.15 degrees) is simply the total absence of heat. 

This is also true of darkness. Like cold, darkness has a minimum intensity, in this case zero lumens. Darkness is a word we use to describe the removal of light.

Such entities cannot be created in their own separate right.  Beyond the reach of a heat and light source, this universe is naturally cold and dark, existing without the assistance of a creator. The sun and a tree are both created objects, but not so the shadow they cast. In this sense, holes, cold and darkness are but shadows.

Just as the sun is the light-constant of our physical realm, so righteousness is to the spiritual. Like that glowing orb that is life itself to our planet, God's righteousness is self-existent and endures forever (Psalm 111:3). Absolute goodness is a transcendent influence that both emanates from God and is God, a force entwined in the very fabric of the cosmos. Without it, even the physical world becomes degraded (Isaiah 51:5,6).

Evil, on the other hand, is not merely the opposite of goodness, it is the absence of goodness.¹ Like that hole, it has no existence of its own. Evil is to divine holiness, as darkness is to light. They cannot exist in the presence of each other. To say that God created both good and evil, is self-contradictory. 

The closest that Scripture comes to defining supreme holiness is through the metaphor of light:  "God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). That darkness equates to sin (vs. 6,7).The Hebrew words for darkness in the Old Testament are also used for wickedness, misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, and separation. Scripture's only direct description of sin is that given in 1 John 3:4: "Sin is lawlessness". 

Malachi foresaw the coming to earth of the Sun of righteousness (Malachi 4:2). His theme is taken up in the prophecy of  Zechariah: "...the rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness..." (Luke 1:78,79). The Apostle John describes the event vividly: In Christ "was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:4,5) No amount of evil can claw back the overwhelming intensity of the light of God's righteousness. On the other hand "the way of the wicked is like deep darkness" (Proverbs 4:9). The farthest end of this good-evil spectrum, hell itself, is described in Jude 13 not as a burning cauldron, but as "blackest darkness."

The Atheist takes great glee in deriding believers on the matter of evil. "Do you Christians believe in a good God?"  "Yes, we do.""Then why would your God create evil?"  He didn't. That's one impossible thing for God to do. Something resulting solely from the absence of something else, is an entity that cannot be created.

But if it's true that cold and darkness have no energy in their own right, how is it that evil, the supposed absence of any force of its own making, is in fact, such a powerful influence in this world? How is it that sin can take such a withering grip on us that we are so helplessly drawn into its clutches? Does that not make evil a formidable power? Worse,  if wickedness is an incremental distance from good on the same continuum, then surely the Creator is, after all, responsible for both? 

So let's follow the trajectory of evil from its inception using our formula, in an attempt to resolve these contradictions. In so doing, we'll discover important insights into the nature of sin.

The brilliantly-shining Lucifer, holiness personified, lost his radiance when he detached himself from worship of God to worship of himself: "Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth" (Ezekiel 28:17).  Incarcerated on earth as Prince of this world, the Devil went about establishing his own kingdom. When causing Adam and Eve to step away from God, their aura of virtue also instantly vanished and they were left naked. At those two points in the pathway of evil no toxic substance entered the beings. The loss of light and holiness came simply from a gap between themselves and God.² 

Sin is not a condition identifiable in DNA, except for its effects. Its evil traits are devastatingly etched into the human mind and passed down through the generations. Scripture defines sin as "wrongdoing" (1John 5:17), a moral failure engraved in the neuron pathways of the brain as faulty habits and trigger-ready yearnings: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts" (Matthew 15:19);"The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace" (Romans 8:6). "Each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed" (James 1:14). Sin is an inner response to an outer evil.  If sin was a virus, then it was present before Lucifer fell. Further, there would be other means of its extermination than a death on a cross. Nor could justice allow that the Son of God become the scapegoat for what would have been an aberration in the Creation process.

The emptiness and chaos of separation from God would be despair enough, but the greatest curse of this planet was that darkness had accepted some powerful tenants. It was into this realm that the Devil and his angels chose to dwell when banished from heaven. Now evil became personified. Darkness assumed an intelligence. Like a roaring lion, the prince of this domain stalks up and down the earth seeking whom he might devour (I Peter 5:8). "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor. 4:4). The Devil took mankind captive to do his will (2 Timothy 2:26).³ 

The problem of our human condition is not resolved theologically, but geographically. It has to do with our proximity to Christ. You want to be rid of evil impulses? Come closer to Christ. You are stumbling in darkness? Move closer to the light. Christ came to this world not to give us a transfusion, but to simply claim us back to where we always belonged. “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28). 

As a case study confirming this premise, I present Zacchaeus: Tax collector and cheat, confirmed by those around him as a member of the realm of darkness, he had climbed a tree to catch a glimpse of Christ." Come down" Christ called, and Zacchaeus found himself standing before the Master. In that moment the most incredible thing happened. Without any call to conversion, Zacchaeus broke forth with the words, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount." Darkness had encountered the light. Evil became overwhelmed by the presence of good.

But the most powerful validation of this view is the light it casts on the three central events of our salvation - Christ's wilderness temptations, Gethsemane , and the Cross. The first was no accidental encounter. It was a pre-programmed engagement to which Christ was deliberately led by the Spirit. Why? Throughout His life, Christ suffered a major impediment in acting as our representative and substitute. Being so close to the father as he was, such holiness could not comprehend sin and its temptations. He was so separated from evil that he was completely unaffected by it "The prince of this world cometh to me and hath nothing in me," he declared. There was no hook in Christ upon which the devil could hang his hat - unlike ourselves. Through starvation, even the wilderness rocks appeared as bread. For the first time Christ experienced - but resisted the formidable force of propensity, the Devil's unyielding human shackle. And He did so on our behalf, conquering where Adam failed. 

Gethsemane was the obverse side of Eden. Have you ever comprehended why Christ could cry out on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Have you ever wondered at the mechanism whereby sin could be absorbed into the very being of Christ in order to became our sin bearer? Then wonder no more. 

Note the words of 2 Corinthians 5:21: "God made him who knew no sin, to be sin for us." God made him? While it was Adam who walked away from God in Eden, thus introducing sin to this world, in that other garden it was Christ who stayed put, but GodHimself who walked. In so doing, as the mantle of divine holiness was withdrawn, Christ descended the path of darkness, now the terrain of the Devil. As distance was put between he and the Father, the noxious pall of sinfulness enveloped every nerve and fibre of his being. The evil that Christ absorbed at that moment  - our human sin - was solely the creation of fallen Lucifer. The sinless Christ became sullied, that he might take our sins with him to the grave.

Calvary was the inevitable result of Gethsemane. "The wages of sin is death," even to God's Son - an eternal death due to our sins borne in his body. Should Godhave ordained sin - the only other explanation of its existence, then Calvary would have been a sham. Worse, God Himself would have been culpable in forcing His Son to pay the price of His own doing.

Calvary broke through the barrier of separation in a manner of immeasurable meaning: ^"Once you were alienated from God  and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now" says Paul in Colossians 1:21,22, God "has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation."  Atonement means "at-one-ment." Our sins became His and His righteousness, surrendered in Gethsemane, became ours. Paradise is restored "by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened up for us through the curtain, that is, his body." (Hebrews 10:19,20).

But there's a remaining mystery, which Paul says had "been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord's people" (Colossians 1:26). Up until now, he infers, when a prophet had prophesied, he’d gone back home, scratched his head and said it’s all very well, but something’s missing. Things aren’t happening in people’s lives the way they should. Now Paul is saying that at last he's declaring that mystery revealed by God. And he does so in the next verse - information that could only make sense after Calvary: "The glorious riches of this mystery," he says, is "Christ in you, the hope of glory." 

It's that simple:  proximity, at-one-ment. A relationship so close as to be called "In Christ" and "Christ in you." A personal bond made possible when God's Son surrendered all to redeem us back to himself, forever to be identified with those he came to save.

God has set eternity in the heart of man, and heaven beckons as a siren call. To the yearning penitent be it known that all of the requirements of our salvation are found in Christ. Not by any determined clawing back to the light. Not by any self-empowered struggle from the brink.  For in Christ we are already there.^4"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). 

As Zacchaeus discovered and as the words of the song declare: One moment in His presence, and you'll never be the same.⁵

FOOTNOTES

All Scripture quotes unless otherwise indicated are from the New International Version. All emphasis mine.      

1. A concept proposed in the 4th Century AD by Augustine of Hippo.
2. Prior to Lucifer the test of loyalty to God for beings never intended to be robots, was not a choice between good and evil, but a choice between wholeness and a void - a fearful subtraction of  one's being. Sin itself, so utterly anathema to the nature of God, up until that point was not yet in existence.
3. The primordial darkness of  this globe at Creation was inert. Should righteousness suddenly take leave of our realm, the resulting state would also be inert. Were that not the case, then sin would be a counterforce, and thus a part of Creation. On the other hand, evil requires the same condition as good - a driving force, an intelligence. All evil therefore can only have come from the hand of Lucifer.
4. We triumph in Him (2 Cor.2.14); We are clothed with His righteousness in Him (Gal 3:27); Are sanctified in Him (1 Cor.1:2); given grace in Him (2 Tim 1:9); experience freedom (Gal 2.4); have the promise of life (2 Tim1:1); presented perfect (Col.1:28); live a godly life (2 Tim 13:12); have no condemnation (Rom 8:1); are seated in heavenly realms in Him (Ephesians 2:6).
5. One Night with the King. Aretha Franklin

Kevin Ferris writes from Brisbane, Queensland Australia, where he is the worship chairman at the Springwood Adventist Church.

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.

History_Hopeful.png

Ta-Nehisi Coates, author of the highly-acclaimed exploration of American race relations, Between the World and Me, doesn’t find hope in history. In fact, said Coates in a December essay for the Atlantic, “a writer wedded to ‘hope’ is ultimately divorced from ‘truth.’” Such a writer’s commitment is to “the ahistorical, to the mythical, to the hagiography of humanity,” not history.

The essay provoked a great deal of comment, raising profound questions of obvious centrality for Christian historians (and for the blogging experiment that I’ve titled History and Hope). Is “history and hope” a contradiction in terms? Should an enterprise that links the two continue in the world of 2016?

Coates indeed hits the bulls-eye in targeting “triumphalist narratives about US history,” as Peter Wirzbicki puts it in his response to Coates’ essay. Yes, exploitation and injustice have marred the American past, such narratives acknowledge, but the nation’s enlightened ideals have prevailed – the really bad stuff is way behind us now. Such storylines make it easy to dismiss the seriousness of current iterations of racism and oppression. The need for continued improvement may be acknowledged, but the assumption they underwrite is that decent, democratic, progressing America cannot be fundamentally flawed.

Coates is also right that the “practice of history” doesn’t allow for a commitment to writing hopeful things. “Historians are not cheerleaders,” I heard the great historian Arthur Mann say when I was doing graduate work at the University of Chicago, and I haven’t forgotten it.

Ta-Nehisi Coates and his acclaimed "Between the World and Me."

Yet, as Wirzbicki points out, if history is, on the hand, “one long march of oppressions” it “is also the study of the glorious moments—revolutions, social movements, elections—in which everyday people chipped away at the tremendous injustices that surrounded them.”

So, it is no soft-headed lack of rigor to point to the power of hope in galvanizing social change. Yes, dreams about the reign of enlightened progress have been repeatedly sabotaged by the persistence of human pride and the drive to write it large in empire – and that made all the more pernicious for its adaptation to new conditions. Yet, it has also been demonstrated over and over that the long moral arc of the universe keeps exerting its pull toward justice and that suppressed truth cannot be stopped from rising again.

Historians of Christianity may note how Christian hope has moved people to take on the powers that be against all pragmatic hope of success. 

How often those who trusted the word of God, though in themselves utterly helpless, have withstood the power of the whole world . . . The Vaudois and the Huguenots, Wycliffe and Huss, Jerome and Luther, Tyndale and Knox, Zinzendorf and Wesley, with multitudes of others, have witnessed to the power of God’s word against human power and policy in support of evil. These are the world’s true nobility. This is its royal line" (Ellen G. White, Education, 254).

Moreover, hope (not to be confused with optimism about American progress) unavoidably influences how historians who are Christian select topics, gather evidence, synthesize it, and shape stories out of the unmanageable mountain of information about the past. More personally, my outlook both as a historian of Adventism and a Seventh-day Adventist historian orients me towards crafting evidence-based stories that bring to light both the best in the movement’s heritage as well as its limitations and the failures of those who have identified with it to live up to its highest ideals.

Hope as conviction doesn’t commit me to writing only hopeful stories or to triumphalist narratives about any organization—ecclesiastical or otherwise. But it does orient my perspective. Non-hope as conviction would do the same. Historian Chris Gehrz brings this out by reversing Coates’ language (the emphasized words are from Gehrz):

“I think that a writer wedded to the absence of hope is ultimately divorced from ‘truth.’ Two creeds can’t occupy the same place at the same time. If your writing must not be hopeful, then there’s only room for the kind of evidence which verifies your premise.”

One of the beauties of the historical discipline is that it enables people of varying persuasions about hope and faith to talk each other in the same language. When we acknowledge the particularity of our perspectives, base our claims about the past on evidence accessible to all, and use the evidence as fairly as possible, the reading and writing of history mutually checks the distortions to which our commitments might incline us. And that’s just one way that the process can make us wiser, more humane, and—on the part of those committed to the Jesus movement—more faithful.

So, even though the prospects for 2016 may seem even less encouraging than usual, I enter it with hope about history, in two senses of the word. The gospel makes me hopeful about history as the trajectory of the entire human experience. And, I’m hopeful about history as a discipline—about how the process of crafting, experiencing, and discussing narratives about the past can both express and sharpen our witness to truth.

Douglas Morgan is professor of History and Political Studies at Washington Adventist University. He writes at www.historyandhope.org.

If you respond to this article, please:

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

Inline Images: 

Evangelism_Academia.png

It is hardly a secret that Seventh-day Adventist evangelism and academia view each other with misgivings. Occasionally engaging each other (at best), tasked with different responsibilities and shaped by diverse life-experiences, misunderstanding is unsurprising. Evangelists complain that most academics do not respect what they do (“elitist intellectuals”), while academics suspect that evangelists are mistrustful of what they do (encouraging students and peers to ask doubt-creating questions). Evangelists feel embraced and supported when their work is described as the “real” mission of the church, while academics often feel marginalized as “highbrows.” Winning new converts is more visible and dramatic than nurturing faith in young people.

Other factors also can create discord between them. Soloists in their work, evangelists decide how to vocalize the score given them by Adventist doctrine and heritage. They have little need for endless committees to approve what they do. As executives of a small operation, their decision-making is only challenged when it fails. By comparison, academics (within our institutions) are relatively powerless. Unlike an evangelistic audience, students and parents pay for their services and demand a great deal. Like church administrators, academics must run a gauntlet of committees to get approval for what they do.

An example: Early in my college teaching career I recall a lengthy faculty discussion about a typical problem. Consensus finally reached a long time later, our new evangelist/pastoral ministry professor lamented out loud:  “I feel that we have endured the labor pains of an elephant and given birth to a mouse.”  Academia can be slow and prolonged—one thinks in terms of semesters and calendar years. Evangelism is rapid and one plans on weeks or a few months at most. Academics deal with the same group of students and colleagues for years; evangelists deal with their audience, new believers and local pastors for a fraction of time.

Another crucial difference: Evangelists feel obligated to preach their message with a conviction that borders on certainty. Paul’s call-to-arms to the church is rings in their ears: “If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who can prepare for battle” (I Cor. 14:8)?  Outreach proclamation to the public strains against scholarly or thoughtful examination in a classroom or scholarly meetings. Preaching to awaken a life-changing decision chases a different mission than reading a skillfully crafted paper to one’s peers, or challenging a classroom to think through biblical and theological challenges. In a few cases, regrettably, evangelists denigrate “school” learning in favor of “experience,” while academics may feel some evangelists meet the public ill-prepared to answer its difficult questions.

In Adventism’s case, let me suggest, the chasm is the result of evangelists and many academics relating differently to the dominant secular culture of our eon. As philosopher Charles Taylor argues in his A Secular Age, the culture that accepted the reality of a personal God, the truth of the Christian faith and the existence of miracles and supernatural beings, is gone forever—even if some groups continue to believe in such things. What was once accepted without question is gone. We all live in an era when the “death of God” or “atheism” or “scientific humanism” is now the overarching cultural paradigm.  We must breathe its air, even as our ancestors could not avoid breathing faith. We no longer “feel” what they felt about their Christian heritage.

Perhaps no more insightful metaphor sensitizes us to this change than Matthew Arnold’s  use of the “sea” in his 1876 poem, Dover Beach:

 

DOVER BEACH

The sea is calm tonight.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand,
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanched land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.

Sophocles long ago

Heard it on the Ægean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

What this means for evangelists who continue to preach within the “sea of faith” is this: the audiences consist almost entirely of those who sail on that same sea. They live as if the faith “once delivered to the saints” is still the way we feel about reality. Backing up a preacher’s authority in a public meeting by declaring “the Bible says” cannot impress secular hearers. They don’t care what the Bible says. They are neither angry nor interested in opposing belief, so why would they bother to attend an evangelistic meeting and challenge claims made by the speaker? Our apocalyptic-laden handbills announcing the meetings suggest an alternate version of Star Wars to them. Our message is irrelevant to their lives.

The challenge within this secular “tide” means something quite different for academics. Everything they study and teach is dramatically shaped by Arnold’s “darkling plain” where certitude and joy has vanished. Even their students from Adventist homes bring issues and questions to the classroom they would seldom, if ever, bring to their local church Sabbath School class. Science and historical research forces them and their professors to test past explanations, especially the religious ones. We no longer rely on miracles and “healers” when sick.  Instead, we visit physicians, hospitals in search of the best remedies offered by modern science.  Should an Adventist family lose their home in a tornado, we do not assume the cause was divine punishment. Conversely, if the home is spared, most would not assume miraculous protection.

Added to all this is the disconcerting insistence of secular humanists that they do not feel their moral principles require a transcendent reality. “Commandments from God” or the “divine command theory” are not needed for ethical living. We can find solid principles embedded in what it means to be human beings  who flourish only in trusting relationships.  

Preachers like Saddleback’s Rick Warren, author of the Purpose-Driven Life, largely proclaim the gospel to people already committed to a basic Christian orientation, while a preacher like Timothy Keller intentionally proclaims the gospel to those who feel no need of it. They inhale the secular feeling of our time. In his first book (2009) The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, Kellerconfronted this culture in Manhattan. He invited anyone who disagreed with his sermons to visit him after church in an open discussion. Young professionals working in fashion, marketing, law and business were taken aback by his boldness, and decided to teach him a lesson. Apparently, they learned some lessons, so began attending his services by the thousands. His after-service Q&A became the basis for Reasons for God. His more recent volume, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters, further challenges the secular sea by exposing its ultimate emptiness. In that way New York soil is prepared for the gospel seed: A personal God and Jesus Christ are the only truly fulfilling alternative.

We need Adventist evangelists and pastors who will approach the secular public with an equally sophisticated message. Were that to happen, many Adventist academics (I refer to both church employees and members) would enthusiastically support them by inviting their friends and colleagues. (Note: The final hurdle for interests generated in this way would be to locate a local congregation for them willing and able to continue their journey in the ways that speak to them.)

To be clear, this is not to minimize the importance of historic evangelism. Most of us (including myself) found the gospel and Adventism in those meetings. Their waterfall of gospel music and powerful preaching captivated us. Tens of thousands still respond as we did. But as we have learned, urban areas are largely populated by the secular mindset. Is it too much to hope for an outreach that reaches them as well?

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

If you respond to this article, please:

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

Investigative_Judgement_Desmond_Ford.png

Former Adventist pastor, theologian and professor Dr. Desmond Ford has released a new book in which he documents the events that led to his dismissal from denominational employment in 1980. The events in Ford’s retrospective, entitled “Seventh-day Adventism, The Investigative Judgment and the Everlasting Gospel,” are more than 35 years old, but they continue to provide insights into the ways ecclesiastical authority has been determinative for both theology and employment with the Adventist denomination.

A convert from Anglicanism to Seventh-day Adventism, Ford has had a longstanding preoccupation with the assurance of Salvation. That preoccupation motivated the release of the book, and played a crucial part in its central conceit—Ford’s critique of the Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment or Pre-Advent Judgment, often referred to simply as the Sanctuary Doctrine.

Ford saw the fear caused by the notion of a heavenly investigation into the deeds of every human being, preceding the close of probation and the Second Advent. The doctrine, Ford observed, caused many Adventists to question their standing with God, and to doubt whether they were fit to be saved. For Ford, this uncertainty was incompatible with the Gospel. For decades, Ford tried to point out the problem. Page 42 of the book describes the situation this way:

“Dr. Ford traces his concern with the sanctuary doctrine back to 1945. Since then, he has sought unsuccessfully in papers, articles and books to persuade church leaders to face up to what he regards as serious non sequiturs in the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9. From 1962 to 1966, the select General Conference Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel had given protracted attention to these problems without being able to reach a consensus with respect to them. The 1970s witnessed implementation of a policy that reserved decisions in theological matters primarily to administrators, which made it impossible to resolve a growing tension about the sanctuary through normal scholarly study and deliberation.”

The preceding paragraph reveals that, in addition to Ford’s objections to the Adventist understanding of the Investigative Judgment, he took issue with the imbalance of power between administrators and theologians, which set up bureaucrats (most of whom were not theologians by training) as the gatekeepers of Adventist doctrine, and thus of Adventist orthodoxy.

Ford had been a professor at Avondale College in Australia, but prior to the events discussed in this book, he transferred to Pacific Union College in the United States, where he served as a visiting lecturer.

In 1979, Ford’s impasse with the Adventist Church over the Sanctuary Doctrine came to a head. Ford framed the events of that October as a turning point for the church. From the book’s preface:

“October 27, 1979 was a pivotal date for Seventh-day Adventism. On that day Desmond Ford, responding to an invitation from the PUC (Pacific Union College) Forum, spoke to over 1000 people on “The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity.” Dr. Eric Syme responded, expressing his substantial agreement with Ford’s presentation. Then followed a lengthy Q&A session.”

Ford considers the events of 1979 and 1980 to be of continuing importance for the Adventist Church for two reasons:

1. Ford’s objections to the Sanctuary Doctrine and his subsequent dismissal cut to the heart of Seventh-day Adventist teaching.

2. An incorrect understanding of God’s judgment, he said, can only lead to an incorrect understanding of the Gospel.

On one level, Ford’s critique of the Sanctuary Doctrine was pragmatic and pastoral—the teaching caused people to doubt their salvation. On another level, his critique was scholarly.

The book details his objections to official the Adventist understanding of the Heavenly Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgement by means of a transcript of Ford’s October 1979 presentation.

One key issue, Ford stated, had to do with the word “cleanse.”

Unto 2300 days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” On the basis of that word, our pioneers linked this prophecy with Leviticus 16, but the word isn’t there. You say, “Of course it’s there.” No, it’s not there. The KJV is a mistranslation. The word translated “cleanse” there is not found in Leviticus 16. It’s a different word altogether. That’s why almost all modern translations do not use “cleanse,” and therefore, from all other translations, you are crippled as a way of getting back to Leviticus 16” (pg. 12).

Ford argued vigorously against literalistic interpretations of apocalyptic texts:

“Apocalyptic visions are not to be taken as graphical, literal representations of the unseen, my friends. They are sketches within the experience and culture of the contemporary prophet to teach them something. It’s very important to understand that” (pg. 15).

Ford also contended, contra the official teaching of the Adventist Church, that the End of the Age should, for all intents and purposes, have followed Jesus’ life and death:

“My friends, it’s as plain as the nose on your face that the New Testament teaches that the end was meant to come just after the First Advent. If the church had seized hold of the gospel, understood the good news, and in the exuberance of joy and the great gift of God, gone out to spread it to the whole world—because Jesus cannot come until the whole world has heard the gospel. And the only thing that holds up the Second Advent is that people understand the gospel” (pg. 18).

Ford took issue with Ellen White’s use by many as an authoritative source of Adventist doctrine. He insisted that all Adventist doctrines could (and should) be argued on the basis of Scripture alone. Interestingly, the revision committee tasked with editing Adventism’s 28 Fundamental Beliefs in 2015 essentially agreed, striking the words “continuing and authoritative source of truth” with reference to Ellen White’s writings. The 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio ratified the changes, indicating a subtle but important shift in the denomination's understanding of Ellen White's role. During his remarks in 1979, Ford said, “Ellen White’s role, my friends, is pastoral, not canonical” [...] “The gift of prophecy is not the gift of omniscience” (pg. 20).

In Dr. Eric Syme’s response, for which the book also provides a transcript, Syme agreed with Ford’s rejection of Ellen White as the decider of doctrine:

“We have no business, absolutely no business in trying to shortcut the problem of research by going to statements from Ellen G. White. This is a question that will be solved by perspiration, not inspiration” (pg. 23).

Syme also agreed with Ford’s reinterpretation of the word commonly translated “cleansed" in Daniel 8.

Now, Dr. Ford, in re-translating that word in chapter 8 that is wrongly stated as ‘cleansed’ and properly stated as ‘vindicated’, is saying very emphatically that the purpose of the Investigative Judgment is the vindication of God and what God has done. Therefore, this is not heresy. It is in harmony with the finest traditions of our denomination. It breaks away, very fortunately, from that very foolish literalism that loses itself in the symbols and forgets the meaning—we’ve had plenty of that—and for that reason I welcome it and I think it’s such an excellent contribution, so lucidly and so eloquently presented that I’m going to beg off disagreeing with you on some small points.”

Following Dr. Syme’s remarks (both at the meeting and in the book) came a Q&A session, during which audience members interacted with Ford and Syme. Here is one of the recorded interactions:

Question: What happened in 1844, if anything?

 

Dr Ford: Something indeed happened. The Lord in His great mercy drew the attention of this people to the pattern, the figure, the symbolic lesson book of the cross—the sanctuary. The sanctuary was the best way of teaching the truths of the cross of Christ. The sanctuary showed that the law was central, that the breaking of the law meant death. That only the mercy of God and the ministry of the High Priest could bring salvation and that ultimately the whole camp of professed worshipers must be divided into two groups: one numbered with the Lord, and one with Azazel. So in 1844 the Lord drew the attention of this people to the significance of the torn veil on Calvary, but we got bogged down on the spot. And if that seems strange, may I remind you that within a few weeks after the giving of the law at Mt Sinai, the people who had heard in voices of thunder, “Thou shalt not bow down to any graven image,” were worshipping graven images.

After the Q&A section, the book provides two appendices: The first, a list of twenty-two incorrect assumptions concerning the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, and the second, an account of the August 11–15 1980 Sanctuary Review Committee meeting at the Glacier View Ranch in Colorado, written by noted Adventist theologian Raymond F. Cottrell, and published in Volume 11, no. 2 (Nov. 1980) of Spectrum Magazine.

The Glacier View meeting proved the final showdown between church leaders and Desmond Ford.

Ford characterized the primary point of tension at Glacier View as a split between the administrators present and their methodology, and theologians and biblical scholars present and their methodology. Administrators, the book contends, adhered primarily to the proof-text method of biblical interpretation, while scholars held to the historical method, which factored in biblical languages, context, original intent, and so forth. “In the thinking of the majority at Glacier View, Adventist tradition was the norm for interpreting the Bible, rather than the Bible for tradition” (pg. 61).

Excerpts from the Glacier View transcripts, written by Cottrell:

Desmond Ford: I am sorry that I misunderstood yesterday. My response was not as positive as if I had understood. I have told the brethren many times that I am fully prepared to be quiet on the issue. I have no wish to crusade in this area. I have published many hundreds of pages on the subject over the past 23 years. I believe in our sanctuary message, but the way in which we have expressed it has not always been the best way. I am perfectly happy to accept the counsel of the brethren on this matter. Since October 27, I have refused to speak on the judgment, and I have no intention of speaking on it until the brethren have studied it. I long for the insights of my brethren. Many invitations have come to work outside the church, but I have had no wish to accept them. I cannot go against my conscience, and I am sure you do not want me to.

 

General Conference President Neal C. Wilson: The statement Des just made brings great rejoicing to me. I believe it is an answer to prayer. I accept your statement, Des, at full value. At no time has this church endeavored to control minds. It gives considerable latitude for opinions, but this carries with it an enormous sacred responsibility. It does not give latitude to create doubts, to undermine faith, or to muffle the message of this church. We cannot afford to confuse others’ minds with our personal opinions. When a person becomes a minister, he accepts a commitment to preach and teach the message this church has to give. Des, you are not only to be silent on certain things; you have a message to proclaim to the world. All I was trying to say yesterday was: Think through carefully the counsel of brethren of experience. You are teachable, yield to their judgment. I am accepting your statement at full value.

 

G. RALPH THOMPSON (secretary of the General Conference): We do not have all the answers to all the problems, but it is our duty to proclaim the accepted beliefs of the church when we preach. We are safe when we stay with these beliefs. Further study in groups is O.K.

 

[The next day, W. D. Blehm, president of the Pacific Union Conference, spoke in a similar vein]

 

BLEHM: I see better today than ever before that the meaning of the past is correct. I accept what I believe to be a divine communication through Ellen White. It is our privilege to improve the pillars of the faith, but not to change them. Dr. Ford’s challenge has already borne fruit in the Pacific Union—split congregations, doubts in the minds of pastors leading them to give up their credentials, divided faculties. Anything that divides this church or leads to doubt is wrong. Some of our theologians are hotbeds of doubt. Let us get our act together. We have an obligation to go back and get our churches moving for God. We need each other today as never before. We’ve got to forget our suspicion of administrators. This is where I stand.

 

[...]

 

JACK PROVONSHA (professor of ethics, Loma Linda University): As a result of higher education there is, today, a broad spectrum of thought in the church. I believe in the 2,300 days, in the heavenly sanctuary, and in the investigative judgment, but these words have a different content for me than when I was a child. I cannot accept the literalism of my father, but we can all stand on the shoulders of our fathers. They would not be happy with what I have to say. But at the same time I do believe in continuity with our fathers and with what they believed. The church is like a tree that springs from seed; as one of the branches, I belong to the roots of the tree. I believe in continuity. There are depths yet undreamed of in the sanctuary and the investigative judgment. There is a very real progression in our perception of truth.

 

WILSON: One further small step is needed, I think. You should add, “I stand by the position of the church; I am committed to it.” Dr. Provonsha has given us something very important; Des Ford is a man worth saving.

 

[Australasia Division President Keith] PARMENTER: I take my stand with Elder Blehm. Des, if you are honest, you will pass in your credentials and do so without being asked.

 

PROVONSHA (turning to the audience): All of you, would you do that? If you ask people in this room to turn in their credentials, not a few would have to do so on the same basis that Ford is being asked. Integrity is more important than church belief. The real question is, am I a man of integrity? If you brethren can’t think more about healing—surely there must be other ways of dealing with this. I could not sell my soul in order to be a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

 

PARMENTER. Healing must be on a wider basis. Our churches in Australia are severely polarized. Healing must reach further than just one man.

 

PROVONSHA: This meeting is bigger than Des Ford. We need to find a way of keeping this broad spectrum of thought together; we need something that will keep us together.

On page 59, the book recounts Ford’s dismissal from Seventh-day Adventist employment. On September 2, 1980, President Neal C. Wilson’s Executive Advisory Committee (PREXAD) met to discuss Ford’s fate following Glacier View, and his subsequent unwillingness to publicly admit that he was in error concerning the Sanctuary Doctrine, as Ford recalls being asked to do. PREXAD recommended that Ford be given the chance to withdraw from Adventist ministry voluntarily, or if not, to be relieved of his position and credentials by the Australasian Division.

In the close of Cottrell’s Spectrum article, which chronicles the fallout from Glacier View, he writes,

Is it ethical, or even in our own interest, to blame a competent physician for an unwelcome diagnosis and for prescribing an unpleasant remedy? Or is it ethical to haul him into court for malpractice when he has sincerely exercised his best professional judgment—even if he may at times make honest mistakes of judgment—as we all do? Those who bring problems to our attention are not enemies, but friends.

The book ends with a personal letter from Raymond Cottrell to Desmond Ford, dated November 17, 1979. “Dear Des, you couldn’t be more right in what you told the forum two weeks ago...I would be hard pressed to find anything in your talk I could disagree with.”

The book is both a biographical retrospective and a cautionary tale about wresting theological agency from theologians and vesting it in administrators.

Read or download a free copy of “Seventh-Day Adventists, the Investigative Judgment and the Everlasting Gospel: A Retrospective on October 27, 1979.”

Jared Wright is Managing Editor of SpectrumMagazine.org.

If you respond to this article, please:

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

MinervaJaneChapman.png

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.

Read part one of this series HERE and part two HERE.

Sept. 1877 (16th Annual Session)—Lansing, MI

The GC President, James White, was absent, so S.N. Haskell was elected chairman for the session.

Mrs. Minerva Jane Chapman (pictured above) elected GC Treasurer.  (She served for many years thereafter)

“RESOLVED,  That we recommend the president of this Conference to visit immediately the southern field, accompanied by such a laborer, or laborers, as he may choose, or if he cannot go, that some other suitable person be immediately sent.”

“RESOLVED,  That each year's experience in this message confirms our faith that God has chosen Brother and Sister White to fill a leading position in this work; that we never felt the need of their counsel and experienced labors more than now; and that therefore we earnestly pray God to sustain them with strength and wisdom for their arduous labors.”

“WHEREAS,  We see the utmost confusion, division, and lack of harmony, among other bodies of Adventists, crippling their influence, and bringing reproach upon the Advent cause; and  WHEREAS,  Such thorough unity, both in doctrine and practice, has always prevailed among Seventh-day Adventists, and does still, though they are of so many different nationalities, creeds, classes, and temperaments; therefore  RESOLVED,  That we hereby express our deep gratitude to God for the harmony and power of the Third Angel's Message which has done so much for us.”  (Particularly in light of the Butler leadership conflict, this seems like wishful thinking, but in contrast to the fragmentation of other Adventist groups, there was truth in it.  How times have changed!)

“The report of the committee appointed in the annual meeting of the Conference in 1875, to revise the tract on "Leadership," was called for.  Elder U. Smith stated that the committee had not had time to devote to this revision, but as certain resolutions touching this question had been prepared to be submitted to this Conference, the committee would beg leave to endorse those resolutions, and present them for their report:--  RESOLVED,  That we rescind all that portion of the "Address on Leadership" passed in 1873, which teaches that the leadership of the body is confined to any one man.”  (The resolution of the Butler leadership conflict continued).

“RESOLVED,  That the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will of the body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of individual conscience.”  (It is important to note the context of this statement; it was a response to Butler’s leadership argument that the GC President should lead God’s people as Moses had led Israel.  It is also important to note the exceptions, which are often not mentioned when this action is quoted).

“Elder White spoke of the pleasure of seeing Elder W. H. Littlejohn at this meeting, and of the prospect of his once more being united with our people, and laboring in harmony with us.    Brother Littlejohn thereupon said that the resolutions just passed had cleared away the difficulties that had stood in the way of his active co-operating with the body for the past four years, and he hoped that he soon would have the privilege of engaging actively in the work of spreading the truth again. Elder White then presented the following resolution:
RESOLVED,  That this Conference invite Brother Littlejohn to join us in the work in fellowship and in labor. This was unanimously passed by a rising vote of the whole congregation.”

Mar. 1878 (Special Session)—Battle Creek, MI

“RESOLVED,  1. That an increase of interest and action in Sabbath-school work is greatly needed among us. 2.  That a systematic and uniform method is necessary to greater efficiency in Sabbath-school instruction. 3.  That a General Sabbath-school Association should be organized by our people, with State Conference auxiliary associations. 4.  That a committee on Sabbath-school interests be appointed by this Conference, with instruction to report at its earliest convenience.”

Later, a constitution was voted, beginning as follows:  “For the purpose of awakening a deeper interest in Sabbath-school work, and of securing uniformity of method in our schools, a Sabbath-school Association is hereby organized by Seventh-day Adventists in General Conference assembled, this 4th day of March, A.D. 1878…”

“WHEREAS,  We behold with the greatest satisfaction and thankfulness to God, the prosperity of our College, as indicated by a greatly increased attendance and by its harmonious workings, and    WHEREAS,  We have full confidence in this institution and believe that the Spirit of God is guiding in its management; therefore,  RESOLVED,  That we recommend all our Seventh-day Adventist brethren to send their children to this College, believing it will be for their spiritual as well as mental improvement.”  (This appeal was made frequently; this is just one example).

“RESOLVED,  That, while we deeply regret the necessary absence of the president of this Conference, our dear Brother White, by which we are deprived of his experienced counsel at this important point in the work, yet we are thankful to know that his health is improving and that he is able to speak to us through our papers, and we assure him of our continued sympathy, co-operation, and prayers in his behalf.”

“WHEREAS,  The cause is rapidly extending on every side, and the number of public laborers is increasing yearly, and the matter of their support is becoming a more and more important question with us each year; and    WHEREAS,  Our systematic benevolence fund is depended upon by them for support; and in a considerable number of cases we find ministers who embarrass the Conference by requiring year after year more funds from the treasury than they bring into it; therefore,  RESOLVED,  That we recommend the different conferences to be sparing of their means to such ministers, paying them only in proportion to the benefit they have been to the cause in raising up churches, or otherwise.“  (How would this go over today?!)

July, 1878 (GC Committee meeting on Dr. Kellogg)

A special meeting of the General Conference Committee was held at the house of Elder James White, in Battle Creek, Michigan, on the evening of July 2, 1878, at which the following resolutions respecting Dr. J. H. Kellogg were unanimously adopted:

“RESOLVED,  That, in our opinion, Dr. J. H. Kellogg should have periods of entire rest of several weeks' duration each, three or four times a year.   RESOLVED,  That, in our opinion, he is sinning against God and himself, and committing a wrong against the supporters and patrons of the Sanitarium in depriving himself of less than eight hours in bed in every twenty-four, whether able to sleep or not.   RESOLVED,  That he should not be accessible at all hours of the day, but that no one should be permitted to come into his room or his office without permission.”  (etc.)

Oct. 1878 (17th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI

“WHEREAS,  The impression has gone out from some unknown cause that J. H. Kellogg, M.D., holds infidel sentiments, which does him great injustice, and also endangers his influence as physician-in-chief of the Sanitarium; therefore  RESOLVED,  That in our opinion justice to the doctor and the Institute under his medical charge, demand that he should have the privilege of making his sentiments known, and that he be invited to address those assembled on this ground, upon the harmony of science and the Sacred Scriptures.  This resolution was unanimously adopted, after which the Conference adjourned to the call of the chair.   [Note.--In accordance with the foregoing resolution, Dr. Kellogg gave, before a large audience, October 6, an able address on the harmony of science and the Bible, for which the congregation tendered him a vote of thanks.]”

“Sister Aurner was received as delegate from Dakota.  She spoke in behalf of the people in that territory, and the wants of the cause there.”  (Women are not prominently featured in the minutes of the early GC, but there is evidence of their participation and no record of opposition to it).

“VOTED,  That the General Conference Committee take immediate steps toward the publication of a Manual containing the Constitutions and By-laws of our different organizations,--General Conference, Educational Society, Health Institute, Publishing Associations, and Tract Societies, to which shall be appended a synopsis of the rules of Parliamentary practice applicable to the workings of these organizations.”

“The committee on the wants of the different conferences reported through S. N. Haskell.  The committee suggested that Elder G. I. Butler take the oversight of the Missouri and Kansas Conferences the coming year, which suggestion was adopted.”  (Butler’s rehabilitation as a leader was underway).

“RESOLVED,  That we have a committee of three to suggest a course of study for all our ministers, that committee to report at some future meeting of this session.”

The Song Anchor, a songbook by J.E. White, was adopted for use in Sabbath Schools and schools.

“WHEREAS,  The subject of spiritual gifts is one of importance, and such works as The Spirit of Prophecy, and the Testimonies should be in the hands of all our brethren, therefore RESOLVED,  That we recommend the various tract societies to make a special effort to place them in the library of each church, and in the hands of scattered brethren, and that they encourage the reading of them.  And further RESOLVED,  That where these works are used as above stated, we offer them at one-half the retail price, and that the difference between this and the regular wholesale price be paid from the fund raised for circulating these works, said fund to be increased from $1,000, as at first started, to $5,000.”

“RESOLVED,  That in the opinion of this Conference the time has fully come to open a mission in Great Britain, and 1. That Elder J. N. Loughborough be our missionary to that field.”

The following officers were nominated: “president, Elder James White; secretary, U. Smith; treasurer, M. J. Chapman; Executive Committee, James White, J. H. Kellogg, S. Brownsberger.”  (Thus, the nominees for the Executive Committee were the leaders of the major institutions of the church, all located in Battle Creek:  publishing, sanitarium, and college.)

“Brethren Brownsberger and Kellogg having declined to act as members of the Executive Committee of the General Conference, on account of other sufficient labors and burdens, they were released from serving, and the subject of nominations to fill the vacancies thus caused referred back to the nominating committee.”  (later)  “The nominating committee reported the following names to complete the executive board: S. N. Haskell and D. M. Canright.  These persons were thereupon elected.”  (One wonders what possessed them to nominate J.H. Kellogg to the GC Executive Committee after having had a special meeting of the GC Committee that summer to instruct him to take several extended vacations, guard his room against visitors, and spend no less than 8 hours in bed every 24 hours?!)

“WHEREAS,  Elder White requests the Conference to excuse him from acting as president, therefore  RESOLVED,  That we regard it as his privilege to resign at any time he may feel it to be his duty so to do, and that we empower the other two members of the committee to appoint a president to fill the vacancy.”  “On motion to adopt, the question was put, and the motion was lost.”  (Relatively few resolutions are recorded as not adopted; this was one. Most motions were adopted, referred to committee, or tabled.)

Apr. 1879 (Special Session)—Battle Creek¹

James White was absent, so Elder D.M. Canright was selected to act as chair for the meeting.

“Remarks were then made by different members of the Conference on the importance of caring for churches already raised up rather than neglecting these, and reaching out to raise up new companies.  Pointed remarks were made on the evil of this course and the damage which our cause has suffered in consequence in some localities.  It was thought that the plan of labor recommended at the last Conference, that ministers take a district and confine their labors principally to that locality for a year, would remedy this somewhat.”

(Later)   “1. RESOLVED,  That we again urge our ministers not to leave new converts and churches immediately after they have embraced the message; but to visit them often and regularly till they are thoroughly settled in all the truth and organized, and all are gathered in who can be reached. 2.  RESOLVED,  That we believe it is wisdom to make a special effort to add to small, weak companies, instead of leaving them to die out while raising up similar companies in new fields to in turn be left in like manner. 3. RESOLVED,  That in order to save time and traveling expenses, and make each minister responsible for the completion of his own work, we recommend that, as far as practicable, each minister be assigned a definite field in which to labor for at least one year.”  (The recognition of the need for nurturing new converts and churches was an early step towards the transformation of ministers from traveling evangelists towards professional pastoral clergy).

“M. E. Cornell spoke of the prospects of the cause in Colorado.  The brethren there are determined to do what they can to make the cause self-sustaining the present season, and think they will be able to accomplish this object.”  (Cornell was still in the game, even if struggling).

“WHEREAS,  Some fail to pay the Lord's tithe as received, but use it for themselves, hoping to meet the obligation at the close of the quarter, and  WHEREAS,  They thus frequently, by inability to pay at the appointed time, cause trial to themselves, burdens to the financial officers, and so far a virtual failure of the plan, therefore  RESOLVED,  That all our brethren and sisters should regard it their duty to tithe all their income at the time they receive it.”

“RESOLVED,  That this Conference hereby recommend that W. C. White visit the churches, as far as consistent with his other duties, in the interest of the Sabbath-school and missionary work.”   “This was advocated so forcibly by S. N. Haskell that other brethren added no more; and it was unanimously passed.”

“WHEREAS,  There is a constant immigration of Sabbath-keepers into Battle Creek, some of whom greatly weaken their home church by leaving, and can be of no benefit to the cause here, therefore    RESOLVED,  That we entirely disapprove of this course, and recommend that those who contemplate moving to Battle Creek first consult their own State Conference Committee and the elders of the church in Battle Creek.”  This was greeted with several motions to adopt, a still greater number of seconds, and the cry of "question" all over the house.  It being a recommendation of self-evident propriety, it was unanimously adopted without discussion.”  (Apparently the problem of not enough workers in Battle Creek had been resolved!).

“Elder J. N. Andrews offered the following:
‘WHEREAS,  The ill health of our beloved Brother White has made it impracticable for him to return to this part of the country to be present at this Conference, therefore  RESOLVED,  That we express our deep sympathy for him in his affliction, and our great regret that we have been deprived of his counsel in our business, and his assistance at the dedication of our Tabernacle.  We hold in grateful remembrance the faithful labors of Brother and Sister White, and shall never forget the debt of gratitude we owe to them.’  This was unanimously and most heartily adopted by a rising vote of the whole congregation.”

“The subject of unhappy marriages was introduced, and discussed by Brethren S. H. King and B. L. Whitney, with reference to the question as to what can be done to prevent or remedy the evil.  This subject was referred to a committee of three, to be appointed by the chair.  Elders W. H. Littlejohn, S. N. Haskell, and G. I. Butler were appointed as such committee.   The subject of tobacco-selling was presented to the Conference, with the question whether the practice of selling tobacco should debar a person from church fellowship, the same as tobacco-using.  This question was referred to the committee on marriages.”  (The relation of selling tobacco and unhappy marriages seems obscure, but perhaps the delegates didn’t want to proliferate committees).

“W. C. White spoke of the injustice which is done to the Office by those who take advantage of missionary club rates to supply themselves with papers, and who retail books at a discount from Office prices.”  (This calls to mind the 1986 case of Derrick Proctor v. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, et al.²)

_________________________

1. Location not given in the minutes but was Battle Creek, MI, according to General Conference Office of Archives, Statistics and Research.

2. See http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/651/1505/2306470/. 

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:

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.

King.jpg

It is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the United States today. As the country continues to struggle to eradicate its endemic racism, the words of Dr. King still cut to the heart of the national discourse as they did during his all-too-short lifetime. The time that has passed without the realization of his Dream has only served to amplify what King called "the fierce urgency of now."

In April of 1963, Martin King intentionally violated an anti-protesting ordinance in Birmingham, Alabama, and was jailed on Good Friday. During his incarceration, Dr. King wrote his indelible "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" with a stubby pencil on the margins of a newspaper. He addressed the letter to eight white Alabama pastors who opposed his civil rights protest.

Though addressing circumstances present in the American South of the 1960's, King's letter could just as easily have been written to the white church of today. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's is today's Black Lives Matter movement, and King's statement in the letter, "I am in Birmingham because injustice is here," is as timely a clarion call as ever—a call to fight injustice wherever it appears. Below is an excerpt from Martin King's letter—a reminder of what he struggled and died for. -Editor

There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent—and often even vocal—sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation—and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Read the full text of Dr. King's Letter From a Birmingham Jail HERE.

If you respond to this article, please:

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

Ordination_Resolved.jpg

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 parenthetic italicized text.  

Read part one of this series HERE, part two HERE, and part three HERE.

Nov. 1879 (18th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI

James White, president, presided over the session once again.
Cash on hand:  $258.60.  Although the GC budget had increased substantially since 1863, the GC spent most of what it received, retaining very little in cash reserves.

“RESOLVED,  That this Conference elect annually a Mission Board of five, who shall have the special oversight of all our foreign missions, under the advice of the General Conference Committee; said Mission Board to report annually to the General Conference.”

“RESOLVED,  That it should not be considered that any minister has fully discharged his duty in any new field where a company of Sabbath-keepers has been raised up, until he has fully advocated, in public and in private, the subjects of Health and Temperance and Spiritual Gifts, and organized Systematic Benevolence; and a failure in this shall be considered worthy of censure; and the Auditing Committee should take this into account when settling with him.”

“The committee on the subject of unhappy marriages and tobacco-selling, reported through its chairman, W. H. Littlejohn, who, after speaking a few words in reference to the circumstances which have brought this question up, offered [a resolution].”  Membership would be denied to those who remarried for reasons other than adultery, so long as the prior partner still lived.  The resolution was debated extensively, spilling over 3 meetings, and was eventually tabled.

“The committee further reported, presenting the question of tobacco-selling, recommending that the line be drawn between liquor-selling and tobacco-selling.  Whereupon it was 

MOVED, That the selling of tobacco be not considered a sufficient cause for refusing or withdrawing church fellowship.”  The motion was tabled.  (This committee was 0 for 2 on the day.  Maybe unhappy marriages and tobacco selling don’t go together after all!)

MOVED, That the proceedings of the past four meetings be withheld from the publication.  Carried.  (Troubled marriages and tobacco sales were sensitive subjects, apparently!)

“RESOLVED, That in the opinion of this body it is the duty of all the members of this denomination to become members of the American Health and Temperance Association, and to use their influence in inducing others to unite in this reformatory effort.”  (There is a long tradition of the GC telling members what they should do, and being ignored.  One wonders how many tobacco sellers joined AHTA as a result of this action).

“Elder G. I. Butler presented the following resolutions: ORDINATION –

‘WHEREAS, Certain difficulties in the past in connection with this cause have grown out of the subject of ordination, arising from the question, Who is authorized to baptize and administer the other ordinances of the church? and

WHEREAS, In the rapid growth of this cause, these difficulties will probably increase, as it extends to other people and draws from other denominations ministers and official members, and

WHEREAS, It is very desirable that some uniform plan of action should be adopted by our different conferences and ministers in all parts of the field; and as our work has reached that stage where some action on this subject is eminently desirable, therefore

RESOLVED, That to meet this want we express the opinion as the sense of this Conference, that none but those who are Scripturally ordained are properly qualified to administer baptism and other ordinances.’  This was discussed by Elders G. I. Butler, James White, and D. M. Canright, and adopted.”

(Ordination was viewed as a prerequisite for conducting baptisms and administering other ordinances of the church. This resolution does not specify whether the individuals administering church ordinances must be ordained as ministers or if it is sufficient that they be ordained as elders, which is the current requirement for commissioned ministers administering the ordinances). 

“The following was also discussed by the brethren last named, and by A. O. Burrill, A. A. John, and E. B. Lane, and adopted:

‘WHEREAS, We regard ordination as a solemn and impressive ceremony, sanctioned by the Holy Scriptures and indicating the setting apart, or separation, of the person receiving it from the body of believers with whom he has been associated, to perform the office to which he is ordained, and as suggestive of the conferring of those spiritual blessings which God must impart to properly qualify him for that position; and WHEREAS, In our age of the world there are many different sets of professing Christians which teach more or less of false doctrine, and whose practices are in many respects inconsistent with the principles of our faith; and

WHEREAS, Ordination signifies the setting apart, or appointment, of a person to some official position; therefore,

RESOLVED, That we consider it inconsistent for our conferences to grant credentials to individuals to occupy official positions among our people, who have never been ordained or set apart by our people.’

MOVED, That G. I. Butler, B. L. Whitney, and W. C. White be a special committee to consider the subject of the proper qualifications of ministers, and report to the next meeting of the Conference.  Carried.” 

(In this resolution, it appears that ordination was intended to be for specific roles. Without ordination, individuals should not occupy official positions in the church. How this was implemented in practice, especially with respect to women, such as Chapman, is not discussed here. It may have been intended that ministers be ordained to the office of minister, treasurers be ordained to the office of treasurer, and other leaders to their respective roles. Today the Seventh-day Adventist Church “commissions” qualified non-ministerially trained officers such as treasurers as “commissioned ministers.”  It appears that the 1879 delegates would have considered them ordained to their office).

“The committee on the proper qualifications of ministers reported verbally through the chairman, G. I. Butler, recommending, as the mind of the committee, that all candidates for the ministry should be thoroughly examined, 

1.  In reference to their knowledge of all points of our faith, on which they should be well informed. 

2. In regard to their spiritual qualifications.  Evidence should be sought to determine whether they are really converted men, or whether they hold the truth as a mere theory. 

3. In reference to their practical capabilities; namely, whether they can set things in order in the church, give good counsel touching the temporalities of the church, bring up the members to a proper standard in all their practical duties, and thus edify and build up the church. 

4. In reference to their general information; and in this direction, a course of study, including different branches, should be systematically pursued.”

“The committee in the case of Elder Cornell reported that they could not recommend that he receive credentials.  The report was adopted.”

“The committee in the case of difference between Elders Corliss, Lane, Canright, etc., reported that they had considered the matter, and learned some facts which enlisted their sympathy toward Elders Lane and Corliss; but they were not prepared to present a definite report.”

“MOVED, That the chair appoint a committee of three to look after the case of Simmons (student from Texas) and prevent his leaving Battle Creek in an improper state of mind.  Carried.  (Simmons wouldn’t be the last Texan thought to have an improper state of mind!  He also wasn’t the last person wanting to leave Michigan and head to Texas as winter approached).

Mar. 1880 (Special Session)—Battle Creek, MI
“RESOLVED,  That we recommend the employment of judicious persons by our state conferences to act as colporters, who shall receive a license from the state conference committees to labor in that capacity; and all such persons will be expected to give quarterly reports of their labors to the conference; and we recommend further that the auditing committees be empowered to consider such cases; and when, in their judgment, such labor has benefited the cause, to give a reasonable remuneration for the same.”

"WHEREAS, Battle Creek is an important center of our work, where our public institutions are located, creating the necessity of large gatherings, and thus bringing heavy burdens upon the church, therefore

RESOLVED, That this Conference considers it the duty of the several state conferences to prevent, as far as possible, the poor from among them, and the unconsecrated, from moving to Battle Creek, and that it is the duty of the state conferences to either induce their poor to move from Battle Creek, or to support them where they are." 

(The previous action obviously didn’t stop the flood of Adventist immigrants to Battle Creek! This action suggests that the delegates considered it a church responsibility to care for the poor.  However, it was a local/state responsibility, not the GC’s.)

"WHEREAS, We recognize the propriety as well as the duty of the Christian ministry to be an example to the flock in liberality and self-sacrifice, as well as in all other good works; and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures plainly teach that the laborer is worthy of his hire, and that the faithful minister is entitled to a liberal and generous support at the hands of his brethren; therefore

RESOLVED, That it be hereby expressed as the sense of this Conference, that faithful and efficient ministers should receive a liberal compensation for their labor, that they may be fully sustained in their work, and have the means wherewith to donate to the cause, as their sense of duty thereto may dictate.

RESOLVED, That we recommend to the auditing committees of our conferences to make a plain distinction between those who are thorough and efficient in their labor, and those who manifest no proper burden of responsibility in the work, and who, either from lack of consecration or devotion to the cause, fail to show such fruit of their labor as ought to be expected, and to make their award accordingly."  (Remuneration based on job performance is no longer practiced).

“All the meetings were opened by singing and prayer. At each meeting the minutes of the preceding meeting were read and approved. Subjects were more freely discussed, pro and con, than at any previous Conference, yet with the utmost cordiality of feeling, and with unanimity of action at the last in every case. It was throughout a most pleasant as well as important and profitable meeting.”

Oct. 1880 (19th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI

George Butler was elected president, replacing James White.

“RESOLVED, That this Conference should select a minister to visit Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and the South generally, to labor for the general interests of the cause, and to encourage such men as should be engaged in active labor to enter the field.”  (Note: The denomination had 3 GC-sponsored foreign missionaries already by this time).
Statistics:  24 conferences, 8 missions, 144 ministers, 116 licentiates, 640 churches, 15570 members, $61,856.88 total expenditures.

Dec. 1881 (20th Annual Session)—Battle Creek, MI

At each GC session, resolutions were prepared and brought to the floor by a Resolutions Committee. The committee on Resolutions for this session, appointed by the chair (S.N. Haskell, filling in for the ill G.I. Butler), was W. H. Littlejohn, B. L. Whitney, and U. Smith.

“WHEREAS, In the providence of God, Elder James White has during the past Conference year, been removed by death from the labors and responsibilities which have devolved upon him for so many years; therefore

RESOLVED, That while we feel that words are inadequate to express the sense of loss which we feel at his death; and while we are deeply conscious that there is no one among us who can fill as he did the position of counselor and laborer in the work of the Third Angel's Message, we will nevertheless earnestly pray that the same God who helped him to devise and execute the plans which have contributed so much to the prosperity of the cause of present truth, may permit the mantle of his faithfulness and power to fall upon others, whose devotion to the cause of God shall be characterized by the same spirit of self-sacrifice and be crowned with the same marked success as that which distinguished his life and labors.

RESOLVED, That we hereby express to our afflicted sister, Ellen G. White, and the other members of her family, our sincere and heartfelt sympathy in this great bereavement which has fallen upon them; and that we assure them of our earnest prayers that our Heavenly Father will graciously sustain them under the deep affliction and great loss which they have experienced. This and the preceding resolution were adopted, not by the Conference only, but by a rising vote unanimously given by the whole congregation.”

“RESOLVED, That we renew the expressions of our confidence in the spirit of prophecy, which has acted so prominent a part thus far in directing the efforts of our people in giving the last message of mercy to the world; and that we will earnestly pray that God in his infinite mercy may remember the humble instrument he has employed in connection with the same, and impart to her in her present enfeebled condition the strength necessary to enable her to visit the different parts of the field, and actively participate in such general gatherings as may be held from time to time. Adopted.”

“Many tender and touching remarks were made by the brethren on these resolutions, and by W. C. White, acknowledging the appreciation by Sister White and the family of the sympathy expressed toward them by this people.”

“RESOLVED, That we express it as our conviction that the College at Battle Creek could greatly advance the interests of the cause of God by preparing young men and women to act as teachers, and that we earnestly  recommend the faculty of that institution to spare no pains to secure that end, by giving particular attention to the interest of that department of the school which is devoted to the instruction and drill of those who design to act in that capacity.”  (Women were encouraged to teach).

“RESOLVED,

1. That we recommend the establishment, in states where the same can be done to advantage, of schools where students can pursue such branches of study as it will be necessary for them to master before entering the College at Battle Creek;

2. That these preparatory schools be established in such places, and conducted on such principles as the General Conference may recommend.”

“RESOLVED, That all candidates for license and ordination should be examined with reference to their intellectual and spiritual fitness for the successful discharge of the duties which will devolve upon them as licentiates and ordained ministers.”

“RESOLVED,  That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry. This was discussed by J. O. Corliss, A. C. Bourdeau, E. R. Jones, D. H.  Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee.”

(The record of this vote and subsequent actions is confusing and incomplete, since the Signs reported that the resolution was adopted while the minutes and the Review record a referral to the GC Committee. Both accounts may be correct, for the referral may have been for implementation, just as many other referrals regarding ministerial assignments were.¹ Such resolutions or motions aren’t necessarily recorded as “carried” or “adopted” in the minutes, but simply as “referred.” For example, in the 1880 minutes, “Elder Underwood presented a request from the brethren in Ohio, that Elder E. B. Lane and wife return to labor in Ohio; which request was referred to the General Conference Committee.” Regardless of whether the referral was for implementation or for consideration, or if the GC Committee even acted on the referral, the fact that the Resolutions Committee proposed ordination of women as ministers and the GC Session discussed it and referred it to the GC Committee shows that church leaders did not see a theological contradiction nor were they strongly opposed to the practice, else the resolution would never have been proposed or the motion would have “lost.”² As Roger Coon explained, “the fact that this could be at least discussed on the floor of a GC Session indicates an open-mindedness on the part of the delegates toward the subject.”³ The referral to the GC Committee also undermines the argument of contemporary headship theology proponents like Stephen Bohr⁴ who wish to roll back the “unbiblical authorization” for ordination of female elders and commissioned ministers performing most duties of an ordained minister taken at the 1975, 1984 and 1989 Executive Committee meetings; although Bohr’s argument is primarily that these actions lack biblical authority, he also argues that these actions lack authority because they were only voted by the GC Executive Committee and not brought to a GC Session for a vote, where he contends they would have been defeated. The 1881 action shows that women’s ministerial ordination was, in fact, discussed at a GC session and referred to the GC Committee; I have found no record of this action being rescinded.)

“WHEREAS, It frequently occurs that the design of those who make bequests to our institutions, is defeated, either in whole or in part, by the contesting of their wills; therefore RESOLVED, That the only safe course to be pursued is that of donating, during one's life time, those amounts which he wishes to contribute to the cause of God.”

“WHEREAS, The Holy Spirit has emphatically condemned the adorning of the person with "gold or pearls, or costly array" (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3);  therefore 

RESOLVED, 1. That we reiterate the former exhortations of this body to plainness of dress on the part of our people, and that we express it as our solemn conviction that no person can disregard the positive injunctions of Scripture upon this point, without exposing himself or herself to the frown of Heaven.”

“RESOLVED, That we express it as the judgment of this body that attendance upon circuses, theaters, trotting matches, humorous lectures, and entertainments of like character cannot be reconciled with the plain teachings of the word of God, and the faith which we as a people hold respecting the near coming of Christ, and the session of the Judgment.”

“WHEREAS, There are brethren and sisters in different churches who do not for weeks attend religious meetings, and allow quarter after quarter to pass without being present at the ordinances; therefore RESOLVED,  That the chair be empowered to appoint a committee of two to write an article to be published in the Review, setting forth the wrong of such course of action.”

Dec. 1882 (21st Annual Session)—Rome, NY

This meeting was the first GC session held outside of Michigan.

“WHEREAS, Confusion is liable to occur in the accounts of our systematic benevolence treasurers, resulting in the loss of funds, unless all pecuniary transactions are conducted according to careful business principles; therefore

RESOLVED, That we recommend that all persons paying tithes require from the treasurer a receipt for all moneys paid him, and that the treasurer be required to present quarterly to the church, or to an auditing committee appointed by the church, an itemized report of all money received, and all that is paid by him into the conference, showing the receipts of the state treasurer as vouchers therefor.”  (Mishandling of donated funds continues to occur from time to time despite increased oversight).

“RESOLVED, That our ministers be instructed to pay more attention to the subject of health reform; to study it in the light of the Bible and to enforce it in our churches as an element of Christian character; and to counteract in a careful and judicious manner the prevailing tendency among our people to backsliding in regard to this important grace.”  (Health reform was a tough sell, apparently, and continues to challenge many members, including ministers. To “enforce it” seems impractical).

“RESOLVED, That the ordinances of the Lord's supper and feet-washing are important, and should never be separated in their administration, except in cases where such separation shall be absolutely necessary.”

“RESOLVED, That we recommend that our churches purchase copies of the General Conference proceedings, and make themselves intelligent in reference to the business matters connected with our annual meetings.”  (So, congratulate yourself for reading this article!)

“RESOLVED, That this General Conference indorse the action of the Board of Trustees of the Educational Society in closing the College, under the circumstances, and we indorse the resolutions passed at an informal meeting of the Educational Society in this place.”  (Problems at Battle Creek College led to its temporary closing.  It reopened soon with a revised educational program).

“RESOLVED, That we request the president of the General Conference to arrange with the Publishing Committee of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association to publish a book to be entitled, The Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook, which shall contain such portions of the proceedings of the General Conference, and such other matters as the Committee may think best to insert therein.”

________________________

1. The Signs of the Times, Vol. 5(1), Jan. 5, 1883, reported the resolution on women’s ordination to have been adopted.  (The author thanks Stanley Hickerson for bringing this document to his attention and providing a copy).  The Review and Herald, Vol. 58(25), p. 392 reported that the resolution was referred to the GC Committee (as the minutes recorded).  The apparent discrepancy between the Signs of the Times report and the minutes and Review and Herald report is not explained, but one suggestion is that the referral to the GC Committee was for implementation, since that is what many other referrals to the GC Committee were for.  (Stanley Hickerson, E.G. White Estate, personal communication with the author, Sept. 24, 2015).  Unfortunately, the archives do not contain minutes from the GC Committee before 1889, nor is its staff aware of any preserved copy of such minutes (Ashlee Chism, Assistant Archivist, GC Archives, personal communication with the author, Oct. 1, 2015).
2. The 1881 GC session was characterized by all resolutions being passed, tabled, or referred to either the Resolutions Committee (for revision) or to the GC Committee (for action/implementation).  Most other GC sessions were similar.  However, when a motion was made and failed to pass, that was duly noted in the minutes.  For example, see Meeting 17, Nov. 30, 1879, where a motion to send G.I. Butler to New England for at least 3 months was discussed and then “lost.”
3. Roger Coon, “Ellen White’s View on the Role of Women in the Church,” E.G. White Research Center; cited by Michael Bernoi, “Nineteenth-Century Women in Adventist Ministry,” in Nancy Vyhmeister, ed., Women in Ministry, Andrews Univ. Press, Berrien Springs, 1998, p. 224.
4. Stephen Bohr, “Reflections on San Antonio,” Secrets Unsealed Ministry Update, Third Quarter 2015, downloaded from http://www.secretsunsealed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/3QTR15News-web.pdf, Oct. 17, 2015. 

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:

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.

General_Conference_History.png

This five-part series has highlighted actions taken by the General Conference during the first 20 years of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  If you missed the previous installments, you can read part one of this series HERE, part two HERE, part three HERE, and part four HERE.

In this part, some final observations and general conclusions are offered.

Concluding Remarks
This series has highlighted actions taken by the General Conference during the first 20 years of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as recorded in the minutes of GC sessions.  The minutes of the early sessions were brief.  With the passage of time the development, growth and management of Seventh-day Adventist institutions demanded increasing attention from church leadership.  As the breadth of institutional presence grew, along with the size of the church and global expansion, the duration of GC sessions and the volume of GC minutes also grew.

Anyone who attended the 2015 GC session in San Antonio and listened to the floor debates and later read the official proceedings published in Adventist Review knows that the published proceedings were highly edited and sometimes altered the meaning of a delegate’s words, omitted important comments, or distorted the sense of the overall discussion.  This may not have been intentional; short of a complete transcript, it would be difficult to accurately represent such a meeting (video recordings of business sessions are now made and kept in the GC archives).  The minutes we have of the early GC sessions are similarly incomplete.  How much we would like to know today about what was actually said during discussion of the 1881 resolution on women’s ordination!  And how much we wish the minutes of the GC Committee for subsequent years were available!  This episode highlights the importance to posterity of accurate minutes and robust archival procedures.  The roles of recording secretary and archivist are underappreciated but significant!

One striking feature of even the earliest GC minutes is the apparent familiarity of delegates—often relatively uneducated—with parliamentary procedure and the orderly structure of debate.  There were no attorneys counseling the chair, as occurs today.  Rather, one gets the sense that Americans in that era had more experience with participatory democracy, with town hall meetings, greater access to elected representatives given the smaller population, more citizen-politicians vs. professionals, and exposure to formal debates (unlike what passes for debates on TV today), and that this background provided early Adventist GC delegates with the skills to conduct business in an efficient and orderly manner.

The early General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (GC) was small, with just a handful of officers and, on a good day, a score of delegates.  Leaders knew everybody personally, and probably most other delegates knew one another as well.  Perhaps as a result, this group was able to develop consensus on many decisions quickly.  As the GC grew, however, factions developed and controversies became more intractable.

The small size of the early GC concentrated power in a few hands.  Several times the delegates asked the president to appoint the nominating committee.  A motion to increase the Executive Committee from 3 people to 5 people was defeated.  The level of mutual trust seems to have been high.  Despite the concentration of power, there was a great deal of accountability within the group, and officers were elected for only one year terms.  The leadership controversy between George Butler and James White helped define the role of GC President as a minister among ministers, not a pope.  Some of James White’s warnings from this period have subsequently been ignored, changing the nature of church leadership in the Adventist church.  Perhaps growth to a multi-million member global organization made this inevitable, but his arguments retain relevance.

The small size of the early GC facilitated agility.  Many—perhaps most—times, when a subject or need was raised during a GC session, a committee was created, it met, prepared recommendations or the constitution and bylaws for a new organization, and then the whole thing was passed—all in the same GC session.  Never was something assigned to a committee to study for five years and return with recommendations to be debated by thousands of delegates with numerous points of order!

There was a sense of communal responsibility and obligation, leading to a degree of intrusion into personal lives that many today would find unacceptable—even extending to attempting to control the living locations of members including non-employees.  Employees were directly managed by the GC in the early years, and lived and worked where they were assigned.  As the church grew and state conferences were formed, they assumed some of this responsibility.

Publishing was a large part of the effort in the early days, along with camp meetings and tent based evangelism.  Ministers worked much as traveling evangelists do today, with churches left in the care of elders.  It took many years for the GC to acknowledge—and they eventually did—that nurture was also important, and to start assigning ministers to a fixed territory.

Several appeals show up in the minutes repeatedly:  for more workers; for more money; for members to send their children to the denominational college; for compliance with health reform principles; for simple dress; to distribute and read Ellen White’s books and other denominational literature.  Most of these remain items of recurring emphasis by GC leadership today.

Personalities loomed large.  People were deeply committed to the cause and sacrificed greatly, but this commitment was accompanied by strongly held beliefs.  The minutes record a few surprisingly frank discussions of individuals.  Important issues were dealt with, but sometimes feelings were hurt; ministers left the work.

Many workers assumed massive responsibilities and were severely overworked.  Disease prevention and cure in the mid-nineteenth century was deficient.  Exhaustion, sickness or premature death impacted many workers.

The GC was a strong supporter of Ellen White’s visions and publications.  Other than that, however, there is little mention of her direct participation in the GC sessions of the first 20 years.  She was assigned to several early committees or tasks, but never was elected to a GC office. 

This limited role of Ellen White was not because she was a woman; other women served as GC delegates (thus exercising “the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists”) and one served as GC treasurer for many years, while another served one term.  This level of female participation, together with the endorsement of women teachers (1881) and the resolution on women’s ordination for ministry the same year, indicates that mid-19th century Adventists did not interpret I Timothy 2:12 as a barrier to participation of women in teaching and leadership roles in the Seventh-day Adventist church, in contrast to contemporary headship theorists like Stephen Bohr who interpret I Timothy 2:12 as generally applicable to the church today (recoiling at a hermeneutic that would interpret it as applicable “only to a problem in first century Ephesus”).¹

James White was a hard-working, entrepreneurial leader who apparently created some enemies, but was widely respected and appreciated.  He was aggressive in developing new territories and enterprises, moving ahead in faith yet with a keen business sense, understanding how to extract enough income from these enterprises to fund their growth.  One senses a bit of floundering and inward/procedural focus at the GC when James White was sick or otherwise not in a strong leadership position.

Overall, when one reads the early minutes of the GC, one is impressed with how hard these men and women worked, how much they sacrificed, and all they accomplished in a short time. 

One is also struck with their humanity.  Mistakes were made, and sometimes later acknowledged and repented.  People were hurt, but also supported.  Their decisions were imperfect, and sometimes reversed.  Their statements and policies are interesting history and worthy of contemplation, but should not be considered as binding obligations for the church today.  The early Seventh-day Adventists certainly didn’t view them thus.

Can the spirit of the early GC be recaptured today in a denomination that is 4-5 orders of magnitude larger in membership and spans the globe?  I’m doubtful.  Neither are all aspects of the early GC worthy of emulation.  However, the entrepreneurial, risk-taking, pioneering spirit; the willingness to confess wrongs and reverse bad decisions; the passion for the work of Christ, accompanied by a strong work ethic; the self-sacrificing spirit; the efforts to recover lost members and ministers; the eagerness to find and train new ministers for the rapidly growing church; the opposition to creeds; the opposition to expulsion of church members without broad agreement and due process; the rejection of papal-style leadership; the willingness to work with those of similar yet different beliefs; the flexibility to adapt policy as circumstances changed—these are some of the admirable qualities of the early GC. 

The minutes reveal many changes in the GC during its first 20 years, as it responded to a changing world and changing church.  Can the 20 years after San Antonio bring as much change as the first 20 years did?  As a larger, more mature organization, the GC is naturally more resistant to change than during its formative years.  Its beliefs and policies are now thoroughly codified and documented in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, the Church Manual, and organizational Working Policy.  However, the pace of change in our world is increasing, suggesting that the church will need to accelerate change or lose relevance.

____________________

1.  Stephen Bohr, “Reflections on San Antonio,” Secrets Unsealed Ministry Update, Third Quarter 2015, downloaded from http://www.secretsunsealed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/3QTR15News-web.pdf, Oct. 17, 2015. 

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:

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.

Heidi Nelson Cruz.png

On November 4-5, 2015, about a year out from the 2016 presidential election, things looked good for Ben Carson. He overtook Donald Trump at the top of the stacked GOP primary field at 24.8% of the Republican vote and posted solid fundraising numbers. For the retired Seventh-day Adventist neurosurgeon, his presidential bid couldn’t have been going better.

Meanwhile, Texas senator Ted Cruz, whose wife Heidi Nelson Cruz is the other Republican with Adventist ties* hoping for a Pennsylvania Avenue mailing address in 2016, sat in fourth place among GOP hopefuls, polling at about 8.8%.

Today, the situation for the two candidates is nearly reversed. Ted Cruz has climbed steadily into second place behind Trump, and Ben Carson has fallen to 4th, polling at 8.8% according to a Real Clear Politics average, nearly his lowest numbers since August 17, 2015.

As Ted Cruz’s poll numbers have increased, so has the scrutiny that accompanies a rising presidential candidate.

Among the subjects of scrutiny, Cruz’s citizenship (Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother), and his failure to disclose loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank to the Federal Election Commission during his successful 2012 Senate campaign.

Heidi Cruz, the daughter of Seventh-day Adventist missionaries and Harvard Business School graduate, is a managing director at Goldman Sachs, on leave during her husband’s presidential campaign.

Catherine Frazier, a spokesperson for the Cruz campaign, said that failing to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent.” She also said that the campaign would file corrected reports as needed, and that Cruz had not attempted to hide anything.

If the citizenship debate harms Cruz among a Republican electorate suspicious of anything appearing “un-American” (whether or not his Canadian birth proves a legal impediment, which seems unlikely), the Goldman Sachs financial disclosures could undercut his credibility as a self-styled foe of Wall Street’s “crony capitalism” and as an opponent of “New York values.”

The truth is that Ted Cruz probably would not have made it to this point without the help of Wall Street and his wife’s place in it. Therein lies the irony, one not lost on Republican rival Rand Paul, who just released a bizarre campaign ad, "Audit The Ted," criticizing Cruz’s Wall street ties.

Also ironic: The New York Times has reported on Heidi Cruz’s love of “The Apprentice,” the TV show that helped make Donald Trump a celebrity. Mrs. Cruz talked up the show during her 2004 Southern Adventist University commencement address (one last odd coincidence: Ben Carson was Southern’s 2005 commencement speaker).
She said in her speech,

I love that show because those people risked failure in front of 28 million viewers to go for something that they really wanted. This wasn’t just any failure. This was banishment from the Park Avenue board room on television. To me, that takes guts.”

This week, the Times noted Mrs. Cruz’s reiteration of her 2004 praise for "The Apprentice," despite current tensions between her husband’s campaign and Donald Trump’s:

I’m not great at TV references, but I did like ‘The Apprentice’ because it was a show that gave people a chance to have a start. There was a measurable result and decision. That’s a thing I like about the private sector. So I’d probably stand behind that reference.”

Ironies aside, Heidi Cruz has been and continues to be instrumental to her husband’s political aspirations. Her career on hold, she has been phone banking and traveling extensively in service of Ted Cruz’s campaign.

If Mr. Cruz succeeds in his White House run, he will be able to say to his wife in all truthfulness, “I couldn’t have done it without you.”

*While Heidi Cruz was raised in a Seventh-day Adventist household, she now identifies with the Baptist faith of her husband Ted Cruz. An earlier version of this article misidentified Heidi Cruz as an Adventist.

Jared Wright is Managing Editor of SpectrumMagazine.org.

If you respond to this article, please:

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

Paul_Opinions.jpg

Nearly two thousand years ago, a Pharisaic convert to the fledgling Jesus movement wrote an impassioned letter to the church at Corinth. In this now oft-quoted epistle, a man known to many simply as Paul laid out the theological framework for a new and daring vision of the Christian faith. Key to his vision was the admonition to the Corinthian congregation not to marry (1 Cor. 7:1-13). To be more specific, those who were engaged or betrothed, he urged to remain so and not “tie the knot” (7:26). For those who had yet to find someone they wished to commit to, Paul urged them not to keep looking (7:27). Instead, he called on them all to become like he was, celibate for the cause of Christ.

To marry another, Paul argued, betrayed the church’s conviction that Jesus was coming imminently. If Jesus was to return in Paul’s lifetime, then members of the body of Christ were not to be distracted from their missional work. Time was too short. Marriage would, by necessity, require the attention of one believer to love and care for another without whom the believer might have been more singularly focus on the work of Christ.

Paul’s rationale for his admonition not to marry misfired in retrospect, but Paul could not have known that Christ would not return in his lifetime.

While as Adventists with our Millerite heritage we can appreciate Paul’s zeal for the coming Advent and his risking everything for it, we also recognize the peril inherent in his advice. Paul was, like all of us who come after him, constrained by a limited and imperfect understanding of when Christ’s arrival (parousia) would take place.

Paul’s daring proposal for reform in the Corinthian church would shock many if given today. However, it might also provide an important framework for addressing the church’s current debates on contentious topics like Women’s Ordination. Why? Simply put, had the early Christians followed Paul’s words and abstained from marriage, remaining celibate, there likely would not be a church here to debate any issues at all. In other words, to state what should be obvious by the fact that I am writing this article as a Christian, most of the early Church ignored Paul’s daring advice.

However, the biggest shock is not what Paul said he believed the Corinthians should do, nor that the early Christians ignored what he said, but rather how Paul described his proposal: as his personal opinion… as advice (1 Cor 7:6-7,12).

On several occasions in his letters (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12; 2 Cor. 11:17), Paul admits that what he is writing is by no means something that he has received as a revelation from God and cautions the church at Corinth to, in a paraphrased sense: take it or leave it (7:7). He writes explicitly in 7:25 that “I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion…”

In fact, as some commentators have noted, Paul appears to be emphasizing his opinion precisely because some of the Church in Corinth had previously misunderstood Paul’s wishes to be a command.¹

Why is this instructive for the church’s debates, especially on the topic of Women’s Ordination? Consider Paul’s similar appeal in a verse at the forefront of the ordination debate: 1 Timothy 2:8-13. Although most of the discussion that surrounds this controversial and heated text begins with vs. 11 and its injunction for women to not have authority over men, the chapter’s central discussion starts a few verses earlier in vs. 8. There, Paul says “I desire that…”² His desire, to summarize briefly, is three-fold: that men pray with lifted hands without anger, women dress modestly without adornment and that they not exercise authority over men.

The word used by Paul, translated as ‘desire’ by the NRSV, is the Greek word βούλομαι, which means a personal desire or wish.

The passage in 1 Timothy is not a command from God for how to structure the church. It is the author’s opinion. He is expressing a “desire,” not an imperative he believed was sent from God or even official church teaching he was passing on from Jerusalem. He was giving personal commentary.

This textual detail seems to have been overlooked by those on both sides of the debate unfortunately. Understanding Paul’s admonitions as his desire provides a potentially helpful framework for debating contentious issues like ordination. Without this framing, the debate has often become muddled and unfocused.

In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, J. Paul Sampley writes, “Paul establishes what he thinks is the ideal, how he thinks things ought to be, and he depicts that as the goal or paradigm toward which people ought to aim and with regard to which people should order their lives.”³ Continuing, Paul’s desire in 1 Timothy concerning women, “is based solely on Paul’s individual authority… rather than on a principle intrinsic to the good news.”⁴

A better question to ask concerning this pericope than “what does Scripture teach?” would be “what did Paul personally desire that is recorded in Scripture?” That small change of focus, I believe, shifts the way many would approach this passage and how they might apply it in the life of the church. It allows us to contextualize his statements. In fact, curiously, scholars have often noted that the beginning of 3:1 could actually be the intended conclusion to the entire discussion of women in 2:8-13. If so, it is of interest that it is possible according to some scholars to translate and understand the verse as reading “This is a reliable opinion.”⁵ It proves to be a fitting conclusion to Paul’s expressed “desires.”

Returning to Paul’s opinion on marriage from his letter to Corinth, one notes the development of Paul’s opinions and how they change: In 1 Cor. 7:8 Paul explicitly says that the young women and widows should remain unmarried. He concedes that they should marry only if they are “aflame with passion” (7:9). Yet, in an ironic twist one notes the use of βούλομαι in 1 Timothy once more, this time in 5:14. There Paul writes, “I would have (βούλομαι) younger widows marry, bear children and manage their households, so as to give the adversary no occasion to revile us.”

If the letter is written by Paul as tradition has maintained, it appears that Paul has changed or nuanced his opinion since he wrote to the Corinthians. Now he actually wishes and desires that young widows would in fact settle down and marry, whether or not they are “aflame with passion.” By saying he wishes for these Christian women to marry, he also wishes for Christian men to marry them, take care of them and by the logic of his earlier words in Corinthians, have their time inevitably taken away from the ministry. Both a plain reading of the text and a more thoughtful study of the Pauline canon point to a shift from his previous opinion, demonstrating that Paul’s views rather than being set in stone, were subject to change.

Some may object that this view of Paul’s writing does not take sufficiently seriously the Adventist affirmation of Scripture’s inspiration. Not so! This framework treats Paul’s writing seriously enough to take him literally at his word.

It also takes seriously the view that Ellen White spelled out so well, that "The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language… The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers." I have tried to do just that.

Whatever the reality behind Paul’s “desire,” whether meant only for a specific church and occasion (cf. 1 Cor. 7:26), or part of a broader desire for affecting change in the church as a whole, it remains, in Paul’s own words, a personal viewpoint. That point ought to inform contemporary reading of the text. It may have been inspired for a specific circumstance, but like the issue of celibacy in the church of Corinth, following its counsel could have unintended negative consequences for the body of Christ.

If the writer of 1 Corinthians changed or adapted his opinion about whether widows should marry, if he allowed that his words on marriage were his opinion, and if we can see that he expressed his concerns about women’s authority as a personal wish, then what would compel contemporary readers to woodenly read Paul’s statements as binding and definitive?

Reading the Pauline writings as a whole leads to the conclusion that to conclude based solely on the personal wish recorded in Timothy, that women shouldn’t be ordained is as shaky an argument as the claim that because of Paul’s opinion found in 1 Corinthians 7 we should not be marrying. Consideration for the content of the texts points to the conclusion that an opinion is to be evaluated and weighed, not dogmatically adhered to. Paul himself felt the need to change and did. Why should we not do the same as we read his words in the 21st century?

_______________________

1.  Charles W. Carter, “The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians,” in The Wesleyan Bible Commentary Vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971) 164.
2.  This is recognized by a number of commentators, notably the Word Biblical Commentary.
3.  J. Paul Sampley, “The First Letter to the Corinthians” in The New Interpreters Bible Vol. 10 (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2002) 874. Emphasis is my own.
4.  Luke Timothy Johnson, The Anchor Bible: The First and Second Letters to Timothy (New York, New York: Doubleday, 2001) 203.
5.  Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 203. The statement translated in the ESV as “The saying is trustworthy” can also be understood as “this is a reliable opinion.” In fact, it appears that some scribes understood it exactly in this manner, because in a manuscript copy of 1 Timothy, an early Christian scribe changed the word for “trustworthy” to “human” so that the verse read “This is [merely] a human opinion.”

Matthew Reeves is a Religious Studies (Pre-Seminary) and Archaeology student La Sierra University, minoring in biblical languages.

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.

DSC_0058.JPG

Former pastor and Adventist Church member Paul Mikov describes his roles as UN liaison for NGOs World Vision, and now CMMB, working to improve the lives of vulnerable people around the world.

Question: You worked for World Vision for almost ten years, mainly in high-profile roles in New York City, liaising with the United Nations. How would you describe the work that you did? What were some of your primary projects and achievements?

Answer: My role as United Nations Representative and Director of the UN Office for World Vision International spanned across several domains -- the most significant being the UN bodies, departments and specialized agencies, as well as with the permanent diplomatic missions of governments/member states of the United Nations. It was a role that cut across government relations, branding and positioning, humanitarian diplomacy, policy influence and advocacy, and engagements with the academic, corporate and foundations domains for the purposes of resource mobilization and advancement of knowledge.

It was a thoroughly exciting and fulfilling experience, and God blessed in some wonderful ways.

Internally, we managed to leverage what was initially a two-person office into a large team of more than 20 senior staff with diverse expertise, and transformed World Vision into a preferred partner to policy makers on humanitarian, development (especially global health), and child rights issues.

Over the seven years in that role it was inevitable that I woul  accumulate memories of impact and achievement. I am particularly grateful that I was able to help establish one of the most successful public-private partnerships in the history of the United Nations: the Every Woman Every Child initiative on maternal, child and adolescent health. We managed to mobilize $40 billion from public and private sources in order to launch this initiative. World Vision International committed $1.5 billion at the time, which was equivalent to the commitment of the Gates Foundation.

And yet, at a deeper level, I will forever cherish those occasions when my personal interventions resulted in lives being saved, whether by negotiating a convoy of aid to hundreds of thousands of civilians encircled and bombarded by government forces in the Vanni region of Sri Lanka; or when convincing the UN to dispatch a helicopter to the bushes of North Kivu in the DRC to evacuate eight of our staff who were in the line of fire and about to be killed; or influencing the drafting of a Security Council resolution mandating the largest peacekeeping mission on the planet to prioritize the protection of civilians, especially the most vulnerable: women and children. It was a role that in a very real sense had even pastoral and prophetic dimensions to it. And it was that fact that I found most meaningful and fulfilling.

How would you describe World Vision and its work? How was it as a place to work and what was the culture among its staff like? How would you compare the work of World Vision with that of the church’s global NGO ADRA?

World Vision is a large NGO with a huge global geographical footprint and multi-sectoral programming (i.e. long-term development, humanitarian response, and policy and advocacy, with many more cross-cutting fields and competencies).

World Vision is a Christian, non-denominational organization, which takes its Christian identity and heritage very seriously. World Vision is unequivocally intentional about its Christian commitments, constantly seeking that those inform and shape both its identity and its work.

While my observation is obviously provisional and tentative, since I have never worked for ADRA, it seems to me that it may well be that World Vision reflects and grapples theologically and missiologically upon itself, its mandate and mission, to a greater extent than that might be the case within ADRA.

From the perspective of scope, World Vision is a considerably larger organization than ADRA. World Vision’s annual budget is in the vicinity of $2.8 billion, which easily makes it one of the top two largest operational NGOs in the world. This fact, obviously, allows World Vision to have a much greater operational leeway and programmatic footprint.

Another major difference between the two organizations is probably in the degree to which they engage externally. Namely, World Vision has been deploying significant resources into its policy and advocacy portfolio and is typically engaged on most humanitarian, development and human rights/justice agendas, nationally -- regionally as well as globally -- and often in robust and leading roles.

Of course, whether an organization is engaged in the external and policy fora to some extent is a matter of resources and capacity. However, more fundamentally, it is much more a matter of philosophy and culture. In the case of World Vision and ADRA, it should also be a matter of theology.

What have you learned in all your work with the UN? It is such a large, and powerful, organisation. Is it hard to get things done? Do you feel it’s very bureaucratic? Or do you feel you are working with many noble-minded, idealistic people who accomplish great things for the good of the world?

International affairs have always been complex. The UN, which is at the center of it all, is inevitably a complex system and entity.  What most people do not recognize, however, is the fact that the relative effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the UN as a whole is to an immense degree determined by the will of the member states of the UN -- the most powerful ones in particular, chief among them being USA. It is after all a political, inter-governmental entity.

Of course, the UN is also a large bureaucracy, and like any other bureaucracy, it has its shortcomings, imperfections and inefficiencies. My experience has been that, yes, you encounter mediocrity within the UN, both at headquarters and in the field.

Nonetheless, it has also been my observation that some of the brightest minds on the planet work for the UN or in support of the UN’s mandate and mission. I have encountered genuine idealism and love for humanity among people who work at the UN.

The issues the world is facing are complex and defy simple solutions, and too many times the UN is “the last stop before hell” (to quote the title of a recent documentary).

I do not want to sound like a self-appointed apologist for the UN. But, again, most people do not realize how extensive the UN’s scope of work is. For instance, the UN is involved in maritime matters and regulates the law of the seas; it is involved in feeding millions of hungry people on a daily basis; it manages scores of peacekeeping missions around the world; it is involved in helping governments with elections and population censuses; the UN runs the world’s meteorological office; works on nuclear matters; and is even advancing debates and policies on human activity in outer space, and much more. And it does all of that with a total budget that is just a fraction of the annual budget of a single department of the US government.

All of the evident and inevitable imperfections notwithstanding, the UN has great convening power on the world stage, and often provides valuable thought leadership. Just yesterday I was walking by the headquarters of Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies on the planet, and was impressed to see Pfizer’s whole massive HQ building here in Manhattan plastered with the most attractive marketing visuals of the recently adopted and UN-inspired Sustainable Development Goals. It seems UN’s leadership is increasingly embraced even by the corporate sector.

You haven’t been employed by ADRA, but you do have extensive church work experience for the Ohio and Southern California Conferences. What did you do for the church? How would you compare working for the church with working for an outside employer?

For about eight years I had the wonderful privilege, which afforded me much joy, to pastor several churches in the Southern California Conference. My last pastorate was as the senior pastor of the Camarillo SDA Church. In Ohio, I helped with development work for about a year-and-a-half in an effort to save the oldest academy in North America. [Mount Vernon Academy.] Unfortunately, we were not successful.

The differences between SDA Church and non-church employment can be significant, and of course depends on the role in question as well.

For the past year, you have worked for the CMMB-Healthier Lives Worldwide in New York. What does your position entail?

I am the Vice President for Institutional Partnerships. As the title suggests, it’s my responsibility to help advance the interface and hopefully partnerships with corporations, thought-leading foundations, select UN specialized agencies, government agencies for international development (e.g. the US Agency for International Development or USAID), academia and select domestic health systems.

Many of these entities are already engaged, or aspire to be increasingly engaged, in the areas of maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health internationally. Millions of children continue to die before they turn five years old from preventable diseases or minor health issues that we in the developed world take care of with a pill or antibiotic. Hundreds of thousands of mothers die while giving life in childbirth, also from minor and easily preventable complications. The issues are staggering and they amount to a massive moral imperative. Beyond the ethics behind it, the health of women, children and adolescents is critically important to almost every area of human development and progress in the developing world. And this is only on the side of global health, not counting scores of other humanitarian or conflict propelled crises.

And so, it becomes crucially important to engage the private sector, major foundations, governments and other partners and trigger their imagination as to the kind of force for good they could be around the world if they were willing to deploy some of their knowledge, resources, competencies and capacities. Many lives could be saved and large parts of societies transformed.

What do you believe the global NGO community should focus on to diminish the number people living in poverty and hunger around the world? What is the answer to the world's problems?

These are huge questions. In an ultimate sense, God and the Person of Christ are the answer to the world’s problems, which are many and monumental: climate change, population growth, violent conflicts, the widening gap between rich and poor, increasing numbers of refugees, and a global shift in political-economic power spheres.

At a more mundane level, the responses to abject poverty and hunger around the world will have to be multi-faceted, smart and robust. First, there must be a sustained shift from tackling the symptoms and consequences of poverty to addressing the root causes. The alternative amounts to no more than “putting out fires.”

Poverty is largely and fundamentally propelled and perpetuated by structural issues, and at the level of policies, and systems. This makes poverty a justice issue. Hence the necessity to engage to influence policy formation, and to advocate for the most just arrangements to prevail in the social, economic and political spheres of people’s daily realities. Obviously, so much more could be said here.

Second, a whole new ethic is needed, the logic of which would be mainly informed by the common good. It’s an ethic that relativizes dominant notions of parochial, tribal, or national interests, but rather seeks the wellbeing of the whole and all. And Christianity, including Adventism, should lead on both of these fronts, because alleviating the world’s challenges not only requires new forms of cooperation and technical expertise but also a dialogue and engagement on values.

It seems to me that Christ’s costly call of discipleship entails that we take our faith and commitments to the values and principles of the Kingdom of God beyond the confines of our churches and dynamically engage our faith and commitments with the most pressing issues of today. Not because we don’t believe in the “tomorrow” or “not yet” of the Kingdom of God, but exactly because we believe and know that the Kingdom has already come and is operational in the world. The Church must be a “sign” of this Kingdom, its values and purposes. Christ and his prophets are the models for us to emulate.

Do you feel the Adventist church is doing its part in really serving vulnerable people in local communities and around the world? What is it doing well? What could it do better?

Obviously, the Adventist Church has done so much great work in the service of vulnerable people around the world over the past 150 plus years of its existence. It’s fair to say that its overall contribution has substantially surpassed its size and presence on the stage of history.

It’s a relatively well-known fact by now that the Adventist Church has been particularly strong it the health and education sectors. Adventist schools, for instance, have educated millions over the years, which has for many meant being pulled out of poverty or prevented from ending up in poverty.

Nevertheless, an argument could be made that the social and prophetic potential of Adventism is so much greater, and that even some of its most peculiar “offerings” could be conceived and deployed in ways that would not only be fresh, more compelling and exciting, but would also result in exponentially greater impact and consequence, both from the perspective of the “world” as well as the Kingdom of God.

How has your Adventist education and experience informed your work?

I am profoundly grateful to God for the trajectory of my life so far, and the roles my Adventist experience and education have played in it. It’s not a mere platitude to say that I would not be where I am today, or where I have been so far, without my Adventist upbringing, experience and education. I grew up in Macedonia (at the time part of Yugoslavia), where other religions and ideologies dominated. Adventism helped nurture within me a differentiated worldview and expanded my horizons beyond those options; it dispatched me into a much larger world.

What keeps you in the Adventist church?

History, longevity, family, the enduring conviction that Adventism has a great contribution to make in the world and can offer a positive view of God.

I understand that after leaving Yugoslavia you studied at Newbold College in England, then Fuller in California, and have been based in the US since. Have you ever felt any desire to return to your roots?

I certainly have. In fact, when we first moved from the UK in 1995, our plan was to go back to what is now the former Yugoslavia. But, God has been closing and opening doors in a way that has kept us here in the US. Hopefully the hybrid of European and American in us amounts to some value-add.

You have presented lectures at many conferences and taught a number of courses, including at Washington Adventist University, Columbia University -- and you have one on human rights at Fordham University this coming semester. Is there a main, crucial lesson you hope your students will take away? You obviously bring extensive real-world experience to the classroom — do you feel you also have a natural affinity with teaching?

I do feel I have an affinity with teaching. Many years in school and several years “behind the pulpit” have perhaps predisposed me towards teaching and pontification.

In the class this semester at Fordham University my main goal will be to help students understand the social and political developments and implications surrounding the demise of the Cold War, and the resulting expansion of human rights norms, policies and systems within the broader area of protection of civilians. Hopefully, also, the class will  inspire students and trigger their imaginations to operate as agents of change on behalf of those whose dignity and wellbeing have been denied.

You have spoken a lot about the intersection of faith and humanitarian work. How do you feel they can best co-exist? Obviously, religion can potentially get in the way. Is it best to try to keep them totally separate?

Separating the two should never be an option. Our faith should not be compartmentalized. In fact, humanitarian action is at its best when informed by faith. People appreciate authenticity, and so a believer’s engagement in humanitarian work should ideally be an authentic expression of his/her faith. Religion gets in the way whenever it seeks to instrumentalize humanitarian assistance or development aid. This is why authenticity is the corrective to this temptation.

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.

Oosterwal.png

Gottfried Oosterwal
February 8, 1930 – November 9, 2015 

Oosterwal’s missiological influence in the light of subsequent developments in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. A memorial tribute based on personal experience, given at the Pioneer Memorial Church on November 15, 2015.

In the early 50’s with a steady, but relatively slow growth of the Adventist Church in the third world, the conviction grew among church leaders that more focused attention should be given to the training of local church leaders. I was studying at the Seminary in Washington D.C. at the time and received a letter calling me to Solusi College stating “This is a new Africa and we need more adequately trained church leaders.” This opened the way to ten rewarding years preparing pastors for service in the Trans-African Division. 

Officers in the General Conference Dept. of Education were involved in leading to this decision. Among them was Richard Hammill, Assoc. Director of the Dept., who had travelled widely and recognized that in order to fulfill this mission the church required many more well prepared missionaries. Accordingly in 1956 the Annual Council voted that newly appointed missionaries, and those on furlough, should attend an intensive six week training course. However an appropriate program was not immediately developed.

In 1963 R. Hammill was appointed president of Andrews University.  In order to assist him, and facilitate this missions program, he called Myrl Manley, who had been president of three overseas colleges, to serve at Andrews.  Manley attended a missions session at Wheaton College in preparation for this missionary training program.  Upon returning to Andrews he invited Gottfried Oosterwal, who was then taking a few courses at the Seminary, to assist him. Oosterwal had been a pioneer missionary in Papua New Guinea and had impressed Manley with his missionary experience and enthusiasm.  In 1966 they conducted the initial four week Institute of World Mission session together and Manley requested him to join him permanently.  Oosterwal accepted, but returned to the Philippines for two years.  He returned in 1968 and the Institute of World Mission was then firmly established.  Regular intensive 4 week sessions were conducted each summer.  In 1971 Manley was appointed V.P. for student affairs and Oosterwal began to search for an assistant.

I was studying in New Jersey at the time, and Oosterwal who was attending the Annual Council at the General Conference, phoned me and arranged a visit. We spent a very interesting day together. He told me of his experience in entering into the life and thought world of the Boro Boro peoples of New Guinea and then he wanted to know about my experience. He left me wondering where all of this was leading.  A few days later I received a phone call from Richard Hammill, who had given very wise guidance at Solusi College, requesting me to come to Andrews to join Oosterwal in the Institute of World Mission.  My primary responsibility would be in the preparation and subsequent support of missionaries.  I was also to do a little teaching at the Seminary.

We came to Andrews in 1971 and I assisted Oosterwal in conducting the Institute that summer.  It was a rewarding experience. About 35 candidates were preparing for a wide range of missionary services – educational, medical, and primary face to face evangelism. He taught a wide range of classes: on anthropological and social understandings of primary people’s religious experience, Adventist Church operation and structure, and current missionary purposes etc. All were enriched by inspiring accounts of his personal experience. In addition we spent considerable time in personal conversation with candidates and in group social activities. This was the beginning of a close cooperative relationships with Oosterwal for almost  20 years.

The number of recruited missionary candidates increased rapidly.  Starting in 1972 two  six week Institutes were conducted annually, one in the summer and one in the winter, with about 50-60 candidates in each. In 1975, a third, conducted at Loma Linda for much needed medical missionaries, was added to the schedule.  About this time the Institute was also invited to conduct sessions in the Northern European Division and Australia and subsequently several Divisions established Institutes. Oosterwal travelled widely guiding and inspiring many missionaries during these years.  In the late 80’s, because of the increase of missionaries from other countries and the internationalization and extension of its services, the Institute was reorganized and placed under more direct control of the G.C. Secretariat.

The significance of these missionary endeavors is best seen in the context of the expansion and growth of the Adventist world church.  In 1970, when the Institute was getting under way seriously, world membership was 2.05 million.  By 1980 it had grown to almost 3.5 mill.,   in 1990 to 6.7 mill.,  and in 2000, about 30 years after the establishment of the Institute, to 11.7.mill.   ( 138^th Annual Statistical Report -2000.  pp.2 & 77.)    And the number of annual new missionaries had increased.  In 1960 there were 260;  in 1970 there were 470;  in 1980 there were 356; and in  1990, 369.  (2014Annual Statistical Report.  p.5).  Spouses are included in the above numbers.  The Institute of World Mission was doubtless a major factor in this increase in the missionary working force.   

            The expansion and growth of the Adventist World Church broke through to the Western world as a great surprise in 1982 with the publication of the thousand page World Christian Encyclopedia edited by David Barrett and published by the Oxford University Press.  It included all denominations and Christian groups in every nation and was the most extensive and detailed study of World Christianityever published. The status of Adventism in country after country is included, and also the statistics of its progressive world membership growth. The following numbers which are considerably larger than those in the Adventist Annual Statistical Reports are listed:  1970 – 4.07 mill., 1975 – 4.7 mill., 1980 – 5.44 mill., 1985 – 6.18 mill.  (p.14). 

When I attended the American Society of Missiology meeting that year I could hardly get down the passage to the assembly hall.  Missiologists were staggered by the extensity, size, and rapid growth of the Adventist Church.  

I met David Barrett at an annual meeting of the Theological Education Fund group in Nairobi in 1965.  He had been an engineer in the British Aircraft establishment but decided to enroll as an Anglican missionary and enrich the lives of others.  He soon began to realize that although deeply committed most missionaries were not adequately analytic regarding the efficiency and results of their work.  He began to attend the annual T.E.F. sessions organized by the World Council of Churches and organized several small groups to collect data and study the results of specific missionary enterprises.  I was a member of one of these groups for two years, and then left to study in the USA.  As a consequence of this initial series of studies he extended his research and in due course published the 1982 Encyclopedia. 

Some twenty years later the group he had organized produced a revised and enlarged version of this Encyclopedia.  I had a conversation with him soon after this extended version was published.  He had travelled extensively and visited many missionary institutions.  He told me he had been favorably impressed by the educational and medical institutions operated by the Adventist Church and by the missionaries from many nations that served in them. He also mentioned that he had sensed a strong feeling of corporate unity and commitment.

Perhaps influenced by Barrett, and subsequently also by the 2009, Johnson and Ross Atlas of Global Christianity 1910 – 2010, which includes Adventists, with a membership at 23.6 mill., in the table of "Largest Protestant Traditions, 2010" (p.90),Phillip Jenkins, the leading scholar of contemporary world religions wrote:

A church that was once regarded as a purely U.S. phenomenon has become one of the world’s fastest growing and most diverse….   By the late 1950’s the church celebrated the fact that it had surpassed the milestone of a million adherents the vast majority of whom were in the United States….  Sixty years later the Adventists constitute a global church that plausibly claims 18 million members, only 7 percent of whom live in the United States….The church has developed its rich network of educational institutions and media outlets around the world…. When I meet an Adventist I sometimes ask in a semi-joking question as to how many relatives he or she has working in the medical professions….Adventists show believers how to improve their lives in physical terms as well as spiritual and that practice carries enormous weight” (The Christian Century, Sept. 30, 2015 p.45).  

Many factors are involved in this rapid  world growth of the Adventist Church; and it is not only the numbers that are encouraging and important.  The new life-purpose, and manner of life that have given shape to large Adventist communities, are a significant part of the whole picture. The Institute of World Mission has played an important role in both preparing the messengers, and giving shape to the message they proclaim.  However there are also major facilitating organizational factors that have promoted this growth.  In all of this we owe a great debt to Oosterwal for both the commitment he inspired and for equipping candidates with appropriate  methodological approaches.    

Having covered the broad spectrum and growth of Adventist missions we come back to the fact that this is a memorial service convened to pay tribute to Oosterwal for his deeply committed and dedicated service to our Lord and to pray for continued blessings to his family .  Oosterwal’s life was shaped by the gospel and he committed his life to sharing the blessings of our Lord with others. He was a man of many talents and his influence on others was deep and broad.  Many have told me that attending an Institute was a life changing experience. Not only had it given their lives a more focused direction, it had equipped them for more effective service. He published several books some of which were used in Institute classes. We mostly used Mission Possible, published in 1972 in dealing with current opportunities and challenges.  In subsequent travels in Africa I found that several were still using it. His influence was not confined to the Institute.  In the meetings and presentations at sessions he conducted in his many travels, both in the USA and abroad, he inspired many to commit their lives to the service of our gracious Lord.  We thank God for his life and witness.

Russell Staples is Professor Emeritus of World Mission at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminiary at Andrews University.

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.