Adventist_Podcast_Ali.jpg

Welcome to Spectrum's sixth Adventist podcast.

In this episode we're celebrating the life of Muhammad Ali among the Adventists in Berrien Springs, Michigan. Brenton Reading talks briefly about the upcoming Adventist Forum conference with Greg Boyd on the non-violent atonement. Alisa Williams shares some anecdotes on Muhammad Ali in and around Berrien Springs, Michigan. Finally, longtime Spectrum reader, Tom Kimmel, reflects on having Muhammad Ali as his neighbor and friend for thirty-five years. 

Audio: 

Muhammad Ali Among the Adventists.mp3

GregBoyd.jpg

Dr. Greg Boyd is the keynote speaker for the upcoming Adventist Forum Conference in Silver Spring, Maryland titled Non-violence and the Atonement. In this Q & A with Adventist Forum board member Carmen Lau, Boyd describes his ministry, his views on God's non-violence, and why he is hesitant to self-describe as Evangelical.

You are an author, academic, teacher, pastor, apologist and have spent much  energy engaging with fellow Christians and also the secular world.  Could you give a brief explanation about what excites you and what drives you to stay so busy?  

We live at an exciting juncture of history. The traditional triumphant understanding of the church, known as “Christendom,” is crumbling. Out of its rubble is rising a grass-roots global movement of people who are captivated by the vision of a Jesus-looking God raising up a Jesus-looking people to transform the world in a Jesus-kind of way. And as this new kingdom wine is bursting the old wineskins of Christendom, believers and skeptics alike are being forced to rethink everything they thought they knew about the Christian faith and life.

You have a fascinating website and I notice you post a steady stream of challenging articles. Tell me about ReKnew.

At the center of ReKnew is the very-old-yet-new idea that the love Jesus demonstrated on the cross is the full revelation of the true, non-violent, self-sacrificial character of God and of the character that God’s people are called to cultivate. This stands in stark contrast to what most people believe about God and how most people understand what it means to be “Christian.” Sadly, throughout most of church history Christians have frequently allowed the simple and beautiful revelation of the cross to be hijacked by religion, politics, and the philosophical assumptions of the day. This is how the beauty of the God revealed on the cross and the beauty of the movement Jesus came to birth were transformed into something that was often very ugly and violent. This is the sad legacy of Christendom.

Fortunately, we are today witnessing a vast multitude of people around the globe becoming captivated by the beauty of the old-yet-new revelation of the cross. ReKnew aims to serve this rising revolution by encouraging people to critical scrutinize long-held theological assumptions, by offering fresh and relevant theological proposals for consideration, and by motivating people to seriously rethink what it means to follow Jesus. Our heart is to educate, inspire, expand, and help network this growing movement of Jesus followers so that increasing numbers may come to experience, and be transformed by, the beauty of the humble, self-sacrificial God revealed in the crucified Christ.

You have agreed to be the keynote speaker at the Spectrum Conference in Silver Spring MD this September on Non-Violent Atonement.  Would you summarize your thoughts about atonement and salvation?

The majority of Evangelicals today believe that the main significance of what Christ accomplished on the cross (the atonement) is that he satisfied the Father’s wrath against sin by being punished in our place, thereby allowing the Father to accept us despite our sin. While the church has always understood that Jesus died in our place, the depiction of the Father venting his wrath on Jesus instead of on us  — the “penal substitution” view of the atonement — originated with Luther and Calvin (though it was in some respect anticipated by Anselm in the eleventh century). And while the church has always allowed for a variety of atonement theories, it’s worth noting that for the first 1000 years of church history the dominant view was that “[t]he reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn3:8; Heb.2:14). This is called the “Christus Victor” view of the atonement.

With the historic-orthodox church, I believe that Jesus died as our substitute and experienced the death-consequences of sin in our place. But I do not believe this means the Father needed to “satisfy” his own wrath by violently pouring it out on his Son in order to forgive us and reconcile us to himself. And while I affirm that Christ accomplished a variety of things by his life and death and resurrection, I think that Christ’s victory over Satan and the powers of darkness lies at the base of them all. I thus consider the “Christus Victor” view of the atonement to be the foundation of all other views.

With the rise of the penal substitution view of the atonement, the western church began to think of salvation increasingly in legal categories. God has thus come to be viewed as the judge, humans as the guilty defendants, and Jesus as our defense attorney who allows us to be acquitted by suffering our sentence in our place. As a result, salvation has come to be thought of primarily as an acquittal (escaping hell) that people receive when they simply believe that Jesus did this for them. Among the many unfortunate consequences of this view is the fact that Christianity has become much more focused on how we benefit in the afterlife from what God has done for us in Christ than it is focused on the beautiful things God wants to do in our present life—the relationship God wants with us, the character that God wants to cultivate in us, and the things God wants to accomplish through us now.

While legal metaphors are sometimes used to express salvation in the New Testament, the dominant way of expressing salvation is as a marriage covenant. Salvation is not primarily about being acquitted by God. Nor is it primarily about the afterlife. Rather, salvation is primarily about becoming part of “the bride of Christ” and participating in—and being transformed by—the fullness of God’s life that he opens up for us in the present. For this reason, salvation is not merely about believing in Jesus; it’s even more profoundly about being empowered to follow Jesus’ example.

Salvation thus cannot be divorced from the call to follow Jesus’ example of loving enemies, refraining from violence, and caring for the poor and oppressed. Moreover, salvation is about manifesting God’s fullness of life by cultivating a counter-cultural lifestyle that revolts against every aspect of society that is inconsistent with the character of God and of his will for the world. And finally, salvation is about living and praying in a way that actualizes the fullness of the Lord’s prayer that the Father’s will would be done “on earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:10).

Do you consider yourself an “Evangelical Christian”?

I hold to a high view of biblical inspiration and most of my theological views are in line with what would be broadly considered “evangelical.” So in this sense, I consider myself an “evangelical.” But the word “evangelical,” as well as the word “Christian,” has become associated with many things that are radically inconsistent with the example of Jesus’ life, which we are to emulate. So I’m very hesitant to identify myself with either term until I know what my audience means by them.

Many of our readers will recognize some commonality of beliefs between you and Seventh-day Adventist theologian, Rick Rice,  of Loma Linda University.  Could you explain Open Theism?

I believe God knows everything, including the past, present and future. But I also believe God created us as free agents, which means we are empowered to resolve possible courses of action into an actual course of action. And this, I contend, entails that the future is contains possibilities, in contrast to the past which is irrevocably settled. So I hold that, precisely because God’s knowledge is perfect, God knows the future exactly as it is – that is, as containing possibilities. Some things about the future are “maybes,” and God knows them as such.

REGISTER HERE for the 2016 Adventist Forum Conference in Silver Spring featuring Dr. Boyd and six other engaging speakers!

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.

Gordon.jpg

Gordon Bietz, retiring president of Southern Adventist University, looks back on disappointments and triumphs from his two decades on campus in this exclusive interview. He also looks ahead to potential challenges to Southern's identity in a changing cultural landscape.

Question: You are leaving your post as president of Southern Adventist University after nearly 20 years at the helm. How have you changed since you arrived? How has Southern changed?

Answer: I was a bit like a deer in the headlights when I became president and I had a steep learning curve, rather like drinking from a fire hose.  Fortunately, when I began I had a strong group of vice presidents who I depended on and they helped educate me.  I have commented to others that it is too bad that I leave now being 19 years smarter about higher education than I was when I began.  

I became president just after Southern College of Seventh-day Adventists became Southern Adventist University.  We had only a couple of nascent graduate programs and did not really have the ambiance of a university.  We recently had 375 students present their research on the Campus Research Day.  We have had 14 years in a top tier ranking on the US News & World Report “Best Colleges” list.  We now have 700 graduate students studying 13 different degree areas and a doctor of nursing degree.  In terms of facilities we have had $80 million of construction on creating new buildings and renovating old ones. 

What has been the toughest part of your job? 

• Seeing the future and knowing how to build a strategic plan to deal with the changing landscape of higher education.
• The greatest disappointments come when in my desire to create a great place to work I am not able to make it work for every faculty member and staff and we have to part ways.  Dealing with terminations is hard for me.
• Hearing stories of worthy students who need the Southern education and can’t afford it.
• Of course the single most difficult thing I did was calling the family of a girl who died in a dorm fire.

What did you like the most?

I enjoyed interaction with people the most.  I loved the people I worked with and the students.  I enjoyed representing Southern to the local Chattanooga community and to the SDA church at large.  

Is there a moment you look back on as the best of your tenure? Is there anything you are particularly proud of?

Clearly the physical plant of the campus has been transformed as we have spent a great deal of capital money to have a well-maintained university campus.  

We are in the middle of a capital campaign and have raised twice as much money as we ever have in the history of the school.

I suppose I am particularly proud of the connection that I established with the students and am incredibly honored that the newest (soon to be constructed) building on campus will be named the Bietz Center for Student Life.

You served as senior pastor of the Collegedale SDA Church for 13 years, and then president of the Georgia-Cumberland Conference for three years, before taking on the presidency of Southern. That's a long time for an Adventist administrator to stay in one place. To what do you owe your longevity, do you think?

My family was interested in stability as compared to “climbing the ladder.”  In retrospect I see the significant importance of continuity and stability and the impact that can have on a community.  I love the community and the Chattanooga area is really a great place to live.

You are known for your sense of humor.  Can you tell us about a time when humor diffused or resolved a tense situation or disagreement?I can’t think of a specific situation but do know that life is too short to not enjoy it and I love a good laugh.  Particularly I see committees as places where people can enjoy themselves and get a good laugh as they do work.  I try to use humor that is self-deprecating but when I know a person very well and they know me I don’t mind teasing them in a committee.

You oversaw an academic community, where faculty and student perspectives may align imperfectly with that of church administrators or parents.  How hard is it to manage conflict like this?  What helps you the most in dealing with it? Are there conflicts that cannot be resolved?

People respond when they are listened to and when they feel you understand their problem even though you can’t fix it or have a different opinion than they do.  I always tried to get people together to talk things out face to face when there were disagreements.  It is never good to disagree via email.  Certainly there are disagreements that don’t have resolution but people can live together while they disagree.  

Your view on the ordination of women may not have been the same as many of your constituents. Is it difficult to lead a highly conservative institution while trying to encourage progress in the church?

The issue was very clear to me and that helped.  Those who disagreed understood that I could disagree without being disagreeable.  A university community should be a place where ideas are discussed and challenged.  I never had a constituent confront me in an inappropriate way.  I had a volunteer in my office who disagreed with me and we had many conversations about it – some in a humorous way as we teased each other. 

Secular, or even Christian, thinkers sometimes say that the phrase “Christian university” is an oxymoron — how can you be beholden to a religious institution and yet open to real learning? How does an Adventist university withstand this criticism? As we have seen at some of your sister institutions, academic freedom issues can be divisive. 

Maybe “secular university” is an oxymoron.  I could not say it better than Arthur F. Holmes in his book The Idea of a Christian 

“The medieval university was governed by a unifying religious perspective but education today is rootless, or at best governed by pragmatism and the heterogeneity of viewpoints that makes ours both a secular and a pluralistic society. The result is a multiversity not a university, an institution without a unifying worldview and so without unifying educational goals. The Christian college refuses to compartmentalize religion.   It retains a unifying Christian worldview and brings it to bear in understanding and participating in the various arts and sciences, as well as in nonacademic aspects of campus life.”

 

“A Christian college does not exist to combine good education with a protective atmosphere, for Christians believe that the source of evil is ultimately within the heart, not without. The Christian college does not exist only to offer biblical and theological studies, for these are available in other kinds of institutions, and could be offered through adjunct programs at state universities without the tremendous expense of offerings in the arts and sciences. The distinctive of the Christian college is not that it cultivates piety and religious commitment, for this could be done by church-sponsored residence houses on secular campuses. Rather the Christian college is distinctive in that the Christian faith can touch the entire range of life and learning to which a liberal education exposes students.”

In the secular university where academic freedom is claimed as the holy grail it seems to me that that the social restrictions of politically correct speech proscribe the thoughts of student and teacher alike about as tightly as many denominationally sponsored schools.  

Yet the university is a place where exploratory thought should be encouraged. Ellen White says, “It is the work of true education to develop this power, to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thought.”  If we are to educate young people to be thinkers rather than mere reflectors of the thoughts of others, students must be confronted with a world of ideas – ideas that may conflict with their own long-held beliefs.  During that process student ideas will change and that is a fearful thing – especially for parents, many of whom send them to private education for the express purpose of forming them in their own mold.  But the danger of a closed system of thought is that it replicates our own dysfunction in the same way that inbreeding produces the malformed.  

Higher education in general is undergoing a lot of upheaval, and Adventist higher education is in a particularly precarious position, according to many. Yet you have overseen almost continuous enrollment increases at Southern, doubling the number of students during your tenure. What is the secret? What do you consider essential to success?

The Southern Adventist University serves the church and it is vital that its identity be supportive of and reflective of the church and its mission.  It may not be necessary if the market we seek to serve to grow enrollment is the general population at large, but the significant support we receive from the Southern Union means that we are focused on SDA young people.  

Does Adventist higher education have a future?

Adventist higher education has a future if the church has a future — and I believe the church has a future.  

What are the biggest challenges Southern faces now, in your view?

Challenges include dealing with issues of gender identity, sustaining the identity of our church-supported and church-affiliated university, the need for a more racially diverse faculty and staff, the necessity of changing and updating some academic programs to ensure academic credibility, agreeing on an appropriate dress code, and the escalating cost of higher education. Of course much more could be said about every one of these challenges than the scope of this interview allows.

But here are some brief thoughts:

On the change in cultural attitudes to the LGBTQ community: It is important that Southern exemplifies a loving open community that is not judgmental of the sexual orientation of individuals but simply holds to the Biblical standard of condemnation of the behaviour. 

On sustaining our identity: We can avoid the dying of the light at Southern Adventist University by maintaining close ties with the church through financial support, having the majority members of the Board of Trustees be church members, and all full-time faculty and staff be chosen from the membership of the church.

I believe that new rules and regulations requiring endorsement of the denomination be applied to faculty through the accreditation process will be counterproductive.  

On diversity: We need to be working aggressively to hire more faculty and staff that reflect the ethnic mix of our student body.

On dress code issues: The faculty, staff, and students need to come to some consensus as to what is appropriate attire and then it needs to be enforced by all (students included) with consistency.

We will not maintain the culture of Southern Adventist University through a muscular Student or Faculty Handbook that raises the punishment for infractions or more narrowly defines the specifics of dress code violations.  It is only when there is general agreement about our goal and the approach to that goal that we will achieve the kind of community we seek. 

What do you plan to do next? I hear you will be working with the General Conference on college accreditation, is that right? What are the challenges in this area, and what do you hope to accomplish?

The North American Division has asked that I serve, on a part-time basis, as Associate Director for Education focusing on higher education.  The NAD college and university presidents have supported that arrangement and I would like to build more collaboration between the colleges and universities in the United States.

I also plan to do some writing as well as take speaking engagements, and most importantly spend a bit more time with my children and six grandchildren.

What do you look forward to in retirement?

It is bittersweet – I will miss being president of Southern but I will enjoy new challenges.  My wife and I enjoy traveling and spending time with family.

How do you hope to be remembered?

He was a servant leader who loved people.

What advice do you have for your successor,  David Smith?

Be a servant leader and love the people.

Editor's Note: We put many of the same questions to the retiring president of Andrews University, Niels-Erik Andreasen. Look for a Spectrum interview next week with Dr. Andreasen.

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.

Radical_Rest.jpg

“Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness, and his upper rooms by injustice; who makes his neighbors work for nothing, and does not give them their wages” — Jeremiah 22:13 (NRSV)

“Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.” — Karl Marx

There is perhaps no other doctrine as central to Adventist religious identity as the Sabbath. It is a doctrine that does not exist in a vacuum. The Sabbath doctrine is discursive; it permeates the rest of Adventist theology from the denomination’s perspectives on biblical inspiration to Adventism's distinctive eschatology. In reference to both the creation narrative found in Genesis 1-3 and the Ten Commandments first mentioned in Exodus 20, the Sabbath doctrine asserts that Saturday is the God-ordained day of rest and, Adventists contend, the ultimate seal of God that marks salvation (as opposed to Sunday).

However, despite this doctrinal position, the concept of rest from labor on the Sabbath has significant political implications and offers a radical vision that extends beyond, while certainly not abandoning, Adventist religious identity. In calling the believer to a weekly rest from labor, it disrupts the unjust economic and political systems that continually dominate and marginalize humans based on their class, race, gender, sexuality, and religion. If extended even further, a radical Sabbath rest targets these same oppressive systems and makes the liberation of creaturely life from them a priority. However, in order to fully appreciate the social and political implications a radical Sabbath rest might have, Adventist theology must turn to and consider Karl Marx’s analysis of capitalism and its effects on both the human individual and society as a whole. 

It might appear counterintuitive to bring theology into dialogue with the man who compared religion to an opiate. However, the invaluable contributions of liberation theologians in the last century have demonstrated that a Marxist approach can be adopted without succumbing to the late philosopher’s pessimistic perspective on religion. Writing centuries after the biblical account, Marx aimed his intellectual crosshairs at the economic and political ideologies that grew out of the industrial revolution in Europe—ideologies that proved increasingly harmful to humans by alienating them from both the products they manufactured for others' consumption and from each other. “External labor,” Marx writes, “labor in which man alienates himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification...it belongs to another; it is the loss of his [man’s] self" (Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844: Estranged Labour).  Marx’s philosophical project favored a proletariat revolution that would supplant the power wielded by the upper class and overturn the social and political alienation ignited and perpetuated by capitalist systems. By clearly identifying these systems and their effects on human life and society, Marx’s analysis beckons a deeper look into the political implications rest from labor might have on our hyper-capitalist culture.

Although Marx’s work has influenced and sparked countless revolutions throughout the globe—with the positive and negative effects, depending upon location—the dream of an egalitarian society entirely free of capitalist ideology has never been realized. Today, neoliberal capitalism is the new law of the land, and under the guise of globalization and development it exploits laborers throughout the world while ravaging the environment in order to maintain the comfort of a wealthy few. Still, the effects of capitalism are also felt within the boundaries of wealthier and supposedly privileged nations. In the United States, development projects divide citizens by race and class and it is these same marginalized communities that are the most likely to be affected by environmental racism—a jarring side effect of the waste emitted from factories and cities throughout the globe. If, as numerous theologians have argued, sin extends far beyond personal piety and is indicative of the powerful and unjust political systems that dominate creaturely life on Earth, Seventh-day Adventists, along with a large percentage of the population, remain complicit in this exploitation.

A radical Sabbath rest aims to move beyond the a-political mirage weaved by Adventist doctrine that inadvertently makes the church an accessory to the crimes of the capitalist machine. As Jesus’ ministry demonstrates, rest and inaction are not analogous to one another. In Mark 3, Jesus heals a man with a shriveled hand on the Sabbath, and in Luke 13 he extends healing words to a crippled woman on a day designated for rest. Jesus’ acknowledgment and attention to the marginal was a direct challenge to the unjust status quo of his time that unfairly equated disease and illness with divine punishment. Jesus’ rest was disruptive and radical. Therefore, to rest on the Sabbath is not a command of withdrawal from the world or ecclesial reclusion. The move towards a radical Sabbath rest subverts our hyper-capitalist culture by beckoning us to cease from labor and consumption and to turn our attention to the “least of these.” It’s a powerful proclamation to both break from our participation in sinful systems of domination and to transform them.

As Marx observes, “The emancipation of the oppressed class thus implies necessarily the creation of a new society. For the oppressed class to be able to emancipate itself it is necessary that the productive powers already acquired and the existing social relations should no longer be capable of existing side by side” (The Poverty of Philosophy, Chapt 2.5). What Marx deemed as revolution, Christianity may identify as discipleship—to hear the suffering speak their truth in order to challenge power and foster redemption from sinful systems of oppression. Therefore, a radical Sabbath rest rescues the believer from their complicity and brings them into a space where healing and transformation are the imperative. This radical rest implores us to ask deeper questions about what exactly we are resting from and the wider political effects of that rest. Marx’s prophetic voice rings vibrantly alongside that of Amos, Isaiah, and Micah by reminding us that our concerns should always bend toward justice for the oppressed and the marginalized. The Sabbath presents Adventists with an unique opportunity to do just that.

Joshua A. Méndez is an M.A. Candidate in Religion: Interdisciplinary and Comparative Studies at the Claremont School of Theology.

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.

Trump_Side.jpg

On Tuesday, in a typical, stream-of-consciousness, rant about his self-perceived greatness, Donald Trump told an assembly of over 900 evangelical leaders in New York that he supports them. “I think maybe that will be my greatest contribution to Christianity—and other religions—is to allow you, when you talk religious liberty, to go and speak openly, and if you like somebody or want somebody to represent you, you should have the right to do it."

“I’m so on your side, I’m a tremendous believer, and we’re gonna straighten it out,” Trump said.

Although the media did not cover the event directly, Bishop E.W. Jackson posted a few clips on social media. [Note: Seventh-day Adventist televangelist Doug Batchelor was in attendance, and posted pictures and a brief report on his Facebook page. -Editor]

According to the Washington Post, which published a detailed review of the proceedings, Trump said that he would do things like encouraging department store workers to say "Merry Christmas" and "fight restrictions" that prohibit public school coaches from leading sectarian prayer.

Despite Trump's questionable credentials as either a conservative or a Christian, evangelicals have been courting Trump for several years, and one minister has even claimed that Trump is prophetically designated as "God's anointed" in a YouTube video that has amassed over 880,000 views.

Although former presidential candidate and chief Trump cheerleader, Ben Carson, introduced Trump with a stirring endorsement, Trump, who previously questioned Carson's Seventh-day Adventist faith while simultaneously comparing Carson with a child molester, continues to attack the religious liberty of the Muslim community, and made political points by promoting the ridiculous idea that Ted Cruz' father, an evangelical pastor, was responsible for killing JFK.

Last week, even the NRA scrambled away from Trump's assertion that arming drunk partiers at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando would have been a good idea.

Seventh-day Adventist evangelist, Doug Batchelor, who has withheld an endorsement of either candidate, reported on his Facebook page that he was in attendance at the large meeting. In what is becoming an increasingly common trope, Batchelor says that the bombastic "public" Trump is not the "private" Trump. Batchelor wrote,"I must say [Trump is] a whole different person when he is sitting down in a conversational style.  At a rally he’s swaggering and bombastic, today he seemed more pensive and humble.  Now we will wait and see if they arrange a similar interview with Hillary."

What Trump does represent, to some American Christian leaders, is an opportunity to regain political power that the religious right movement lost in the last decade.  Jerry Falwell, Jr., the president of Liberty University and an early Trump supporter, said, “Mr. Trump is a bold and fearless leader who will take the fight to our enemies and to the radical Islamic terrorists, whether they attack in San Bernardino, Orlando or Paris.

“Or whether they simply steal American jobs through unfair trade practices. The day after Ronald Reagan became President, Iran released American hostages that had been held for 444 days. In my opinion, the day after Trump becomes president, every terrorist in the world will crawl under a rock in a similar fashion.”

The Washington Post, which the Trump campaign famously banned last week, notes that not all Christian leaders are happy with the tacit evangelical endorsement of Trump:

"Catholic conservative Robert George, former chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and a Princeton professor, declined to attend the meeting, saying that while he may think even lower of Hillary Clinton, he fears Trump will 'in the end, bring disgrace upon those individuals and organizations who publicly embrace him. For those of us who believe in limited government, the rule of law, flourishing institutions of civil society and traditional Judeo-Christian moral principles, and who believe that our leaders must be persons of integrity and good character, this election is presenting a horrible choice. May God help us.'"

The Trump campaign also announced a new 25-member "evangelical executive advisory board" to help Donald Trump understand issues that are of concern to "evangelicals and other people of faith in America." Members of the board, which represent a virtual who's who of religious right leaders, have not been asked to pledge their support to Trump as a condition of participation.

Michael Peabody, Esq. is editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV, an Adventist jurisprudence website celebrating freedom of conscience where this article first appeared. It is reprinted here by permission.

If you respond to this article, please:

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

Candles.jpg

My favorite Hemingway vignette:
While the bombardment was knocking the trench to pieces at Fossalta, he lay very flat and sweated and prayed, oh Jesus Christ get me out of here. Dear Jesus, please get me out. Christ, please please please, Christ. If you’ll only keep me from getting killed I’ll do anything you say. I believe in you and I’ll tell every one in the world that you are the only one that matters. Please please, dear Jesus.

Adventist_Podcast_edited-1.jpg

This episode of the Adventist Podcast explores the Adventist connections to the Prohibition movement and the contemporary jazz music of Eric Essix.  Richard Rice, Ph.D., discusses his recent Spectrum article Tempered Enthusiasm: Adventists and the Temperance Movement. Alabama Jazz Hall of Famer Eric Essix discusses what has driven him to record over 20 albums as well as the connections between art, spirituality, his Adventist heritage and social justice.

Music included:

Sabbath Time (feat. Move Trio)
Album: Move > Trio
Released: 2015

Foot Soldiers
Album: Evolution
Released: 2013

Audio: 

P8 Jazz and Temperance.mp3

34-final-convocation-20150827_0548_bt.jpg

Niels-Erik Andreasen took the president's chair at Andrews University in 1994, and in the subsequent decades worked to elevate the "life of the mind" and show how it can support and mature the "life of faith" — not endanger it. In this exclusive and wide-ranging interview, he talks about the pressures on the university's finances, the diversity of an institution that educates a global church, and why Adventist education should expand even if the church cannot afford it.

Question:  You are leaving your post as president of Andrews University after 22 years at the helm.  How have you changed since you arrived?  Has Andrews changed?

Answer:  Of course Andrews has changed during this period (as it surely did during any previous such period).  Physically and visually the campus has changed, with new facilities and notably a whole new entrance that has connected the university with the local community in important ways.  

There have also been program changes in every part of the university.  One school (College of Technology) has been closed, though most of its programs continue, and two new schools (Distance Education and Health Professions) have opened.  New graduate programs have been added and some undergraduate programs closed or reconfigured.  Many people at Andrews have contributed to making these changes happen. 

Of course I have changed too, personally and professionally, except in one way:  I remain absolutely convinced of the importance of higher education in the life of the church and of society generally.  If I could live my life over again I would return to the university!

What is hard about being the president of a college?  What should constituents know to ease the burden of our next president?

I suppose it is hard to be president of anything, especially during times of change.  Colleges in recent years have been the subject of scrutiny and broad-based criticism, with people saying things like: education is too costly, not practical enough, students do not graduate on time, some teachers do not work hard enough, administration is top-heavy, the perceived value of a college degree is declining.  There is some truth to much of it, but the critical importance of education has not diminished.  It would be nice if constituents and the general public would understand that and consider it when thinking and speaking about our colleges.  Sometimes I think the best way to understand the value of anything (education, health, happiness, freedom)  is to imagine life without it, or as a former president of Harvard, Derek Bok, is said to have observed: “If you think education is too costly, try ignorance!”

Is there a moment you look back on as the best of your tenure?  Is there anything you are particularly proud of? 

Pride is not a Christian virtue, so I can hardly be expected to describe my proud moments voluntarily. However, there certainly are moments of great satisfaction in the life of a college president, including the moments of graduating competent, committed Christian professionals four years after first meeting them as giddy eighteen-year-olds; the many moments of observing students hurrying across campus and realizing they are learning something new every day; the discovery and promulgation of new insights by faculty working with students on research projects; and the many moments of generous service by students and staff to help alleviate human suffering locally or in some other corner of the world.   These are bright moments in my tenure at Andrews.

What do you plan to do next?  What do you look forward to in retirement?

I decided to retire because I am getting older — not to do something I always had wanted to do, but never found time for.  Working in education is what I always wanted to do. 

But I felt it was important for me to participate thoughtfully in the conclusion of my life, as I had done in the beginning of it (realizing that the start of life and its end lie in God’s hands entirely).  So making a decision to step aside from the work I love at this point in life and leaving it to a younger person was a meaningful decision for me and probably also important for Andrews.  

I have been invited by the incoming president to continue some contractual work for Andrews in the area of planning and development.  Beyond that I hope to do what retired persons do: plant flowers, read books (and maybe write something), travel, be with family and contemplate the mysteries of life!

How do you hope to be remembered?  What do you consider your legacy to be? 

I would like to be remembered as the person who insisted by word and example that the “life of the mind” is compatible with and supportive of the “life of faith.”  That higher education, university work, teaching, research, and the lot of it is not putting our faith at risk, but supporting it, maturing it and making it possible. So I like to think that I worked for the kingdom of God by using the tools of education.

How has the financial stability of Andrews changed during your tenure?  What do you think needs to be done to increase financial stability?

The finances of Andrews have had a checkered history during my stay here.  I cannot say they were ever strong, even during good years.  There are many reasons for that.  One is the composition of our student population:  45% graduate to 55% undergraduate. Graduate students generally require more resources than undergraduate.  Another is the international student population (about 20% on campus and many more in extension locations) mostly in countries with developing economies.  

Therefore, the large number of programs Andrews offers, and its many educational services around the world, have always put pressure on the university’s finances.  It has been difficult to adjust to these pressures, due to the university’s unique educational mission in places that can least afford them. That is one unfinished talk I leave behind.

Do you have long-term goals or vision for the school that you have not yet seen realized?  I believe you hoped to have a new Health and Wellness Center opened — that you raised $18 million but are still short?  Is there a timeline for groundbreaking?

My long term goals for Andrews  have more to do with academic quality and services than with facilities, though the latter are also important.  My vision has been for Andrews to continue as the flagship — that is to say, the pace-setting institution of higher education in our world church, and at the same time become a known and respected Christian university in our own country.  We have made good progress, but that vision is still ongoing. 

As for the Health and Wellness Initiative/Center, yes I have felt that Andrews needed such an initiative for a host of reasons, among them the fact that holistic education (including health and wellness) is the foundation of our educational philosophy.  Health and wellness is a national and international concern, and Adventist education must contribute to its solution. 

We are located in the northern world — it snows here — and our church members are drifting south and concentrating in the southern hemisphere.  This center will attract students and keep them well in the cold and dark part of the year.  And it takes us back to our original mission in the world both internationally and locally.  

By the latest calculation the project should come in at around $17 million, and we are at just over $15 million now.  No I did not expect to break ground while in office, just to prepare for it.  This is a big project and it takes some time to complete.  I wanted to leave something big for my successor to do — but I will help!

You oversaw an academic community where faculty and students perspectives may align imperfectly with that or church administrators or parents.  How hard is it to manage conflicts like this?  What helps you the most in dealing with it?

I sincerely believe our church deeply values its colleges and that our colleges would be impoverished apart from their religious home. There is no war between the two, but of course there may be a few skirmishes now and again. That is my starting point — a sort of foundation upon which we must build.  So our church would be but a shadow of itself without education — a sect perhaps, a community lost in history.  

And our colleges have been challenged to foster the important relationship between faith and learning (like the relationship between faith and works on the way to salvation) and they have grown and matured as a result of this challenge.  We become better believers because of facing up to this challenge, and more thoughtful academics as well.

I have found that by embracing this issue in my own heart and mind I am able to understand the two sides of it better, including when tensions arise.  That helps me to explain the academic work to church leaders in a thoughtful way, and to communicate the concerns of church leaders to the academics with greater clarity.  As a college president, I am a translator of important values and understandings from one to the other — church and academy; campus and community. The key is taking these important issues into one’s own heart and mind where they belong.

Secular, or even Christian thinkers sometimes say that the phrase  “Christian University” is an oxymoron—how can you be  beholden to a religious institution and yet open to real learning?  How does an Adventist university withstand this criticism?

I have thought that this criticism is perhaps more appropriate in cases where the Christian university is thought of or behaves as a “church,” assigned primarily to promulgate the teachings and advance the ministerial work of the church in question.  In a similar way an NGO like ADRA is exposed to criticism if it helps needy people only on condition of their converting to the “ADRA church.”  That might be considered a case of “oxymoron.” But I know of no reason why Christianity and Education could not be spoken of in the same breath.  As it is the Christian church has nearly 2000 years of commitment to education, due to the inherent value of education for the life of faith.  Most of the very early and even many newer western universities were established by the Christian church with a commitment to learning, dissemination of  truth and the betterment of life.   Remove that distinguished history of “Christian education” from our human experience, and we would be back in the Stone Age.

Do you find that there is a constant struggle at Andrews, the flagship institution of the Adventist church, between conservative and progressive elements?

There are certainly different points of view on many issues and there ought to be — it is a university after all.  And there will be some pressure points, not only between so-called progressives and conservatives, but also between succeeding generations, and between different national and cultural backgrounds.  In a way the university — especially this one — is a microcosm of the world population, and the church population, too.  There have been moments when I would wish for everyone to see things the way I do, but that would actually not be best, and might be detrimental to the work of the university and the church.  We grow as our different perspectives hone our thinking both as individuals and corporately.

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

The Adventist church has become international, and so has Andrews.  Our student population no longer has any one majority, but a near even mix of several ethnic groups with a strong international overlay.  Further, our church population lives increasingly in the southern hemisphere.  So Andrews is located on the wrong side of the world, it seems: the top part where our membership is steadily declining (at least proportionally). 

However, the north still holds the largest accumulation of resources, in money, human talent, food, healthcare, and many other things.  That surplus of things and know-how obligates us — we must not keep it all, but share what we have. Sharing unifies, while hoarding estranges.

Second, the world is interconnected to such a degree that no part of it can ignore the other.  Andrews will continue to educate leaders with the skill sets and values we can provide, while acknowledging and respecting the backgrounds and traditions our students bring to their study from around the world. As a result our church should become a true global community.  And I like to think of an Andrews graduate as someone who does not know a stranger.

The seminary spoke out in favor of letting church divisions choose themselves about ordaining women before the General Conference session last summer.  Did that cause a political problem?

The seminary faculty members were not all in agreement on this matter, but most supported the ordination of women to the ministry.  

Political problems occur when university people begin acting like politicians!  And we had a little of that.  But as long as we keep our academic/educator hats on, study for greater understanding (faith seeking understanding), and allow the evidence to guide us in our conclusions,  we remain true to our calling, and most faculty members did that.   I think these non-doctrinal issues will find their solutions at the congregational or membership level, not in committees.  As the gifts of ministry are manifest in women as well as men, these gifts will guide the final directions we take, and in due course the committees will catch up with the leading of the Spirit.

You have had some difficult moments with the board over the past several years.  How have those been resolved?

That may be a question for the board.  But yes, I have a few dents in my service record working for Adventist education.  However, it is true that the president always serves at the pleasure of the board.  It would therefore be wrong of me to attempt to circumvent the wishes of the board, no matter how wrong-headed I might find them.  

I have also found that individuals who work in one organization for many years, even a church organization, will have moments or experiences of disappointment.   I expected that, and found it to be true.  So I feel for individuals or leaders who have not had any preparation for that, or never learned to deal with it. I have found that my relationship with and commitment to the church has become more real because of this,  and especially my relationship to Christ becomes stronger with this realization in mind. 

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

 I think the future of Adventist education is directly tied to the future of the Adventist church.  At present the church is growing fastest in the developing world, and it is growing much faster than its educational programs.  In 1960 when Andrews became a university, the enrollment in Adventist schools worldwide was approximately one student for every four church members.  In recent decades that ratio has dropped to one student for every ten church members, and many of these students are in some institutions not of our faith. So the impact of education on our church is shrinking worldwide.  Of course some of these young Adventist adults attend other colleges where they live.  Nevertheless, as this ratio drops the impact of Adventist education on the Adventist church declines.  That will change the church.  I would expect that as the proportion of young Adventist adults attending Adventist schools keeps declining, the back door of church membership widens.  Therefore Adventist education should expand, even though the church may not be able to afford schools.  

It can be difficult for a small university to survive, let alone flourish.  With this difficulty in mind, name one or two of the most important strategies the next generation of Adventist College presidents need to keep in mind.

That is the most difficult question to answer, and I am not sure my answer has much merit! But I think we need fewer larger institutions that have enough critical mass of students and teachers to offer the many programs young adults seek. Many of our schools are too small to offer such a large variety of disciplines with distinction.  I think we need to change the way we structure our tuition and fees charges, especially for higher education.   Too many courses of study and credits are now available to all students at much lower price than they cost the university. 

I think that every part of our college program must offer clearly defined added values: religious, moral, ethical, spiritual, academic, and professional.   Students will not keep coming to our schools because we put Christian on our sign, or Adventist on our label, or academic on our transcripts — college must be a life-changing experience.  So I think “different is better than alike” when it comes to Adventist schools.  That difference cannot be borrowed from the past; it belongs to the future, and that is our challenge.

What advice do you have for Andrea Luxton, your successor?

I do not offer unsolicited advice, but whenever asked I will share whatever I know, and sometimes a bit more than that.  So I will advise her to be cautious about taking too much advice from her predecessor!

Watch an eight-minute farewell film for Niels-Erik Andreasen, and find further information about his presidency, on the Andrews University website. 

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.

Reformation_Remnant.jpg

In this book lawyer and church historian Nicholas P. Miller, of the Seminary at Andrews University, addresses Adventism’s “identity crisis” by way of two rhetorical strategies.  One is to claim Reformation backing for the understanding of Adventist identity that he favors.  Another is to call his account “centrist” and to lump persons he differs with (none are named) into either the “liberal” or “fundamentalist” camp.

The result is both conventional and subversive.  Miller would strike some readers as quite nearly fundamentalist himself, yet he is clearly hoping to pry the church away from sheer rigidity and thoughtlessness so that it can embark upon a more creative course, one that is not only more flexible but also more biblically responsive.

Miller wrote a dissertation on the contribution of dissenting Protestants to the development of religious liberty.  It was published in 2012 under the title The Religious Roots of the First Amendment, and became a best-selling academic title from the Oxford University Press.  The Reformation and the Remnant aims for a narrower, Adventist readership, but Miller again shows himself to be at once clear and provocative.

In his Introduction, Miller says, more or less in passing, that the Reformers matter because we learn by listening to people not ourselves.  He quickly moves on to marking out the “third option” or “middle way” he links with the Adventist pioneers, including Ellen White, and contends for himself.  Here the theory of “verbal inerrancy” finds no support; here a “closed, self-righteous spirit” meets with criticism; here the church takes up an “activist stance” on social issues such as slavery and alcohol.

But after the 1919 Bible Conference the church, now lacking Ellen White and now fearful of “modernism” in religion, veered toward fundamentalism.  It became more comfortable with “verbal inspiration” and less open to change, and began withdrawing into “Southern fundamentalist social and political conservatism.”  Miller says most Adventists find this outlook—what he calls “the fundamentalist ditch”—tempting.  But since the 1970s, with the revelation that Ellen White’s writings were not, in fact, the “product of verbal inspiration,” another outlook has emerged, what he calls Adventist “liberalism.” Today it regards Scripture as “ultimately” a “human product,” with the result, Miller contends, that liberals are now “ready” to deny “literal” understandings of Creation, question penal substitutionary atonement theory, welcome same-sex marriage and “jettison our view of the last days.”  This dubious strain, both small and dangerous, has in this book no named representatives, but Miller, painting with a broad brush, says that it “tends to be restricted to academic institutions and large, urban churches.”

Chapter One invokes both Luther and Wesley in describing the place of scripture in Christian life.  Jesus Christ, as Miller allows, is “the ultimate Word of God,” but what Jesus stood for is “consistent with” scripture, so the Bible itself may be thought of as the church’s “sole infallible authority.”  Miller does introduce nuance, however, with his affirmation of the “Wesleylan quadrilateral.”  Besides Scripture, reason, experience and tradition come into play, and all four of these matter.  Scripture “only” would make no sense.  Reason, experience and tradition are part of human culture.  They inevitably shape our thinking, and may each generate, as Ellen White herself would agree, both insight and value.  But if it’s important to grant all this, it’s equally important, Miller insists, to think of Scripture as the church’s “normative norm.”

Ten more chapters follow. One on the Great Controversy appeals to the lesser-known Dutch reformers Arminius and Hugo Grotius in defending free will and backing up the case for God as a “moral” governor whose “fairness” all “created beings” will come to agree upon.  Another chapter defends the “literal” heavenly sanctuary as the administrative hub of God’s moral government of love and argues for the “legal” necessity of penal substitutionary atonement. Still another espouses “literal, six-day Creation,” invoking Ellen White against “‘delusive, scientific theories’” that would, Miller says, count against God’s “character of love.”  But this chapter does echo the book’s two-“ditches” theme: if the liberal “quicksand” of elevating science over scripture is dangerous, so is the fundamentalist preoccupation with creedal formulas.  This latter can distract people away from the “meanings” of creation, or even, as happened in both South Africa and the American South, underwrite “static” views of creation that buttress the “established” social order.

Chapters five and six argue that the direction of American policy on sexual orientation and the nature of the family constitutes a threat to the country’s “system of moral pluralism.”  Miller repeatedly comes across as favoring social activism, but he affirms traditional sexual values and says the political Left wants to suppress “elements of the church’s morality and practice that conflict with secularist values.” Still, he opposes discrimination against gays and lesbians and is open to “civil unions for tax and insurance purposes.” Having said that, however, Miller maintains that today’s questioning of marriage as between a man and a woman amounts to an “end-time attack” on the “heart of God’s law.”

Then come two chapters that may surprise.  One argues for the ordination of women.  Miller’s point is not to hurry the practice into worldwide church policy but to grant that, excepting actual “deviations” from divine law, the Holy Spirit does allow adaptation to circumstances for the sake of mission.  There are even “good reasons to avoid rigidity and coercion” in the enforcement of the conservative policy enacted at the 2015 San Antonio General Conference session.  After this, Miller’s next chapter offers an argument for what he calls “positive ecumenism,” citing abolition and temperance as examples of pioneer cooperation with other Christians.

Chapter nine is a deeply conventional apology for Adventism’s end-time Sunday-law scenario.  Here Miller appeals to the seventeenth-century Seventh-day Baptist Thomas Tillam, who located the Sabbath at the heart of what he called “‘the last great controversy.’”  But in what may confound expectation, Miller in chapter ten severely rebukes those right-wing Adventists who advance conspiracy theories involving Jesuits and Masons and the like. And finally, in chapter eleven, he lashes out against the vision of “sinless perfection” associated with “last-generation theology.”  Holiness matters, Miller declares; legalism and indifference to social concern make a mockery of holiness.

As is clear by now, in addressing Adventism this book addresses a community stamped by turbulent diversity.  Saluting that fact in his concluding remarks, Miller harks back to his ordination chapter and says that religious liberty is about “relationships within the church” as well as outside of it.  There “must be space in the church for disagreement on certain matters.”  The last phrase, “on certain matters,” implies limits, however, on allowable domains of disagreement.

The two rhetorical strategies I mentioned to begin—the Reformation is with me; my position is, within Adventist life, the centrist one—suggest what Miller may be ruling out.  Both occupy the reader in such a way as to keep modernity at bay.   If the only post-Reformation thinkers you consider sympathetically are Adventists who overlook or dismiss modern intellectual developments, you have shied away from a major source of “crisis” for Adventist identity.  Today a new “circumstance”—Miller uses this word in his argument on women’s ordination—is scientific consensus that people do not “choose” their sexual orientation.  Another is that human life is vastly older than we used to think.  Still another is that secular criticism of all religion seems to be gaining traction.

You can try to sidestep genuine engagement with such developments.  You can even try to institutionalize (as in, for example, our schools) refusal to talk about them.  But no self-constructed cocoon will perfectly enclose our children, nor even our friends who are adults.  Despite what we may do or hope for, they come under the modern culture’s influence.  Some may even elect to become scientists, and feel the shock that goes along with that.  One way or another, whether in their universities, workplaces or social interactions, all will seek out, or stumble into, wider-ranging conversation than the cocoon provides.  It is self-deception to think otherwise.

Miller’s “centrist” vision, at last as articulated in his book, protects this self-deception.  It does, I think, subvert far-right madness in Adventism, not least because the author makes lengthy critiques of it. But in his determination to show no sympathy for those Adventists he calls “liberal,” he offers verbal swipes without really considering the nuance, the biblicism and the deeply-felt conviction that comes through in at least some of what they say or write.  Nor does he engage—I mean grapple with—the intellectual context that calls forth these efforts.

Meanwhile, the cocoon will go on failing to keep modernity at bay.

SEE ALSO: Phillip Brantley's Review of The Reformation and the Remnant.

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

If you respond to this article, please:

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

Review.jpg

Scholars in the Seventh‐day Adventist Church, as leaders in their faith community, face the challenge of writing for those who will never gain entry into the classroom. We are not free to cloister ourselves inside the walls of a university on Mount Olympus and write only for ourselves. To make plain highly‐cerebral ideas requires hermeneutical awareness and sensitivity. Ironically, the commonalities we share with ordinary folk, many of which might make our faces flush red, facilitate our mediation of knowledge. As we consider that the liminal and marginal Hermes could function as a messenger of the gods by virtue of his birth by the mortal Maia, we recognize that we can similarly function by virtue of our ordinary folk beginnings.

Seventh‐day Adventist attorney, historian, and Seminary professor Nicholas P. Miller possesses a range of liminality and marginality requisite to his helpful opinion about “hot potatoes” in the Church today. His new book The Reformation and the Remnant (Pacific Press) consists of a foreword by George Knight and sandwiched between an introduction and conclusion eleven chapters that respectively address the following topics: sola scriptura and its corollaries, the Great Controversy theme, the atonement, creation and theistic evolution and creeds, morality in the public square, same sex marriage, (dis)order in the church with specific reference to the ordination of women, ecumenism, Sunday laws, conspiratorial thinking, and Last Generation theology.

The risk assumed by Miller, given that knowledge is historically conditioned, is that his book might be regarded in later years as little more than a reflection of an anachronistic mindset. Many of us do not read Jow Crews' famous “hot potatoes” book, Creeping Compromise because we think highly of his assertions of propositional truth; we read the book because of our curiosity about the fundamentalist mindset that predominated during his time. We can compare all of the books in the “hot potatoes” genre and study the ways in which Church thinking has evolved.

Miller attempts to alleviate this risk he has assumed in three important ways. First, he incorporates into his discussion relevant lessons we can learn from the Reformers, and in so doing, attempts to ensure that his contribution to a dialogue that has been ongoing for hundreds of years will stand the test of time. His expertise in the Protestant Reformation has been previously recognized in his exemplary The Religious Roots of the First Amendment (Oxford University Press). Given that many Seventh‐day Adventists in their situatedness remain uncertain about how to relate to non‐Adventist antecedent thought, the approach that Miller models should curb that uncertainty. For example, readers may find worthy of further study the Puritan that Miller identifies who, hundreds of years before Ellen White, foresaw an eschatological crisis regarding the Sabbath.

Second, Miller mercifully avoids addressing “hot potatoes” that have agitated Seventh‐day Adventists in the past and that are highly amenable to historical conditioning, such as behaviors pertaining to diet, entertainment, music, jewelry, attire, and the like. Readers will discern that he focuses less on specific behaviors and more on ideals that should be foundational to what we do. Notwithstanding the wisdom inherent in this focus, Miller does feel the itch to reiterate his well‐known views about same‐sex marriage and adoption of children by same‐sex couples.

California_Capitol.jpg

A bill that would extend the non-discrimination requirements of a state-funded university and college scholarship program to participating religious colleges and universities is quickly making its way through the California state legislature. Opponents argue that as currently drafted, California's SB 1146 (California Legislative Tracker) would make it impossible for these religious institutions to continue to uphold and enforce their faith-based sexual conduct rules. This article is an analysis of the current bill, a look forward as to what could happen if it passes, and a brief survey of potential outcomes of prospective litigation. The article is not intended to address the correctness of the religious belief, but rather to address it in the larger context of the right of religious institutions to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

On June 30, 2016, SB 1146, which passed the State Senate in May, will be heard before the Assembly Judiciary Committee. According to bill opponents, schools that receive money via the Cal-Grant scholarship program would no longer be able to limit married student housing to married-female couples, bar transgendered individuals from the dorms of their choice or otherwise act in a discriminatory manner against LGBT students.

An earlier draft of the bill included prohibitions religion-based discrimination, but that language has since been omitted. Originally, SB 1146 would have prevented Christian colleges from things such as favoring students who are members of their faith or requiring chapel attendance.

Cal Grant scholarships provide up to $9,084 for tuition and $1,656 in tuition and fee assistance each year to students that meet financial and academic requirements who attend qualifying private colleges and universities.

Several Christian universities and colleges are opposing the bill including BIOLA University, Fresno Pacific University, William Jessup University, Concordia University Irvine, and Life Pacific College, and others. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU) has requested that the first Section of SB 1146, which applies non-discrimination provisions to religious colleges and universities, be eliminated.

How SB 1146 Changes the Law
First, SB 1146 would apply all non-discrimination provisions to religious colleges and universities that benefit from public funds except discrimination based on "religion." This means that religious schools cannot discriminate on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code. SB 1146 significantly changes Section 66271 of the Education Code by removing the current exclusion of educational institutions "controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization."

Secondly, SB 1146 would require colleges that have applied for exemptions to the Federal Title IX non-discrimination provisions on the basis of sex to publicly disclose this fact. Currently the Federal government requires institutions that wish to obtain federal funds to seek a waiver from Title IX non-discrimination requirements. The intent of this portion of SB 1146 is to give LGBT students and others fair warning before they attend that they may be subject to discrimination. In turn, this disclosure could provide prima facie evidence of discriminatory intent or allow litigants to target these institutions. Institutions that are not currently participating in the waiver program might be susceptible to both federal and state actions if they discriminate in other ways such as disallowing LGBT clubs on campus. (A listing of universities that have applied for and/or received Title IX exemption including their requests and the Federal response letter for each is available from the U.S. Department of Education and only 4 are in the state of California. It is noted that the three Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities in California are not listed as having sought Title IX exemptions.)

Thirdly, SB 1146 would also add section 66292.8 to the Education Code which states that SB 1146 "shall not be construed to prohibit students from seeking civil remedies under the provisions of this chapter for discrimination." Getting past the double-negative in the text, "shall not be construed to prohibit," this means that students can sue for money or an injunction if they think they are being discriminated against by a religious college or university. If they happen to sue an institution that is disclosing its Title IX exemption, the fact that institutions have exercised a Federal right to an exemption could be used as evidence against them in state court.

In Summary
First, SB 1146 will require religious colleges and universities to adopt policies of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in order for students to receive state-funded scholarships under the Cal Grant program. Secondly, SB 1146 will require these institutions to give notice if they have requested an exemption to Title IX.  Thirdly, SB 1146 will permit lawsuits against institutions that are perceived to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation regardless of whether they accept the Cal-Grant scholarships. The bill will not apply to programs designed for students who want to become members of the clergy or other specifically religious careers.

What’s Next?
For the past few years, we have been tracking attempts by various interests to secularize California's religious colleges and universities. In the past, accepting new bond programs seemed to be the most direct avenue of government control, but SB 1146 expands this scenario by implicating institutions that participate in existing grant programs and tacitly encouraging litigation against institutions that discriminate as a tenet of their faith.

Assuming that SB 1146 passes and is signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, California's religious colleges and universities will be put to the test. They will have to decide whether to refuse to comply and litigate the issue, forgo benefits from significant state funding, acquiesce and modify their non-discrimination policies, close down, or move out-of-state.

This legislation will likely soon lead to litigation in two ways. First, students may file lawsuits under a newly enacted Section 66292.8 of the Education Code claiming discrimination. Second, institutions may pre-emptively file lawsuits claiming that their exclusion from the state grant program constitutes violation of the Free Exercise Clause, to which their opponents might respond that provision of such funding violates the Establishment Clause.

Institutions that argue that they have a continued right to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs would still have arguments that they could apply in defense of their practices.

The argument over the competing clauses of the First Amendment could hinge on the issue of whether a non-discrimination provision would trump the equal protection argument that the government cannot use an issue of faith to discriminate in the provision of benefits to students who attend private religious schools, or against religious students on public campuses.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that religious access to public funding does not violate the Establishment Clause. For instance, iIn Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) students attending religious schools were found eligible for federal remedial assistance, and in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995), a Christian student organization was found eligible for activity funds at a public university.

However, the Ninth Circuit, which includes California has been less hospitable toward claims of religious schools to public funding. In the case of KDM v. Reedsport School District, 210 F.3d 1098 (2000) relied on Employment Division v. Smith (2000) to determine that the free exercise rights of a blind student with cerebral palsy were not impermissibly burdened when the state declined to provide special education services to him at a religious school campus. The Court recognized that the regulation did in fact discriminate against religious school students by treating them differently, but that this discrimination did not actually burden the free exercise rights of the student or his parents.

Applying this case to the SB 1146, the Ninth Circuit might argue that the free exercise rights of a religious college in California are not impermissibly infringed upon when students of that college are denied funds because that college discriminates based on sexual orientation.

Another issue that would likely be litigated is whether the state can treat the rights of religious institutions to discriminate based on religion and sexual orientation differently. The logic is somewhat like an Escher staircase – can a state prohibit discrimination by sexual orientation while simultaneously permitting discrimination by religion, when a tenet of that religion requires discrimination by sexual orientation?

There is much confusion throughout the United States on how to manage the connections between state funding and religious institutions. This fall, the Supreme Court will hear a case on the issue of whether religious schools should be able to force a state government to abandon a state constitution prohibition on funding to religious institutions and to provide the religious schools with generally available benefits. See Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley this fall.

Of course, some will argue that access to a state grant program by an institution that discriminates based on sexual orientation and access to a state program for resurfacing preschool playgrounds are fundamentally different. However, the same issue exists regarding whether a state can be compelled to provide funding that will ultimately benefit parochial institutions that still reserve the right to discriminate against other groups.

If passed, SB 1146 will face litigation as religious institutions contend that the state is unconstitutionally imposing a condition on religious institutions with the intent of pressuring them to compromise their free exercise of religion. The state could make a determination to only fund public schools with the grant programs, but when they open the program up to religious and secular private schools, the state cannot use this leverage to punish now grant-dependent religious schools that refuse to abandon their free exercise of religion.

_______________________

NOTE:  To clear up some confusion, SB 1146 is similar in intent to AB 1888 (Low) but is not the same bill. AB 1888 would require institutions that receive Cal Grants to certify that they would not discriminate against potential students, students, or faculty by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, and not apply for a waiver from the Federal Title IX non-discrimination requirements for receipt of federal funds. AB 1888 might include a “grandfathering” provision that will not cut off existing Cal Grant funding. This bill is currently held under submission in an Assembly committee and will likely remain dormant if SB 1146 passes.

Michael Peabody, Esq. is editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV, an Adventist jurisprudence website celebrating freedom of conscience where this article first appeared. It is reprinted here by permission.

If you respond to this article, please:

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

Anna Knight nursing grad 1.jpg

In The Free State of Jones: Mississippi’s Longest Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), historian Victoria Bynum contends that Anna Knight’s conversion to Adventism made her a more effective liberating influence in her Mississippi community than her father, Newton Knight, the white farmer whose rebellion against the Confederacy is dramatized in the recently-released film “The Free State of Jones.” Even more than his actions during the Civil War, Newton Knight’s support for equal rights after war, and his open relationships with black women made him a controversial, even despised figure among white Mississippians.

In addition to nine children with his white wife, Serena, Newton fathered five children with the former slave Rachel, contributing to development of a large mixed-race community in Jones County. In 1876 he deeded 160 acres of land to Rachel, making her one of the few black landholders in the state. He insisted on being buried next to her in defiance of segregation law. After Rachel’s death, Newton “took up” with her daughter, Georgeanne. 

An offer of free reading material in a church-sponsored magazine started Georgeanne’s precocious daughter, Anna, on a path that led to Adventism, nurses’ training at the American Medical Missionary College in Battle Creek, Michigan, and then back to her impoverished Mississippi community where she started a school.

Bynum analyzes the significance of this trajectory in the remarkable context the Newton Knight saga: “Even had whites wanted to…those sympathetic to Newt could do little to change the prevailing norms of society that marked him as deviant. Much more important to the mixed-race community’s ability to thrive was Anna Knight, whose conversion to Seventh-Day Adventism first transformed her own life.” Adventism, says Bynum, gave Anna “the tools with which to educate and reform the habits of her kinfolk.”*

Bynum points out that Anna faced the likelihood of a life of frequent child-bearing outside of legal marriage like that of her mother and grandmother, whom whites regarded as prostitutes or concubines. Though Newt and Rachel’s relationship has been characterized as in reality a common-law marriage, a descendant recalled that Rachel’s death at the age of 49 was attributed to having had “too many babies.”

By leaving home to pursue an Adventist education, Anna “escaped rural Mississippi and gained protection against sexual exploitation and poverty within the nurturing environment of Seventh-day Adventism.” And when she returned to Jones County in 1898 “white men there were confronted by a dignified, educated missionary rather than a pretty and vulnerable woman whose ‘black blood’ made her sexual fair game.”

The racial ideals she found in Adventism were part of what drew her to the movement, though she soon experienced the accommodations the church made as segregation tightened its grip:

Adventists challenged both gender and racial barriers in their evangelical missions, particularly in the postbellum South but, like other institutions, were eventually forced to segregate their facilities. Anna remembered that when she joined, however ‘white and colored worshiped together.’ As the church’s black membership grew, so, too, did fierce opposition to race-mixing, often from within the church itself.

After leaving Mississippi to obtain an Adventist education, Anna had first enrolled in Graysville Academy near Chattanooga, Tennessee.  But when several parents of students protested Anna’s admission, L. Dyo Chambers and his wife, who were sponsoring her education, withdrew her from the school and arranged for private tutoring.

Alongside the undeniable reality of Adventism’s accommodation to segregation and the deeply-ingrained pattern of racial inequity that eventuated in the church, Bynum offers this portrayal of the transformative impact made by Anna Knight’s Adventism:

Under the auspices of the Seventh-Day Adventists, Anna not only taught the “three Rs” and Adventist theology in her Sunday school, but she also convinced her relatives to accept Adventist reforms in their diet, dress, and social behavior. Although she lived outside the Knight community most of her adult life, she influenced the community’s development more profoundly than did Newt Knight himself….

Because of the demands of Anna’s work as a teacher and a missionary, she educated her Sister Grace, who eventually replaced her as teacher of the school [in Gitano, founded in 1908 after Anna returned from pioneering mission service in India]. For most of her life Anna lived and worked at Oakwood College, which the Adventist Church founded for African Americans in 1896 in Huntsville, Alabama. Many mixed-race Knights received their grade school education from Grace and left the area to attend high school at Oakwood College. These two schools became their most important resources for battling against total debasement under increasingly strict racial segregation.

*All references are from the Kindle edition of Bynum’s book, Chapter 8, Locations 2118 through 2149. A “movie edition” of the book was published in January 2016. Information also derived from “Oakwoodites Connected to Hollywood Film,” Inside Oakwood email newsletter, June 22, 2016, and Richard Grant, “The True Story of the ‘Free State of Jones,’” Smithsonian Magazine online (March 2016).

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.

Civil_Rights.jpg

This is a shortened version of an article written for the current issue of Spectrum (Spring 2016). To read the full article with citations and references become a member of Adventist Forum and receive Spectrum quarterly with your membership. If you are new to Spectrum, you can also request a complimentary copy here. -Ed.

Two weeks have passed since a gunman terrorized a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., killing 49 people and injuring 53 more. The senseless massacre prompted an outpouring of support for members of the LGBT community who felt especially hard hit by this homophobic attack.

The North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists (NAD) joined the chorus of supporters, offering a ray of hope to LGBT members in an otherwise desolate moment. The same day of the tragedy, the NAD issued a statement expressing heartbreak over “the loss of innocent lives.”  Although the statement failed to name homophobia, it “denounc[ed] the hate that led to this mass shooting” and “condemn[ed] all expressions of hate, from speech to deadly violence.” In a video posted a few days later, NAD President Dan Jackson added, “Our hearts grieve with the LGBT community.” The post included the affirming #loveisloveislove, which has been used by same-sex marriage advocates.

In sharp contrast, just four years ago, the church’s General Conference (GC) managed to add insult to injury when it responded to reports that pastor Blasius Ruguri of the East-Central Africa Division had publicly supported Uganda’s anti-gay legislation, which would have sentenced gay individuals to death in some cases. Instead of condemning homophobia, the GC doubled down on its condemnation of homosexuality while also claiming to be “strongly opposed to acts of violence, hatred and discrimination against a person because of his or her sexual orientation.” The GC’s hypocritical statement drew the ire of black Adventist lawyer and religious liberty scholar Jason Hines who asked: “How can we expect a pastor in Africa to care about the rights of homosexuals when the Adventist rhetoric in America is at the very least tinged (and more often saturated) with homophobia and hate?” Indeed, the GC’s statement failed to appreciate that, for many LGBT Adventists, the church’s one-sided disparaging views of homosexuality and same-sex relationships feel like “acts of violence, hatred and discrimination.”  

From that perspective, the NAD’s response to the Orlando mass shooting stands out not only for its compassionate tone but also for its omission of any condemnation of homosexuality, and may signal a shift in the way the church is now approaching homophobia.  If so, it would not be the first time Adventism evolved on a significant social issue.  The church’s troubled history with racism comes to mind.  As civil rights leader Coretta Scott King aptly noted, “Homophobia is like racism . . . it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

In this regard, the Adventist civil rights movement delivers a prophetic message of hope to LGBT Adventists fighting homophobia today. In the same way the Adventist church came to accept desegregation and interracial marriage, Adventists are slowly embracing LGBT equality and same-sex marriage as well.  Already, 25 percent of Adventists in the United States favor same-sex marriage, and of the 64 percent that oppose it only 21 percent are 18 to 29 year-olds. Ethicist Gary Chartier affirmed this trend in The Future of Adventism. He explains that the Christian community blurs “divisions based on ethnicity, nationality, and class, and increasingly also divisions based on gender and sexual orientation,” because “the church, rooted in the inclusive practice of Jesus, is an institutional rejection of the destructive business of boundary-making.”¹ The Adventist civil rights movement is a stark reminder of that important truth. The sooner Adventist leaders grasp this reality with respect to LGBT members, the safer the church will be for all people of faith.

Adventist Civil Rights Movement and the Church’s Struggle against Racism
As recently as the 1980s, an Adventist pastor stunned his Canadian community when he refused to perform an interracial marriage.² News reports of the incident reached E.E. Cleveland, a black Adventist pastor and civil rights leader in the United States. He shared the story with Neal Wilson Jr., GC president at the time. Wilson discussed the matter at the GC’s human relations committee, and the group voted to revoke the credentials of any pastor who refused to marry interracial couples.

The discriminatory practice of denying marriage to interracial couples was not divorced from the church’s teachings.  In 1968, less than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, the NAD issued guidelines advising against such marriages on religious grounds. The guidelines invoked the counsel of church visionary Ellen White who at one time directed, “there should be no intermarriage between the white and the colored race.” The GC published the NAD’s guidelines in the Church Manual in 1977, and did not remove them until 15 years later in 1992.

Concern about mixing between the races was driven, in part, by pseudo-scientific beliefs that percolated American society in the nineteenth century. In her early writings, Ellen White suggested that “certain races of men” were the product of mixing between humans and animals (also known as the “polygenesis theory”).³ Her statements stirred controversy among early Adventists “with critics charging that she believed Negroes were not human and defenders insisting she meant no such thing.”⁴ Eventually, she distanced herself from such views and declared: “Birth . . . or color cannot elevate or degrade men.”  It took the church several decades to follow suit.

Well into the 20th century, many Adventist institutions still barred black members on account of their race. As late as the 1960s, some Adventist pastors justified these exclusionary practices with dated interpretations of biblical texts such as the “Curse of Ham,” suggesting that Ham’s son Canaan turned black after Noah cursed him to be a servant to his brothers.⁵ According to these pastors, black Adventists could not hold positions of authority or even enter certain facilities because, as descendants of Canaan, blacks were also cursed.

Again, these segregationist practices found support in official church policy. Although Ellen White had initially observed that “sin rests upon us as a church” when prejudice got in the way of building a racially inclusive faith community, she reversed course a few years later when Adventist missionaries confronted violent southerners who disliked the church’s integrationist values. Motivated by safety concerns and a desire to evangelize white and black southerners in spite of the racial divide, she endorsed segregation“until the Lord shows us a better way.”⁶

A better way emerged when, in the 1960s, black Adventists enlisted in the civil rights movement and demanded equal treatment in the church as well.⁷ Black students and their friends amplified the demands for change through public protests across Adventist colleges. Black Adventist theologians supported these efforts through liberationist interpretations of the Bible, and a renewed emphasis on Ellen White’s integrationist commitments. Other black Adventists such as Frank Hale Jr. formed the Laymen’s Leadership Conference (LLC) with the purpose of ending racial discrimination in the church. In 1961, the LLC urged the GC to re-articulate Adventism’s position on race “in light of social changes,” to require diversity training for pastors, and to remove racial barriers to church membership, employment and access.⁸ The GC responded by issuing a statement rejecting segregation as incompatible with Christian teaching, but little else changed in practice.  

Pressures to desegregate mounted following two important events: the landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education outlawing racial segregation in schools and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banning racial discrimination in public facilities. Relying on these new anti-discrimination laws, black members of the South Central Conference (SCC) sued the denomination because many Adventist academies continued to deny admission to black students. The U.S. Attorney General joined the lawsuit on the side of black Adventists, and pressured the GC to end segregation or risk losing federal tax exemptions. The GC gave in to these demands and, in 1965, resolved to desegregate. Charles Dudley, a black civil rights activist and SCC leader, chided the GC for letting the government play the role of the Good Samaritan. In Dudley’s view, the church should have acted out of its own initiative rather than legal compulsion.⁹

Although efforts to combat racism continue, the GC formally shifted the tone on race relations in 1985 when, at the insistence of black Adventists, it condemned racism as “one of the odious evils of our day.” That statement also declared that “Scripture plainly teaches that every person was created in the image of God” and “made of one blood,” refuting any lingering doubts about the Curse of Ham and the polygenesis theory in Adventism. Here, the prophetic voice of the Adventist civil rights movement sounds all the louder for LGBT Adventists today.

LGBT Adventist Struggle for Equality and Parallels with Adventist Civil Rights Movement
Similar to issues of race and race relations, Adventists have been engaged for decades in an ideological debate over the proper understanding of homosexuality and same-sex relationships.

This debate has been influenced by modern conceptions of sexual orientation, which emerged in the late 1800s when European psychologists started to study same-sex love and labeled it “homosexuality” and “inversion.”¹⁰  Some psychologists followed the so-called “degeneracy theory,” which taught that biological and moral degeneration in certain groups threatened social progress and casted homosexuals along with “Jews, Negroes, rapists, murderers and incest abusers as the most dangerous of social ‘degenerates.’”¹¹  Other psychologists, however, found homosexuality to be an innate, morally neutral characteristic akin to heterosexuality.¹²

Early Adventists stayed aloof from these developments in the study of sexual orientation.¹³ By contrast, the degeneracy theory infected Adventist teachings on health and sex.¹⁴ For example, Ellen White attributed the “sad degeneracy” of the human race to a failure to observe the “laws of health,” such as eating meat, drinking stimulants or indulging in sex.¹⁵ Her health reform protégé Dr. John H. Kellogg took those concerns further and dedicated his life’s work to combatting “race degeneration” by promoting dietary cures, sexual abstinence and selective breeding to eliminate undesirable characteristics (also known as “eugenics”).¹⁶ An extreme example of the degeneracy theory’s effects on Adventism occurred in Germany in the years leading up to World War II when some church officials there endorsed the Nazi’s efforts to sterilize “all physical and mental degenerates,” and supported“the extermination of . . . Homosexuals, Jews and people with physical infirmities.” 

Today, Adventism is still dusting off traces of the degeneracy theory, which in retrospect sounds more like nineteenth century folktales about “certain races of men” than well-researched science.¹⁷ For instance, the church’s Fundamental Beliefs presents homosexuality as a “disorder” and “homosexual practice” as a “distortion of the image of God.” The GC’s official statement on same-sex unions indiscriminately characterizes all same-sex relations as a “lowering of the heavenly ideal” and a “manifestation of the disturbance and brokenness in human inclinations and relations.” The authors of these documents cite biblical verses such as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to support their claims, harkening back to a time when some pastors used the Curse of Ham to brand blacks as less worthy than whites.

These “official statements” also obscure a rich history of LGBT activism and dialogue in the Adventist church. Much as the civil rights movement precipitated desegregation in Adventist institutions, the 1969 Stonewall riots that gave birth to the modern gay rights movement triggered a more robust discussion on homosexuality as well. Throughout the 1970s, Adventist authors expressed concern over the way homosexuals were abused in society, yet they failed to consider how their religious views might be fanning the flames of fear and prejudice.¹⁸ Instead, they fell back on the soon-to-be-discredited medical notion that homosexuality was an illness that could be “cured” through therapy and prayer. In response, some gay Adventists wrote letters to the editors of these publications and offered their positive stories, providing the earliest murmurings of an Adventist gay voice.

Towards the end of the 1970s, a group of openly gay Adventists formed Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International to support gay members who felt excluded by the church. Like the LLC, which had been established by black Adventists to end racial discrimination, SDA Kinship also desired to rid the church of its prejudice against gay members. In 1980, SDA Kinship invited church leaders to speak at its first spiritual retreat. Three theology professors from Andrews University and two pastors attended the gathering with the GC’s approval. The guest speakers presented papers on homosexuality and faith, and concluded that a “simplistic” reading of the few references to homosexual acts in the Bible was insufficient to discern God’s will for gay Adventists today. After listening to the stories of the retreat’s gay attendees, the guest speakers returned to the GC with a three-page written report.

Similar to the LLC’s 1961 platform urging the GC to revisit its position on race relations, the SDA Kinship report asked the church to study the question of homosexuality holistically. The report suggested that pastors, teachers and administrators undergo sensitivity training to help them minister to gay members under their care. And it asked the church to create closer ties to SDA Kinship and to become more inclusive of gay members. The GC initially accepted most of these proposals, but then quickly and quietly retracted its approval under pressure from right-wing conservatives who began questioning the denomination’s bona fide Christian credentials.¹⁹ Fear and prejudice had reared its ugly head once again. In short, to appease conservative members uncomfortable with change, gay Adventists like black Adventists would have to wait for equality “until the Lord shows us a better way.” 

Just as the civil rights movement of the 1960s improved the situation of black Adventists, a better way started to materialize for gay Adventists as the gay rights movement gained momentum at the turn of the twentieth century. The most public display of support for gay Adventists came in 2008 in the form of a campaign called, “Adventists Against Prop 8,” protesting a highly contested California law prohibiting same-sex marriage. Filmmakers contributed to these efforts with a trailblazing documentary, “Seventh-Gay Adventists,” which chronicled the story of three Adventist same-sex couples making sense of their faith and sexuality in a church that was often hostile towards them.

Like Adventist theologians who offered liberationist interpretations of scripture to support desegregation, Adventists scholars began to publish theological and ethical perspectives that prioritized the wellbeing of gay Adventists over dogma.²⁰ These scholars understood that faithful gay Adventists were not seeking to undermine God’s authority. On the contrary, gay Adventists desiring the same covenantal relationship available to heterosexual couples were merely affirming the church’s teaching on marriage and family. Still, church officials seemed unwilling to engage in open dialogue.

A sea change took place when countries around the world started legalizing same-sex marriage. In 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. Repeating its reactionary response against interracial marriage after the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1968, the NAD issued guidelines this time opposing same-sex marriage. The Andrews University Seminary also issued a white paper condemning “homosexual practice” while conceding that an innate homosexual orientation is not morally culpable. An Adventist satirist wittily captured the tension in that position with a blog posttitled, “Adventist church cool with gay people as long as they’re not gay about it.”

Despite the church’s continued resistance to LGBT equality, a new wave of students is breathing life into the type of activism last seen at the height of the Adventist civil rights movement. One example is Andrews University alumnus and news commentator Eliel Cruz, a self-identified bisexual Adventist who founded the school’s unofficial gay-straight alliance. As a student, Cruz led a widely publicized social media fundraising campaign to benefit LGBT homeless youth in Chicago after school administrators rejected his club’s plans to raise the funds through a bake sale on campus. Other students started gay-straight alliances at Adventist colleges in the hopes of making these campuses more welcoming of LGBT persons.

With time, gay Adventists at all levels of the church will feel more comfortable with coming out of the shadows. Same-sex couples that marry outside the church will bring their children to Sabbath school and a growing number of openly gay students will attend Adventist academies and colleges. Like the SCC’s black members in the 1960s, gay Adventists will be able to hold their faith community legally accountable for any discriminatory responses. And, as was the case with segregation, the church will find itself once again in a losing battle against social change unless it learns from its past mistakes. Ellen White’s counsel on this point is compelling: “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us . . . in our past.” 

The NAD’s response to the Orlando mass shooting may be an indication of lessons learned.  Perhaps this time the GC will not wait for the government to act as the Good Samaritan to point out that “sin rests upon us as a church” when it fails to create an inclusive faith community. An easy place to begin is to condemn homophobia explicitly like racism as “one of the odious evils of our day.” Starting from that premise, the church’s position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage should look very different.

Juan O. Perla is an attorney in New York who grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, the University of Southern California Price School of Public Policy, and Andrews University. After college, he represented the General Conference as a field intern at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights (now the U.N. Council on Human Rights).

__________________________
NOTES:

1. Gary Chartier, Christ and Salvation, in The Future of Adventism: Theology, Society, Experience 126 (2015).
2.  Samuel London, Jr., Seventh-day Adventists and the Civil Rights Movement 149 (2009).
3.  See Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream 271-72 (2d ed. 2007).
4. Ibid.
5. London, supra note 2, at 86-87.
6. See Terrie Dopp Aamodt, Gary Land, and Ronald L. Numbers, Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet 274-75 (2014).
7. See Gary Land, Adventism in America: A History 174-75 (1998).
8. London, supra note 2, at 117-18.
9. Ibid at 125.
10.  Neil Miller, Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1969 to the Present 13 (1995).
11. Ben Kemena, Biological Determinants of Homosexual Orientation, in Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives Part 2 5(David Ferguson, Fritz Guy, and David Larson eds. 2008); seealso Miller, supra note 10, at 15. 
12. See Miller, supra note 10, at 13-25.
13. Michael Pearson, Millennial Dreams and Moral Dilemmas: Seventh-day Adventism and Contemporary Ethics 231 (1990). 
14. Seegenerally John Money, The Destroying Angel: Sex, Fitness and Food in the Legacy of Degeneracy Theory, Graham Crackers, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes & American Health History (1985).
15. Bull and Lockhart, supra note 3, at 164.
16. Seegenerally Brian Wilson, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and the Religion of Biologic Living (2014).
17. See Kemena, supra note 11, at Part 2 10-19.
18. See Pearson, supra note 13, at 243-51.
19. Ronald Lawson, The Caring, Welcoming Church? The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Its Homosexual Members, in Christianity and Homosexuality, supra note 11, at Part 3 35; seealso Pearson, supra note 13, at 247.
20. See, e.g., John Jones, “In Christ There Is Neither…”: Toward the Unity of the Body of Christ, in Christianity and Homosexuality, supra note 11, at Part 4 3-30; Fritz Guy, Same-sex Love: Theological Considerations, in Christianity and Homosexuality, supra note 11, at Part 4 43-58.

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.

Sterling_Castile.jpg

Daniel R. Jackson and G. Alexander Bryant, the president and executive secretary of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America, issued the following joint statement on July 8, 2016. The statement is in response to this week’s shooting deaths in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Falcon Heights, Minnesota, and Dallas, Texas: 

“We are heartbroken and disturbed by the tragic and brutal shooting deaths of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and five Dallas police officers.*  We extend our deepest condolences and prayers for the seven people killed this week, the seven officers and two civilians wounded in Dallas, their families, loved ones, and friends. We also pray for the communities of Baton Rouge, Falcon Heights, and Dallas, and the heartache they are experiencing as a result of this tragedy.

“This week has been an extremely difficult week as we wrestle with the senseless loss of life. It is past time for our society to engage in open, honest, civil, and constructive conversation about the rights and equality of every member of our community. Having an open discussion means talking about difficult topics in a productive manner.   However, we must move beyond the talking stage and begin to actually develop practical ways of dealing with racial intolerance in all of its forms — whether subtle or overt.

“This week we continue the struggle with what it means to fear for your life because of the color of your skin. We struggle with the pain that the African-American community feels. Last night we struggled seeing a hate so evil, so intense, that it led to the murder of those who were attempting to protect the right of American citizens to peacefully protest.

“We were deeply troubled by the shooting deaths of two African-American men by police officers this week. This brings the total number of blacks shot to death by police in the United States to 123 so far in 2016, according to press reports. We are equally troubled that five Dallas police officers were killed by a gunman filled with hate who, in his words, wanted to “kill white people and especially white police.” 

“Let us be clear: the violent death of any human being is wrong. The deaths of these seven people in these three events are equally tragic and agonizing for God. While so many in our country are angry and frightened, hate and revenge are never the answer. 

“We find wisdom and comfort in the life of Jesus. Human experience illustrates that hatred breeds more hatred. Jesus lived a life that demonstrated love in the face of hatred, and peace in the place of anger. Evil cannot be eliminated with evil; it must be overwhelmed with peace, love, and goodness. We know that there is growing anger, frustration, and alienation throughout our division. These emotions are accompanied by a growing distrust and fear.

“How will we personally and corporately respond? We believe that . . .

• Now is the time to listen, to hear, and to understand the cry of those living in fear.
• Now is the time for the men and women of the North American Division to stand up and link arms together, in peace and love, to say “NO” to racial inequality; and demonstrate that love is stronger than hate.
• Now is the time for our local congregations, for our state and regional conferences, for our educational and medical institutions to pray together, to engage in creative thinking together, and then to work together to strengthen what we have in common and bring the hope and healing compassion of Jesus to our communities.

 “We pray for peace and compassion to guide our way forward as we acknowledge and seek to heal the hurt and fear that pervades this country. We pray, once again, for the day when all of God’s children, of all races, treat each other with love and respect rather than bias and hate.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28, NIV).

* NOTE: At the time of this release the names of all of the officers had not been released.

Daniel R. Jackson is President of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists. G. Alexander Bryant is Executive Secretary of 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.

unnamed.jpg

Academic Tihomir Lazić talks about his work for Newbold College and the Trans-European Division finding ways to engage students across Europe in the life of the Adventist church.

Question: You recently took part in a conference for European Adventist students called “We Can't Look Away: The Church and Social Justice.” What did you talk to the students about?
     
Answer: The church has often been so preoccupied with delivering its message that it has overlooked its responsibility to respond to some burning needs around it. More than a million refugees arrived in Europe last year. More and more people are poor in Europe. There are 30,000 homeless people in the Netherlands, 120,000 in England, 15,000 in Denmark, and almost 400,000 in Germany. And these numbers are growing and growing. If the church is to be true to its calling, it can’t afford to look away. It needs to react to these and other social justice issues.
     
The goal of my presentations was twofold — first, to put things into perspective by raising the awareness of how important the biblical mandate to care for our neighbours and the "strangers within our gates" is for our Christian identity; and second, to give some practical suggestions how this responsibility should be carried out in our daily realm. The key to this dynamic and socially and environmentally responsible Christian life includes learning how to be sensitive to and participate in the work of God’s Spirit in the ongoing cosmic work of restoration. Identifying and responding to the Spirit’s work in, through and around us, I proposed, can bring a sense of astonishing aliveness of divine presence in our life. Propelled by this same Spirit, we won’t be able to look away.
     
The conference was held in the Netherlands. Where did the students travel from?
     
The 45 university students who gathered at a farmhouse in Ter Aar in April 2016 came from various parts of Europe, but mostly from the Netherlands and Denmark.
     
What did you think was the best thing about the conference?
     
Probably the very lively and insightful student discussions that followed the presentations of the four guest lecturers, and a special opportunity to listen firsthand to the experience of a migrant who went through a very tough period of adjustment upon leaving his home country. This helped us all to put ourselves into migrants’ shoes and understand their needs better.
     
At the General Conference last summer you were appointed director of the Adventist Ministry to College and University Students (or Public Campus Ministry) for the Trans-European Division. What does that position entail?
    
My job involves supporting, training and coordinating youth directors, student leaders, chaplains and mentors in the unions of the Trans-European Division. My role is to assist them in generating new and facilitating ongoing church initiatives, events and projects that seek to meet the spiritual, intellectual, and social needs of Adventist students on secular campuses across Europe.

The aim of this newly-launched ministry in TED is to inspire, connect and equip Adventist students on their journey toward becoming true disciples of Christ. Among other things, this journey of authentic discipleship involves teaching our college and university students how to use their gifts, passions and abilities to make God known in their colleges/universities, churches, communities, and the world at large.

Why is this ministry needed in Europe?

This ministry was established as a response to the increasing identity crisis of Adventist students across Europe. Statistics reveal that a growing number of Seventh-day Adventists are leaving the church during their tertiary education. The questions posed in the secular academic environment are seriously challenging their Christian identity. They feel that their religion is not equipping them for dealing constructively and intelligently with some of the most pertinent intellectual, societal and ethical issues of the 21st century.

The students feel out of place in their local churches, as these communities fail to provide a safe environment for voicing their concerns and doubts, exploring their convictions, deepening their knowledge and experience of God, and developing more informed and nuanced Christian intellectual responses to the questions that they encounter during their undergraduate and postgraduate studies.

TED decided to respond to these needs by starting a new ministry that will focus on strengthening students’ commitment to Adventist beliefs and values, provide an opportunity for their fellowship, prepare them to deal with the intellectual challenges that arise in a secular environment, and train them for outreach.

What is the secret to keeping young people a part of the Adventist church?

Engage with their questions, provide the space for their involvement in church’s life, and, most importantly, love them.

Since Newbold College is one of the very few Adventist tertiary institution in Europe, most Adventist college students attend non-Adventist institutions. What strategies are you using to keep them connected to the church? What else could be done?

The complexity of the challenge requires us to use multiple approaches and strategies when trying to keep the students connected to the church. One of the key aspects is the cultivation of the mentoring culture within the local church. TED is developing different resources and training events that aim to equip the local members to know how to relate to students and provide the space for their growth. The special focus is on developing student leaders and mentors whose main goal is to involve the students in various church ministries and assist them toward a deeper understanding of their faith. Students need to feel that they belong somewhere and that their presence and contribution to the local church matters. The role of mentors in this process of integrating students into church life is absolutely crucial.

In order to strengthen students' commitment to Adventist beliefs and values, TED is going to cooperate with different unions in organising regional student symposiums and conferences that will deal with the most significant intellectual, spiritual, societal and ethical questions that the students within that particular region encounter when trying to understand and share their faith in the secular context. Also, the annual courses on Adventist Identity at Newbold College will provide a safe place where the students can explore and critically engage with various facets of their religious identity. Rather than  attempting to provide a ready-made answers, the instructors of these courses will seek to teach students how to think for themselves — creatively, critically and constructively.

Besides weekend trainings, student symposiums and courses, TED is also involved in producing various resources that will focus on questions such as: What does it mean to be an Adventist in the 21st century? How can we deepen our understanding of the uniqueness of Adventist identity, message and mission? What can we learn from other Christians and non-Christians? Is our faith a reasonable faith? Can it assist us in addressing the questions that are posed by some of the most eminent scholars and scientists of our days? How can Adventist students integrate their religious outlook with the insights they gain within their particular area of study? Hopefully, by revisiting and proposing some fresh and academically informed ways of thinking about the rich theological heritage of Adventist church, these resources will help the students to both deepen their understanding of God and discover their unique place and role in the story of redemption.

These resources, while involving written blogs and ebooks, will also feature a number of short Q&A videos that present experts across various academic disciplines addressing some of the most challenging questions that present-day students are facing. The Student Insight videos will be accessible via YouTube, and on the forthcoming TED student ministry website, as well as its official Facebook page. These social media platforms will, I believe, enable Adventist students from different countries to stay in touch and meet other students in their specific academic field.

This year you were named Lecturer in Systematic Theology at Newbold College. How do you like your new job? How do your two positions complement each other?

I feel very fortunate to have an opportunity to work at Newbold College. This place is close to my heart. I did my MA studies in Theology there and met many new friends — I believe, friends for life. Newbold deepened my passion for theology and ministry. Even though upon completing the MA course I moved to Oxford to do my doctoral research at the University of Oxford, I still maintained the close connections with Newbold College and was part of its student life. I taught piano and singing and was a contract lecturer for some of the undergraduate modules in theology.

The common denominator between these two jobs — Director of Student Ministry and Lecturer in Systematic Theology — are students. Most of my life I spent in academic circles, interacting with scholars and students. Frankly, I can’t even imagine life without a community of people that love the truth and continually seek to deepen their understanding of God and the world. As a Lecturer in Systematic Theology, I have a daily opportunity to facilitate such a quest by teaching and mentoring the students. My job is to help them develop a creative and God-fearing Christian mind that is able to engage with some of the most significant life questions, and do so in an informed, critical and constructive manner.

My work as a Director of Student Ministry complements this academic endeavour by giving me a necessary platform to take these theological insights and intellectual tools and help Adventist students in different secular campuses across Europe to think about their faith intelligently and coherently, integrating their religious outlook with the knowledge that they gain in their academic study.

Newbold College has seen some tough times financially. Can it expect to survive?

I personally believe that Newbold College will survive and prosper. Many structural changes have been undertaken and new accreditation partnerships established. This already represents a big step out of the turmoil that the college went through in the past few years. Its financial situation is much more stable now and, given how things have been going in the last year or so, it is reasonable to expect that things are going to be even better in the future. After all, the church in Europe cannot afford to lose one of its finest academic institutions which is doing so much in equipping our pastors and administrators — thought leaders of the church — for a successful ministry.

I believe that music has always been a big part of your life. Can you tell us a little bit about your background in music? Are you involved in music now? How does your musical experience aid you in your work?

I went through 12 years of classical music training in Serbia. Beside teaching piano and singing during my studies at Newbold and in Oxford, I’ve been heavily involved in organizing worships, choir workshops and music concerts in different countries around the globe. The last major event was the 2013 European Youth Congress in Novi Sad, Serbia, where I was tasked with preparing the band and singers, composing the theme-song, and planning the content of morning and evening worships with the AYC creative team. I was given the same responsibility for the European Youth Congress in Valencia, Spain, in 2017, and then during the Global Youth Ministry Congress in Stuttgart, Germany, a year later.

All of us are aware that a music represents a very powerful avenue through which we can experience God deeper and be inspired to do his will. Music opens many doors that words can’t. So, wherever and whenever I can I try to enrich my ministry of teaching and preaching with music. It brings an additional dimension to my life and helps me to explore and express my experience of God in a way that is easily accessible not only to the people in the church but also to the un-churched.

You are completing a doctorate in theology from Oxford University. How has your study at Oxford changed your views and beliefs? How has it strengthened or weakened your faith? How does it is help you in your work?

I realized that there is no better path to deeper self-understanding than a dialogue with somebody who can challenge the unquestioned assumptions that we hold about the world and stimulate fresh thinking. It is only when we are exposed to completely different, and even conflicting, ways of seeing the world that we truly learn about ourselves and our faith. Although it was not easy to be exposed to such rigorous intellectual criticism, I feel that my personal faith in God is now stronger. I am still fascinated with some of the key doctrinal insights that Adventism has to offer, yet learned about many different areas of theology which are often neglected and underdeveloped in our denomination’s theological discourse. No doubt these will shape my future academic endeavours.

You have mentioned that you are originally from Serbia. The Adventist church is much stronger in eastern Europe than western Europe, isn't it? How do you find the Adventist church different in England than in Serbia?

Europe is a very diverse and multicultural environment. The same applies to Adventist churches on this continent. It has many faces and many forms. To compare one form with the other and claim that it is “stronger”, or somehow “superior,” can be a very subjective assessment — one that I will not attempt.

However, I can share something from my personal experience of Adventism in the above-mentioned two countries. The experience of fellowship that I gained in my local church in Novi Sad, Serbia, remained foundational for my spiritual life and sparked my love of exploring the mysteries of God revealed in the church. During the time of war, in the midst of shooting and of bomb explosions, the church brought us a deep sense of hope, fulfilment and fearlessness; surrounded by turbulence and unrest, it stood as an oasis of peace. This is  possibly one of the main reasons why I decided to write my doctoral thesis about Adventist identity and the nature of church (ecclesiology).

On the other hand, Adventism in England brought much greater exposure to other cultures and viewpoints. The clash of worldviews and prevailing secularism in UK are presenting a major challenge to church mission in England; however, the church is still active and is continually experimenting with new approaches and trying to find the most adequate and relevant ways of communicating its message in this complex setting. A  much more stable economic situation allows the church in the UK to invest in different projects and ministries — ones that are simply not possible within Serbia due to its limited financial resources. At the same time, the people in Serbia who were exposed to greater existential pressures, fighting for survival and “normal” life conditions, generally tend to be more open to the idea of God. This is why the Serbian church experienced the greatest growth during the period of war and shortly afterwards.      

What is your ultimate career goal?

I don’t know where life will take me and what the future will bring, but I would like to be able to say that in all times I gave all that I am — my God-given skills, gifts and acquired knowledge — to make God known to the world. Whether teaching, leading, pastoring or making music, I would like the people to see in my life the visible sign of something greater than myself — the power that transcends us and goes beyond human ability to comprehend, the power of the living God.

Summer_Reading_Flourish.jpg

Contemporary debates about religion, broadly speaking, fall into two categories. Some are theoretical in nature, dealing with the truth of certain beliefs and narratives held by religions? Do the gods or God exist? What is God like? Did a particular event happen as described in this or that text? The other set of questions is practical, dealing with the relevance or value of religion for living. Is religion relevant for living life well? Is religion a force for good or evil in the world?  

This year’s Spectrum Summer Reading Group will focus on the latter set of questions and, in doing so, explore an even more basic issue: the nature of human flourishing. What does this look like? Is it possible? Can it be measured? Is there some universal standard that applies to everyone? 

We’ll be exploring and discussing such questions (and more!) by engaging Miroslav Volf’s latest book, Flourshing: Why We Need Religion in a Globalized World. In a world of rising, global fundamentalisms, politicized faith, and secular humanisms, Volf, professor of theology at Yale Divinity School and director of its Center for Faith and Culture, has his work cut out for him; despite very real challenges, he argues that “a vision of flourishing found in the quarrelling family of world religions is essential to thriving and global common good” (2) or, to quote the Bible, “One does not live by bread alone” (22). Provocatively, he claims, “Trying to live by ‘bread alone’ kills both us and our neighbors” (22).     

In addition to providing an overview of the book, in the introduction Volf discloses his location as a Christian scholar, recounting his experience growing up in Yugoslavia as a Pentecostal. Considered a sect by larger, more recognized religious communities, Pentecostalism, similar to many Adventist communities, was a stigmatized minority. Interestingly, the church of Volf’s youth also placed heavy emphasis on the second coming of Jesus and this raised interesting tensions with the theme of the book. Does holding such a belief result in an otherworldly escapism that is unconcerned with doing anything about flourishing here and now? 

Not if waiting is properly understood, Volf argues. He explains that there is an appropriate passive side to waiting; it’s the opposite of being a force “seeking to impose itself on the unwilling” (11). But waiting is also active. Inspired by Jesus: 

We celebrate and enhance what is good in us and around us, we repair what is broken and ameliorate what can be perfected; and occasionally we pull back from what is intractably toxic and evil (12). 

Christians who hope in the coming of God and understand the true nature of waiting, are to be “neither idle nor coercive but always engaged” (12). 

While I appreciated Volf’s nuanced analysis, I was also left wondering if as a community, we’ve properly understood the nature of waiting. My own experience is that the second coming often serves as an excuse for not seriously doing anything other than wringing our hands. I also wondered, practically, what it looks like to be properly engaged in today’s world, with all the challenges we’re constantly made aware of and overwhelmed by. 

I’m looking forward to reading what Volf might suggest regarding such issues in upcoming chapters and discussing these and other matters in upcoming weeks here as a group. Here’s the reading/posting schedule, we’re planning to follow: 

July 13 - Introduction/invitation (Zane Yi)
July 22 - Chapter 1: Globalization and the Challenge of Religions (Yi Shen Ma)
July 29 - Chapter 2: Religions and the Challenge of Globalization (Brenton Reading)
August 5 - Chapter 3: Mindsets of Respect, Regimes of Respect (Keisha McKenzie)
August 12 - Chapter 4: Religious Exclusivism and Political Pluralism (Ryan Bell)
August 19 - Chapter 5: Conflict, Violence, and Reconciliation (Lisa Clark Diller)
August 26 - Epilogue: God, Nihilism, and Flourishing (Ron Osborn)

As in past years, you’re invited to order or download your copy of the book and join in the discussion. Feel free to leave a comment below if you’re planning to do so.

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

If you respond to this article, please:

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

NAD_March.png

There was one sentence that resonated with me during the “We Stand for All” rally last weekend.

“The church is called to demonstrate love.

While wearing red, on the afternoon of July 9, hundreds of Seventh-day Adventists walked from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial to show their care, concern and support for change in our nation following the deaths of two black men and five police officers. The rally, organized by leaders in the North American Division including Dan Jackson and G. Alexander Bryant, brought together local conference leaders in the Columbia Union, local pastors, members and even witnesses that happened to be standing nearby.

At the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial, attendees prayed together, sang black hymns and anthems, and listened to church leaders and pastors as they spoke out against the acts of violence and encouraged the audience to take action in their respective communities through acts of service, organizing workshops with local law enforcement, and getting involved with voter registration drives and education.

I was proud to identify myself as an Adventist that day. The week before had been traumatic, heavy, and filled with the burden of helplessness. When the rally was first announced, it was an easy decision to participate because my silent prayers alone would not be enough. They would have been the equivalent to a quick pat on the back to the family members of the men we lost last week.&

This past year has been relentless in continuously showing us another cruel consequence of sin and the human condition in absence of God’s love. Christianity’s relevancy in the world we live in today is tested each time tragedy strikes in communities with a church building and the presence of its members is rendered absent.

The rally was just a start. And it should be recognized as a great one.

I stood with people that I knew but also individuals that I did not know. I stood with people who share the color of my skin and individuals who do not. And we stood together bonded by our desire to verbally acknowledge that we had witnessed revolting and horrific scenes of injustice in Louisiana, Minnesota and Texas.

Acknowledgment is the first step in healing. Visibly standing together as representatives of Christ is a step in healing.

“The church is called to demonstrate love.”

As a collective body of people – tied through our faith – Adventists should desire to play a role in standing up for the rights of those who have lost them and actively demonstrate love.

Love and obedience to God go hand in hand and without both we cannot influence change in the world. We cannot be a light.

In Matthew 5, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, he sets the expectations for His followers by using salt as a metaphor to demonstrate the importance of influence in the Christian experience. Jesus says,

“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:13-16, KJV).

Jesus’ use of “salt” shows how much he understood how to connect with men and women no matter their age or color. All believers, regardless of gender and economic status, are called to provide light to the world through their influence. What is the purpose of the church if we hide when tough issues arise? And if we delay, what messages will stand in the gap? At a time when the world is watching tragedy unfold in every area of life, indifference and lukewarm rhetoric does not show the world that we are confident in who God is.

To be effective, we have to leave the church building more often, meet and develop genuine relationships with people we do not know, and address the issues that affect them on a daily basis. To be effective, we cannot be complacent in perfect church attendance or using our faith in name only. Using our influence to create change also means that we have the responsibility to filter our actions and our responses through the lens of restoration and healing.

July 9 March in Washington DC from NAD Adventist on Vimeo.

Even Ellen White underscores the importance of being effective Christians through action and just proclaiming our belief in God. In Desire of Ages she states that “our profession of faith may proclaim the theory of religion but it is our practical piety that holds forth the word of truth. The consistent life, the holy conversation, the unswerving integrity, the active, benevolent spirit, the godly example—these are the mediums through which light is conveyed to the world (Chapter 30).”

Last weekend, I witnessed the hurt not just from the people who were outside of my church but those who were also within. The rally gave them (and me) an opportunity to witness love from a collective body of people that were willing to make an effort to tackle big issues rooted in bias, fear, and discrimination.

The rally showed how Christians can influence the conversation, not just from within the general conference, but to show the world that the kingdom of God is a place where love, faith, light, justice, hope and peace are part of the foundation.

“The church is called to demonstrate love.”

We are reminded in Micah 6:8 to act justly, love mercy, walk humbly, and we know that we are called to be salt to the world.

So let us do just that.

Natalie Monkou is a member of Capitol Hill Seventh-day Adventist Church in Washington, DC.

IMG_20160119_102605.jpg

La Sierra University graduate Linn Tonstad has gone on to teach eschatology, queer theology and more at Yale University. She spoke to Spectrum about her Adventist upbringing, her book about the Trinity, and how she hopes to effect change in churches.

Question: Your book God and Difference: The Trinity, Sexuality and the Transformation of Finitude came out last autumn. According to one reviewer, "the book is an important new work in Christian systematic theology that successfully employs queer theory to reconstruct Trinitarian theology." How should we be viewing the Trinity? How should the concept of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit evolve from the way we were taught?

Answer: In the book, I argue that the Trinity should be rethought without relations of origin, the traditional way of distinguishing the persons from each other in Western Christianity.

What inspired you to write the book? Why this subject specifically?

There's been a lot of theological interest in the doctrine of the Trinity for some time, often coming from progressive theologians who are excited by the way the Trinity overcomes certain typical critiques of Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity places difference at the very heart of the Christian imagination, some argue. I started there as well, but over time became convinced that common ways of approaching the doctrine were still depending on a hierarchical and often patriarchal set of assumptions that threatened the full equality of the Trinity while reinscribing symbolic heterosexuality at the center of Christianity.

You are on the faculty of the Yale Divinity School as assistant professor of systematic theology. What classes do you teach? What are your main research subjects?

I'm a constructive theologian working at the intersection of systematic theology with feminist and queer theory. Typical courses that I teach include lecture courses in theology and seminars on topics like God, eschatology, or queer theology.

What is queer theology?

The nature of queer theology is heavily contested. It's often used as a term for LGBTQIA-affirming theologies, but my own interest is rather in the intersection between queer theory and theological method. I'm curious about the way queer theory can, like many other tools, be helpful in rethinking and reframing typical Christian ways of thinking about God, the world, and everything.

Queer theory shares with certain forms of Protestantism a suspicion of ideas of wholeness, self-possession, and self-determination, and instead looks at ways that human beings are mysteries to ourselves.

After earning your undergraduate degree at La Sierra University, you went to Yale for a masters, and then a PhD. Why did you decide to study theology?

Initially, I'd just intended to spend two years figuring out my own beliefs, but it quickly became clear that it was going to take a lot longer than that! Theology is interested in everything, and there are few other fields of study that are as flexible in this regard.

You grew up in Norway as an observant Seventh-day Adventist. Do you still consider yourself an Adventist in any way?

Some of my basic convictions remain Adventist, but they're probably not the convictions that most Adventists put at the center of their beliefs. A non-dualistic approach to the human person is important to me, as are beliefs about God's relationship to and ongoing engagement with history.

How does your Adventist upbringing impact your current academic work?

The last chapter of my first book is on what I call a non-reproductive ecclesiology, an understanding of the church that isn't about just repeating the same exact form of truth that was given once and for all at the beginning but rather reflects God's engagement with history and ongoing illumination of the world. The argument is framed in relation to expectation of the return of Christ.

To my mind, it's an Adventist ecclesiology, but not one that would be recognizable as such to most people. I also work on eschatological questions, so there's an Adventist interest there as well.

You have said you had read the Bible from cover to cover by the age of nine. You sound like you were a very precocious child! Did your parents encourage you in your pursuit of religion and spirituality? How do your parents feel about your choice of career?

My parents were very involved in the church, and that certainly affected the centrality of faith to my life. I was brought up to believe, as many Adventists do, that it's the responsibility of each person to figure out what she believes and what her most fundamental commitments will be, without being able to hand over that responsibility to an external authority. That sense of responsibility certainly led me to theology! I think my parents would initially have preferred that I go into a more recognizable (medical) career, but they are very supportive now.

How have your beliefs evolved since childhood? How closely do your religious beliefs align with Adventist theology? Do you identify more with a different church or denomination?

My beliefs certainly don't align very closely with 'official' Adventist theology, as in the 28 fundamentals. That way of thinking about theology is to my mind entirely misguided, in method as well as content. I'm overall a fairly 'orthodox' Christian (lowercase 'o'!) but in a very Protestant sense. I borrow freely from different parts of Christian history, but I'm especially interested in figures like Origen, Anselm, Luther, and Schleiermacher, as well as depending heavily on the work of feminist, womanist, and queer thinkers.

Do you see the Adventist church as misogynistic? What do you see as the future of the Adventist church? Do you think the gender bias can or will change to embrace women as equals?

Yes, the Adventist church is misogynistic. In that it's not particularly different from most of the rest of the world. It's unfortunate that, like so many other Christian denominations, the church has decided to make gender and sexuality utterly central to its self-understanding. As many have pointed out, the decision for churches to stake themselves on issues like this--rather than, say, poverty--is discouraging as well as (I believe) unfaithful to God.

That said, humans are unfaithful to God, and it's often when we are most convinced that we are being faithful that we turn our backs on God most decisively. Thankfully, God loves us anyway! I don't really see equality for women as a primary goal. It might be necessary along the way, but the diagnoses of feminist and queer thinkers point me to the need for an entire reconfiguration of the structures of power and recognition within which something like equality can be sought. I hope and work for a world very different from the one we inhabit.

Do you feel that your work in feminism and theology can have an impact on changing churches and the way they operate? Is changing the culture of traditional churches a goal for you in your work? Can your academic work bring about concrete change?

I certainly hope so! My work tries to open up Christian imaginations to different ways of thinking about ourselves and our relationships to God and to each other. The work is grounded in Christian convictions, but the work of Christian theology has always gone on in conversation with influences that aren't themselves 'distinctively' Christian, for lack of a better word.

For instance, in God and Difference I make a theological argument against the identification of a particular stance on gender or sexuality as the decisive issue on which the gospel stands or falls. Typical debates on women's ordination or LGBTQ relationships don't, I think, offer much theological insight on either side, so I try to look at such issues from unexpected directions to see what emerges.

I believe that you are working on a new book. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

The book is in early stages, but it builds on the issues of ecclesiology and eschatology in the first book. I'm interested in how to think about social change in the absence (but expectation) of the coming of God's kingdom. A thread that runs throughout my work is worry about Christian self-righteousness, so I try to think about how Christians might work freely for the better without imagining that we can bring about the good.

In the book I'm also using resources from queer (especially queer of color) performance theory to think about how visions of the impossible can be materialized in a world in which change for the better is almost impossible.

Linn Tonstad is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at Yale University. Tonstad joined the Yale Divinity School faculty in 2012 after teaching for a year at Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University. From 2009 to 2011, she was a Lilly Fellow in the humanities and theology at Valparaiso 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.

Guy.jpg

Professor Fritz Guy made a presentation and led a discussion on "The Second Coming: How Long Can We Keep Saying 'Soon?'" at the Roy Branson Sabbath School in Loma Linda, California, on July 16, 2016.

Fritz Guy teaches in the H. M. S. Divinity School at La Sierra University. It was the first in weekly discussions of the chapters in "The Future of Adventism: Theology, Society, Experience" edited by Gary Chartier. The presentation was recorded in three parts, included below.

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.