Blog

31 Mar

A SIMPLE GIFT INSPIRES OTHERS TO GIVE

In

By Gabriela Vincent – Casper, Wyoming … Gabriela (Anca) Vincent, wife of pastor Shayne Vincent in the Casper District of Wyoming, has felt the pain of the war in Ukraine very personally.

She grew up under communist rule in Romania, and her hometown, Iasi, Moldova is just across the border from Ukraine. Her sister’s family still lives in Iasi. Her 12-year-old niece, Miriam, moved by the thousands of refugees flooding into their town, wanted to help. She decided to give the money she had been saving for a new smartphone, to purchase two mattresses for refugees who were staying in the local Adventist church.

When Gabriela shared this story with the Casper and Wheatland churches, they were inspired to give. They raised nearly $4,000 for the Ukrainian refugees through their generous donations and the funds were sent to Miriam, who was able to purchase ten more mattresses, as well as food, medication, and more essential items.

The needs of the refugees have inspired the Romanian Pathfinders to become directly involved. Dorin Cristea, children and youth ministries director of the Moldavia Conference, said, “The Pathfinder Law is for me to ‘Go on God’s errands,’ which means we will always be ready to go about doing good as Jesus did. But I never thought it would mean to ask you to get involved in helping those impacted by war.” The Pathfinders are involved in a weekly trip to Southern Ukraine, taking food, winter clothes, and medication to those in need.

Approximately ten million people have now fled their homes in Ukraine because of Russia’s unprovoked invasion. The UN High Commissioner for refugees says, “As many as 3.6 million Ukrainians have left for neighboring countries. Another estimated 6.5 million people are thought to be displaced inside the war-torn country itself.” According to AP reports, thousands have died since the Russian war began, including hundreds of children. It is a sobering picture and a call to action in solidarity with the people of Ukraine.

“I am extremely proud of what my family and friends in Romania are doing to assist with the increasing number of refugees and emergency supplies needed to support the Ukrainian people. My home church in Iasi is now a place where Ukrainian women and children find a safe place to stay until they have in place for their final destination,” Vincent said.

She added, “The church’s Sabbath School classes have been converted into temporary shelters, and with funds raised by the local church, they were able to install a washer, dryer, and shower for the refugees. With the remaining funds from our giving, the church has purchased generators, food, and medication, and the weekly convoy has distributed the emergency supplies to a shelter in Ukraine.”

This war is far from being over, and the needs are many as the people of Ukraine bravely fight for their freedoms. Gabriela and the Adventist church in Iasi are deeply grateful for the generous hearts who have given.

If you would also like to support the work in Romania, you can donate to www.adra.ro. May God bless the people of Ukraine with courage and strength.

–Gabriela (Anca) Vincent writes from Casper, Wyoming; photos supplied

Miriam

 

31 Mar

RMC CHURCH MEMBERS REACT TO UKRAINE CRISIS

In

By Rajmund Dabrowski – Boulder, Colorado … It was the first week of March and the war was well underway on the Eastern and Northern fronts of Ukraine. A car, which started its 365-kilometer (226 miles) drive from the outskirts of Zhytomyr to the border with Poland, carried seven refugees.

Two families with five children squeezed into a vehicle with three of the children in the trunk of Peugeot 508. The memory of flying missiles and the sound of explosions at the Zhytomyr military airport near their home were soon just a painfully etched memory. Hope drove them to safety.

Olga Charucka and her husband Waldemar Kutrzeba were awaiting them on the Polish side of the border, ready to welcome them to safety—the five kids, the mother, and a grandmother.

The night before, all seven of them slept in the basement of their house a short distance from the airport destroyed by cruise missiles and bombs dropped from Russian planes. A wall was cracked in their home from an explosion, and a portion of the ceiling had fallen.

After arriving in Poland, four-year-old Zlata, hearing the siren of an ambulance or police car, would run to Olga. Clinging to her, she cried, “We must hide.”

***

Olga and Waldemar live in the home of my parents near Warsaw. They were caregivers to my father and mother before they passed away. Their spacious home welcomed all seven of them. Kutrzebas are members of the nearby Adventist Theological College Church in Podkowa Leśna, which these days is serving as a shelter housing two-dozen refugees. Their church is one of many throughout Poland serving as shelters, among them Warsaw, Łódź, and Lublin. A congregation in Warsaw alone has accommodated and fed 400 refugees.

I welcomed the idea of having refugees in my parents’ home. Though far away, a plan of action was formulated during recent weeks to find support for several of our brothers and sisters in Poland engaged in helping thousands of refugees. Requests for help soon turned into questions from different parts of the Rocky Mountain Conference: How can we help? Members of Casper and Wheatland churches in Wyoming were engaged in fundraising for refugees in Romania (see https://www.rmcsda.org/a-simple-gift-inspires-others-to-give/).

From Bernie Hartnell of the Grand Junction church comes the comment, “God has blessed us in so many ways here in Colorado and the wider United States. However, Marti and I have been impressed by the Holy Spirit, to do something about the refugees flooding out of Ukraine into neighboring countries.”

He continues, “We felt time was critical to help support our Adventist brothers and sisters, who have opened their homes, churches, and schools in this crisis! So we, along with others in our Grand Junction church, have made it happen by giving either directly to our churches in Poland or through ADRA’s Ukrainian refugee fund.

“I would like to emphasize the inspiration to not sit on our hands in cozy America but listen to the Spirit’s bidding. From the ‘widow’s mite’ to the amounts that the Lord impresses, this effort, you can be assured, will go to its intended worthy purpose!” he added.

“How can one watch the news on the Ukraine crisis and not be moved to do something,” wondered Gordy Gates from Boulder. “And then to learn how the Polish people are opening their homes to the refugees led me to talk with you [Rajmund Dabrowski] to see how we might be able to get involved.”

Learning that my family’s home was part of this refugee relief, Gordy commented that he “knew he had found the way to get involved where every dollar given made it to the Ukrainian people, and [he is thankful] for being given the opportunity to help.”

Shawn Nowlan, a member of the Contemporary Issues Sabbath School Class at the Boulder church where I attend, asked how to get involved.

“Our Sabbath School wondered [how we could help] Ukraine [since] the problem is so big and beyond our control. What can we do (as suggested in the Epistle of James) to help those Ukrainians in need to go in peace, keep warm and eat their fill?  Organizations like ADRA have wonderful, specialized skills. What do we have?”

He continued, “This is when we heard about Adventist congregations in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania who were turning their buildings into refugee centers to house the refugees streaming out of Ukraine. Maybe we could support those congregations directly so that ADRA’s resources would be free to use in the war zone itself?” Nowlan wondered.

“We could help those Eastern European congregations directly by feeding them, clothing them, and keeping them safe. We have the contacts. We can use them. And that is what we are intending to do,” he added.

***

Last week, I asked the kids if they would draw their experiences. Wiktoria is 15 years old and the oldest child of the Zhytomyr family. She sent her drawing full of war images and symbols of her country. When asked about the memories of the day she left her home, she said, “I remember fear. The biggest difficulty was choosing if my mother should join us or stay with dad as his support as he had to stay in Ukraine. The children decided that she would stay and be of help to my father.” The fathers are a part of the Territorial Defense Army in their region.

Zlata’s drawing was poignant, illustrating the distressing emotions of her experience in and what was being shown on TV. For her, memories were symbols of falling rain. She remembers the falling bullets and missiles.

Reports from the frontiers of the neighboring countries with Ukraine–Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland–describe the Adventist Church being present by setting up welcoming centers with ADRA* representatives and volunteers offering food, clothing, and medical assistance. Local church volunteers provide transportation, accommodation, and meals. More than three million refugees have left Ukraine, the majority of them finding refuge in Poland.

In Poland, and elsewhere, human solidarity is at work.

–Rajmund Dabrowski is editor of NewsNuggets; photos supplied *For donations contact www.adra.pl

 

31 Mar

Prospective students experience Campion Academy

In

By Love Pickle – Loveland, Colorado … After two years of limiting campus visits, Campion Academy was once again able to host Academy Day on March 26. An annual, free open house for prospective students in seventh through eleventh grades, Academy Day gives these visitors an opportunity to experience a bit of life on campus.

The visiting students began their Campion experience with activities planned by the Student Association (SA) officers, including human bumper ball, jousting, and knockout.

Reflecting on the visit, Sarah, an eighth-grader, shared, “The activities in the morning were my favorite part of the day and playing bubble soccer. I feel good about coming to Campion next year, and I thought the event was nice.”

The SA officers proceeded to give tours of the campus which left a strong impression on Sarah, “The students who gave the tour were kind, and they answered all of our questions.”

Academic contests were held, including opportunities for the students to win various scholarships, like athletics and music.

Dean Helm, business manager, with his creative art known as Helmdini, entertained the students with a special magic performance. Evie, an eighth-grader, pointed out, “My favorite part was the magic show.” She added that she is excited to come to Campion because, during her visit, the students were friendly and welcoming.

The students toured the dorms and participated in mini-scramble games before supper. After dinner, Dean and Sue Helm took the students out for ice cream to satisfy their sweet teeth. Angel, an eighth-grader, remarked, “I enjoyed the ice cream. The classes and the people who were there were nice.”

The event concluded with an award show and a vespers program. The visiting students were sent off with a farewell gift put together by Campion Academy with the hope of seeing them again as future students.

–Love Pickle is a senior at Campion Academy; photos supplied

29 Mar

10 TO 15 TIMES

In

By Dustin Stegen … At one point in our lives, we all had to be introduced to every food we now eat. We weren’t born to love certain foods. No one came out of the womb salivating at the thought of peanut butter toast. We had to acquire the desire for it. This is especially true for foods whose characteristics may not be as desirable as a chocolate treat or salty chips. Those foods do not take much time or effort to enjoy.

This is especially true for our children. Introducing new foods can be challenging. I am not talking about chocolate ice cream with crushed Oreos all over it, once our children have this type of food they seem to want it all of the time. Who can blame them? I am talking about foods like broccoli, asparagus, turnips, and tofu. These foods may sound delicious to some but may not be what our children desire but it is the food we help they learn to love. Our job as parents is to keep trying to give new, healthy foods for our kids. Children are hard to predict when it comes to their eating habits. Some days they want to eat anything and everything put in front of them. Then other days, even their favorite meal disgusts them. It can take 10 to 15 attempts for children to eat and then enjoy new foods. So don’t be discouraged and don’t give up if it take longer than that. If you have prepared the food well with delicious ingredients, your children will learn to love it. Try your best to never force, pressure and coerce your children into eating their foods. Make eating a time of fun and fellowship. (The way we treat our children when it comes to food is a giant topic and is not fully covered in this blog. Look out for future blogs covering parenting and eating tips). Please remember, children do have a more sensitive palate than older adults. They can detect bitter flavors quickly. Give them some grace when trying kale for the first time.

Our children will also be more likely to try food if we, the parent or adult, are eating and obviously enjoying the food. If we are hesitant to eat the meal with a grimus you can almost guarantee our children won’t be trying it. Speaking of adults, we too sometimes need 10 to 15 times to try a new food. How many of us have a friend who is unwilling to try certain foods because they know they disliked them as a child? As we age, we must eat our fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to aid in our own health promotion. These types of foods are essential and should be incorporated into our diets. The most important step in improving our diet through nutrition is actually eating the food. If you disliked broccoli as a kid, that may be because it was not prepared well. I am sorry to say it but who actually liked steamed broccoli? I can’t be the only one who dislikes it. But I love broccoli, lightly baked in olive oil. Crispy and sweet. Truly amazing.

I think it is important to make a distinction between healthy foods and not-so-healthy foods. I am not saying you should expose yourself to foods that require an acquired taste and are detrimental to your health. For example, I do not like coffee. I bet if I drank it more and more, I would learn to love it. But coffee is not necessarily a healthy beverage. I want more people to eat more fruits and vegetables. Keep trying those, not all the other stuff.

The point is, at any age we need to eat more plants. We don’t have to eat every single one, but a humble variety fuels our bodies with its optimal fuel. Children and adults can benefit from trying different plant foods 10 to 15 times. The food we eat literally makes up our cells and fuels them. Expose yourself to new, healthy, and delicious plant foods by just trying them.

— Dustin Stegen is a Registered Dietitian and lover of all things outdoors, cooking, and teaching others about living a healthy lifestyle and eating. He is the founder of Ten Times Better, LLC a nutrition consulting business that focuses on connecting faith and food. Photo by iStock.

This article was originally published on Outlook Magazine website

28 Mar

IT’S OK TO DISAGREE

In

By Mic Thurber … What I will speak about today was much easier to present five or six years ago. Since then, our public discourse has become strained and coarse. Whether the genesis of the argument is politics, the pandemic, or theology, differences of opinion are now seen as cause to consider someone as our enemy. Many have seen that atmosphere invade church life and discourse.

I enter this plea: can we please tone it down? Can we find a way to ratchet down the atmosphere when we speak of our differences? And can we somehow find room in our hearts to love, worship with, pray for, and journey toward the Kingdom alongside those who differ from our personal viewpoint?

This does not mean, however, that we cannot have spirited discourse and even debate. Our early church founders—whether in New Testament times or in the mid to late 1800s and early 1900s—were disposed to sometimes heated disagreements.

I remember my first real exposure to how closely held a personal point of view can be and how helpful a challenge to that view can also be. It came from an experience my father had when we were in the process of moving from Glendale, California, to Keene, Texas. My dad had just decided to leave the King’s Heralds Quartet and move our family to Texas where he would begin his work as conference youth director, a position that would soon become youth evangelist.

While on one of his trips to Texas, prior to our actual move, he had gone to the lot where the foundation of our new house had just been poured. As he was walking around inspecting it and visualizing how all the rooms would be laid out on the slab, a man approached him with a question asked in such a tone of voice as to give away his own feelings on the matter. His question? “I understand you are the new youth director for the Texas Conference, and I want to know what your stand is on guitars?”

This question was asked in the summer of 1967, so my father’s reply was timely: “Well, with all the Beatles and bugs crawling all around the world dragging their guitars behind them, guitars are really a problem.” The man seemed well satisfied with the answer–-at least until my dad punctuated his answer with a few more words.

“But I worry about something even more than guitars,” my dad went on to say. “What’s that?” asked the man. “The piano,” my dad said. “Every bar in the country has a piano in it yet we allow it in our churches.”

My first introduction to a moment of strong disagreement. This story taught me some valuable lessons. First, we will not all agree. Second, we can be spirited in our disagreement and still be decent to one another. Third, we should give broad latitude to each other to disagree and not disparage one another when the subject of our disagreement is not a centrally held, doctrinal position. Fourth, allow and expect that context matters, and that judgment about many things can change over time. Within a few months of this story, my dad brought home my very first guitar, which became my early life’s passion. I dedicated it to the Lord’s service and ended up playing guitar for many years in hundreds of church settings and youth gatherings.

It’s easy to see our church as a church in which everything is settled and there is no more room for discussion. As the world becomes ever more complex and the enemy becomes more sophisticated in his traps and attacks, it seems to me that if ever there was a time to keep studying, keep learning, keep dialoguing, it is now.

So, let us not be afraid to disagree. But can we do it with grace, kindness, and openness? And can we please do it with the goal of helping each other across the finish line? If that is our commitment, I believe God will use our time of mutual engagement to help us grow ever closer to His image and to the Kingdom yet to come.

–Mic Thurber is the RMC president. Email him at: [email protected]

28 Mar

SETTING THE STAKES OR REMAINING OPEN?

In

By Shawn Brace … One of the most heralded and influential theologians in nineteenth-century America was a man by the name of Charles Hodge. He taught at Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey, one of America’s most important schools of divinity, and was an architect of the so-called “Princeton theology.” An “Old School” Presbyterian who didn’t care for the revivalism that swept over America in the nineteenth century, Hodge was devoted to classic Calvinism and had a deep suspicion of and disdain for novel theology and religious expression.

Of all the things Hodge wrote and said, however, one passing statement, shared in 1872 at the fiftieth anniversary of his professorship at Princeton, has captivated my imagination the most. Looking back at his long tenure at the seminary, which began just a decade after its founding, Hodge boasted, without a hint of irony or embarrassment, that “Princeton had never been charged with originating a new idea.”

While perhaps given to a bit of hyperbole, Hodge viewed this as a badge of honor, of course. As a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, who believed it was his mission to preserve and defend the great verities that the Reformers had uncovered in the sixteenth century, Hodge looked with incredible suspicion at theological innovation.

I’d like to say that Adventism in the twenty-first century would not align with Charles Hodge. But I wonder.

Ironically, it was in this precise setting that Adventism arose. And their theological approach was diametrically opposed to Hodge’s. Just about every theological idea the small Advent movement recovered—from the sanctuary teaching to the state of the dead to the rejection of an ever-burning hell—was new and novel in the nine-teenth century. The early Adventist pioneers repeatedly went against the grain in their theological agenda, seeking to follow truth wherever it might lead, even if it was considered heretical to the mainstream.

They believed truth was ever advancing and that no idea should be rejected outright, but should be honestly evaluated in light of Scripture, come what may.

It was precisely for this reason that they committed themselves to “present truth” and strongly resisted the idea of setting their stakes in the doctrinal ground, zealously rejecting creeds and any move toward creedalism. Just 11 years before Hodge’s famous statement, the leaders of the fledging movement expressed that precise commitment.

Meeting together to decide if they wanted to organize, in what would ultimately become, perhaps ironically, the Michigan Conference, James White proposed that interested churches “associate together” under the name “Seventh-day Adventist,” covenanting merely to “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ.” That was literally the only thing a church had to affirm in order to come under the name “Seventh-day Adventist.”

And yet, despite this minimal requirement, James White sensed some resistance among those present, even as the motion passed. He therefore urged a “full and free discussion,” insisting that “the sisters” take “part in the vote” as well. In the ensuing discussion, various speakers expressed their support for the resolution, while James White himself played the devil’s advocate, noting that organizing might appear to some like they were “patterning” themselves after the churches of Babylon.

But then J. N. Loughborough came forward, proposing that it would not be like Babylon to organize by covenanting together, just as it wasn’t to set up “meeting-houses,” as they had done. The way a church could become like Babylon, he offered, was by setting up strict doctrinal parameters and carefully policing theology.

He then dropped this bomb, which has captured the Adventist imagination to varying degrees throughout our history: “The first step of apostasy,” he explained, “is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth, to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such.”

Loughborough was making it clear: Adventists believed in the continuing advancement of truth. They had no interest in shutting down doctrinal and theological discovery. God was still revealing more truth—“present truth”—to them, and they must be open to it, refusing to become settled in their views and making those views into a “creed” whereby they “denounce[d] as heretics” those who did “not believe that creed.” James White, for his part, fully affirmed Loughborough’s perspective. “Making a creed,” he said, “is setting the stakes, and barring up the way to all future advancement.”

It was clear for James White and J. N. Loughborough— and all Adventists of their day: foundational to the Adventist identity and mission was a belief that God was continuing to unfold the revelation of Himself. They must therefore be open to further truth, refusing to categorically close their ears and minds to diverging viewpoints, even if they challenged existing doctrine.

This was, of course, at odds with the program of Charles Hodge and others who constituted “Babylon” who believed the great task of the church was to simply bog down and guard orthodoxy at all costs.

Are we still open?

This historic openness to new light and disdain for creedalism has become a particularly intriguing topic for me. Soon after my local church started taking its missional calling more seriously, prioritizing incarnational living and personal discipleship, the history of anti creedalism within Adventism became more relevant and confrontational to me. What does it mean to be a part of a community? What are the parameters by which a person can belong? Do they have to check off all the doctrinal boxes that our church has insisted upon for the last 75 or so years? Are we truly open to “new light” and “present truth” anymore?

Such questions led to an intellectual crossroads for me, and I chose to make them the basis for doctoral research. I’ve been studying the history of anti-creedalism—not only in Adventism but other religious communities as well. And, as anyone who has ever pursued an advanced degree can tell you: it’s complicated.

Thus far, my research has led to more questions than answers. And it’s not as simple, it doesn’t seem to me, as just allowing an “anything goes” approach. I highly doubt, for example, that J. N. Loughborough or James White, as open as they were to varying perspectives, would have been enthusiastic about welcoming a dogmatic anti-Sabbatarian to preach from their pulpits Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath.

At the same time, even the most committed progressives in our day probably wouldn’t be excited about giving a platform to an anti-LGBT, pro-Trump, doomsday preacher. None of us, in the end, are so committed to anti-creedalism that we fully include anyone and everyone. There are, I think, some ideas worth protecting, and that’s where the rub comes.

But we need to at least acknowledge our history and recognize the tension. We need to get back to the doctrinal basics—being, perhaps, theological minimalists—and create a space where people can respectfully share their viewpoints, even if they seem novel, believing there is still more to discover (it seems to me that perhaps the attitude with which people hold and offer their perspective is more important than the perspective itself). Only then will we be truly Adventist.

–Shawn Brace is a pastor in Bangor, Maine, whose life, ministry, and writing focus on incarnational expressions of faith. The author of four books and a columnist for Adventist Review, he is also a DPhil student at the University of Oxford, focusing on nineteenth-century American Christianity. You can follow him on Instagram and Twitter @shawnbrace, and sign up for his weekly newsletter at:shawnbrace.substack.com

28 Mar

THE BEAUTY OF DIFFERENCE

In

By Reinder Bruinsma … Dutch Adventists are often described as rather liberal, but eating out on Sabbath has always been a no-no.

Great was their amazement when in 1995, tens of thousands of fellow believers descended upon the city of Utrecht for the General Conference session, and great numbers were seen to spread out all over the city on Sabbath in search of a restaurant. Those Adventists who have done a fair bit of traveling and have been in contact with church members in countries with different cultures have noticed that the praxis of Adventists varies considerably from place to place.

Nowadays, in most places, my wedding ring no longer causes offense, but when preaching in a rural church in Costa Rica, the pastor implored me not to create a problem in his church by wearing my ring. When I occasionally preach in the Ghanaian Adventist Church

in Amsterdam, my wedding band is no problem, but my wife’s simple necklace is frowned upon. To the dismay of many visiting fellow believers in Scandinavia, Adventists usually equate “low-alcoholic” with “non-alcoholic,” and the way some Australian pastors are dressed when they enter the pulpit would not go over well with most Adventist audiences elsewhere in the world. When serving for several years in tropical Africa, I learned that I must wear a tie and a jacket in church even when the temperature is in the upper eighties. This is what our African brothers and sisters were taught by western missionaries (from whom they also learned the still popular song: Whiter than snow, o Lord would I be!).

A world church must expect diversity

I could cite numerous other examples of how Adventist practices around the world vary, not just from country to country, but often from region to region within a country, and between population segments with different ethnic origins and cultures.

In her e-book From Sundown to Sundown, Dr. May-Ellen Colón, an assistant director of the Sabbath School and Personal Ministries department of the General Conference, compares Sabbath-keeping practices in fifty-one different countries. She concludes that, if you make a composite list of all things that in some places are deemed inappropriate to do on the Sabbath, and adopt that list, you can do virtually nothing, and if you make a similar list of all things that somewhere are considered okay, virtually nothing seems taboo!

Often people, when first confronted with practices elsewhere that would be frowned upon in their own Adventist milieu or when hearing and reading about customs that differ considerably from what they have grown up with and are used to, wonder how the church can remain united if we practice our faith in so many ways. Admittedly, there may be practices that are questionable in the light of some of the church’s teachings. But in most cases, we are dealing with culture and tradition rather than principle. In a church that has become truly global and has spread to almost all countries of the world, with countless differ- ent ethnicities and cultures represented, we must expect significant diversity in the way people translate their faith into everyday life. It means, in fact, that the church is alive. Enforcing total uniformity in the way people express their beliefs would not only be impossible, but also an unnatural sign of rigidity!

The reality of doctrinal differences

Some readers may react with a “so far, so good,” but would be adamant that diversity in the church must be restricted to practices and customs. They may agree that ethnic and cultural differences are acceptable in a global denomination such as ours, or maybe even enriching our community if we remain united in our theology. Adventists around the world should share, they say, the same approach to Scripture and the theology that results from this, as is expressed in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Well, the reality is quite different. Whether we like it or not, there is plenty of theological diversity in our church. In fact, this is not a recent development, but despite a growing consensus over time regarding our main teachings, diversity has existed from the beginning.

To say that the membership of the church is divided between conservatives and liberals is not very helpful. There are many shades of conservatism and many degrees of liberalism. Moreover, some are conservative in their theology, but not so in their lifestyle. And vice-versa. It may be better to speak of different streams or modalities. This is not unique to Adventists. As time has passed, most denominations have experienced the development

of different theological streams. This often led to schisms in faith communities, when the gaps between the various groups of believers became so wide that people felt they had no option but to go different ways. The Adventist Church is, in fact, quite an exception in that it has stayed together without many major secessions. Perhaps we could say that some of the independent ministries provide a haven for individuals and groups which feel that the denomination allows for too many voices which defend or even promote ideas that do not fit with traditional Adventist orthodox views.

What are some of the areas in which we see a diversity of theological opinion? In the first place, we do not all read the Bible in the same way. On the one hand, there are those who maintain that a “plain” reading of the Scriptures is the only safe way to find Truth, whereas others have a totally different view of inspiration. For many, it means that everything was created by God in “recent” times within a period of six literal days. But an increasing number of church members, while firmly believing that God is the Creator, argue that the Bible is not a book of science, but a book of faith and theology and that it does not inform us about the “how” of creation but about the meaning of creation.

It does not take much effort to detect that the relationship between faith and works is approached in different ways. There are those who are sure that sinful people, such as we admittedly are, can reach a state of sinless perfection, while others consider this a blasphemous idea. Much discussion (and, unfortunately, much controversy) divides Adventists about such topics as the true human nature of Christ, and the issue of the Trinity. Views about the prophecies which, together with the input of Ellen G. White, have shaped the traditional Adventist end-time scenario, are widely divergent. For some, the old-time views are as valid as ever, while others feel that a re-evaluation is a matter of urgency. Aspects of our sanctuary doctrine, about the ordination of female ministers, and about gender identity, are other hotly debated issues.

What to do?

Unfortunately, we often find that people have come to a particular conclusion and are no longer willing (or able?) to listen with an open mind to the standpoints of others. The doctrinal positions have led to a serious degree of polarization, dividing (in many minds) the members into “genuine” Adventists, who are loyal to the Truth, and “apostate” Adventists, who undermine the Adventist message and mission.

It would be unrealistic to deny that this doctrinal diversity does not pose a challenge for the denomination. Understandably, church leaders want to keep us all together; they want peace and emphasize that unity in our thinking and in the way we present our message is a prerequisite for maintaining a vigorous mission outreach. However, they must also face the sad reality that members (young and not so young) leave the church in droves, because they feel that their church has left them and no longer answers their questions and fails, to a large extent, to connect the Adventist faith with 21st-century life.

A faith community will inevitably become a museum if its major concern is to conserve the past. Instead, while traditional ways of understanding the Bible remain an important source of inspiration, in a living community, there must be an ever-ongoing search for a deeper understanding of what believing in Christ, and being an Adventist, means today and tomorrow. This process can create unrest and even a sense of uncertainty. Not all members will at any given time be on the same page and share in identical developments—including doctrinal development—and the church will not everywhere proceed in the same manner and at the same pace. Yes, a living community will be characterized by an underlying unity but will, at the same time, also exhibit diversity. The existence of different modalities in the church is not a sure sign of confusion and theological decay, but an inevitable, and even healthy, indication that the church is alive.

An acknowledgment that not all doctrines are equally important and that, perhaps, we should have fewer, rather than more, fundamental beliefs would reflect the thinking of a large number of (or possibly most) Adventists. Allowing for a responsible degree of academic freedom

for our theologians and for a measure of diversity in denominational publications, and for experimenting with non-traditional ways of being church, and with new ways of “translating” our message to reach new kinds of audiences—all these things certainly carry risks. But enforcing a one-and-only correct interpretation of what we consider to be biblical truth is no option—simply because experience has shown that this can never work!

Finally, one aspect must be highlighted. It is time to take another good look at global Adventism. We see strengths and weaknesses. We discern polarization and much theological diversity. However, if we analyze what is happening within the various “modalities,” we continue to see, behind all diversity, an underlying unity. We may think differently about the nature of Christ, but for all of us, Christ is the Lord and the “Author” of our salvation. We may keep the Sabbath in different ways, but we all continue to believe that the seventh-day Sabbath is a precious gift to mankind. We may disagree on aspects of end-time prophecies, but we are united in our conviction that “a great controversy” continues to rage and that history moves, maybe slowly, but surely, towards the climactic Coming of Christ. And this applies to most doctrines: we can gratefully acknowledge of a fundamental unity behind the significant diversity. Moreover, we must give one another the time and the space to grow in our understanding of biblical truth and be willing to learn from others as we prayerfully seek answers to our questions.

Keeping this in mind, we do not have to be obsessed— or even concerned—by the existence of modalities, but we can see the various theological streams as expressions of the rich Christian-Adventist experience that we want to share with people around us.

–Reinder Bruinsma, PhD, has served the Seventh-day Adventist Church in publishing, education, and church administration on three continents. He writes from the Netherlands where he lives with his wife Aafie. Among his latest books is I Have a Future: Christ’s Resurrection and Mine. Email him at: [email protected]

28 Mar

UNITY AND DIVERSITY IN THE SPACE OF GOD’S GRACE

In

By John Skrzypaszek …

Introduction

Gorden R. Doss defines the Church as a community where “God’s Kingdom is revealed as a foretaste of its full revelation at the Second Coming.” 1 In the space of God’s Kingdom of Grace, such a community moves beyond the terms of fixed definitions, for it represents a vibrant, diversified, pulsating organism “when its members exhibit God through gifts and graces of the Spirit.” 2 However, he warns that within the scope of life’s journey, the Church can lose the vision of its purpose, requiring that it be converted and reconverted to regain the essence of its significance. The narrative of the Seventh-day Adventist movement reflects the meandering nature of its calling and the prophetic voice’s guiding role.

Challenge

In the late 1800s and early 1900s—a time of transitional adjustments to life in a changing world—interpersonal conflicts, theological quarrels, and organizational and administrative tensions clouded the movement’s focus on its calling’s spiritual nature. This necessitates an injection of new motivation for life mirroring the principles of God’s Kingdom of Grace, nurturing creativity, broad-mindedness, tolerance, and a unified diversity of thought. In Ellen G. White’s understanding, the underlying problem rested in the movement’s separation from the primary source of spiritual life—Jesus: “We need to fix the eye of faith upon the cross and believe that Jesus is our strength, our salvation.” 3

Within the prevailing milieu of theological frictions and authoritarian leadership, she urged the Church to focus on God’s vision: “God called for unity in diversity among his people.” 4 She also argued, “In the branches of the vine, there is unity in diversity. There is a variety in a tree; scarcely two leaves are just alike. And this variety adds to the perfection of the tree as a whole.” The used metaphor underscored the missing element of the movement’s pursuits: “In all the representation of truth by different minds, there is to be unity in diversity.” 5 One may ask: Why were Ellen G. White’s appeals so relevant to the Church’s progressive growth?

First, the Church had lost its original spiritual vibrancy and cohesiveness that flourished on the foundations of love and expectations of Christ’s return. Recalling the intense depth of the experience, she mused, “None who experienced this hope and trust can ever forget those precious hours of waiting.” 6 The genuine faith-oriented conviction of Christ’s return elicited a passionate, united commitment in sharing the news. 7

Second, in the aftermath of the failed expectations, the shattered dream forced the surviving Adventists to search for self-understanding concerning past experiences. It also challenged them to define themselves regarding the future.8 The consequential nexus encompassing the past and future laid the foundations for a collaborative, interactive, open-minded field of creativity immersed in two essential elements: conviction and a search for meaning. More significantly, it generated an all-inclusive ambiance for diversified views, openness to a progressive understanding of God’s revelation, and a relevant response to the nation’s social problems.9

However, preoccupation with self-understanding, engrossed in the correctness of doctrinal expressions, led to what, in contemporary terms, may be referred to as cultural tribalism, which Onongha defines as “unswerving loyalty to one’s group—usually to the detriment of other persons or groups.” 10 He describes tribalism’s essence in terms of superiority, pride, suspicion, and destructive criticism. One may add authoritarian leadership and judgmental attitudes—characteristics contrary to the principles of God’s kingdom of Grace. Such prevailing attitudes enhanced cultural distancing and contributed to a deeply fractious and unsettling spiritual landscape within the community of believers.

No wonder that in 1888, Ellen G.White issued a stern warning: “The correct interpretation of the Scriptures is not all that God requires. He enjoins upon us that we should not only know the truth…We are to bring into our practice, in our association with our fellowmen, the spirit of Him who gave us the truth.” 11 In response to the prevailing crisis, Ellen G. White’s voice challenged the Church to recapture the spiritually multi-focal vision of God’s Kingdom of Grace flowing from the hub of a creative collaboration between conviction and an unceasing search for meaning.

Reorientation

In the 1900s, her distinctive call for spiritual reorientation expanded in three significant areas. She advocated a change in the philosophy of mission, a visionary status of identity, and a creatively progressive application of the principles of God’s Kingdom of Grace in the changing world.

In its early phase, the movement’s missional consciousness rested on the proclamation of distinctive doctrines.

In the 1900s, Ellen G. White challenged the Church to engage in the mission in a fully inclusive way, “not merely by preaching, but by the deeds of loving ministry.” 12 She extended the appeal to pastors, medical doctors, nurses, teachers, students, and people from every profession and walk of life. Recognizing the value of human life, gifted with a God-empowered variety of talents, she encouraged the Church to contextualize and adapt the life-inspiring distinctiveness of a Christ-centered message to people’s needs—not from a distant proclamation, but the proximity of everyday life. 13 In this respect, her messages focused on the inspirational vision of service to God through every facet of life.

This all-inclusive call demanded a new reorientation and visionary acumen of identity—not in the realm of doctrinal beliefs, but one that stemmed from a spiritual relationship with Jesus. Undoubtedly, a personal, faith-oriented walk with Jesus weaves a softening influence from God’s love into the fabric of one’s unique individuality. She argued, “God has given each of us an identity of our own, which cannot be merged in that of another.” 14 It is evident that Ellen G. White linked identity with the “religion of Christ,” meaning “the reflection of the spirit of Christ’s life.” 15 In other words, a relational, faith-oriented commitment to Jesus restores one’s uniqueness and value for a creative engagement with the world.

Practical Application

Conversely, a contemporary writer, Frost, suggests that preoccupation with self, whether individual or institutional, immobilizes the freedom to “step outside oneself to rethink, re-imagine, and re-describe larger reality.” 16

As shown in the diagram to the right, Ellen G. White’s visionary reorientation placed the hub of the movement’s identity in the life-changing fulcrum of God’s Kingdom of Grace. In this space, trust and commitment to God, as revealed in the Bible, enhance openness to the process of modification and renewal expressed in faith relevant to its time and place. This process commences with an individual response to one’s journey with Jesus, then spreads its wings of attraction to homes, churches, institutions— finally overflowing with the world’s needs.

In her view, identity moves beyond knowledge-oriented, argumentative convictions to what she defines as a “practical religion,” 17 i.e., one that enhances unity, but not conformity: “Many people may be brought together in a unity of religious faith whose opinions, habits, and tastes in temporal matters are not in harmony, but if they have a love of Christ glowing in their hearts, and are looking forward to the same heaven as their eternal home, they may have the sweetest and most intelligent communion together and a unity the most wonderful.” 18 Moreover, it sanctions creative interpretation of God’s revelation in an atmosphere of mutual respect and kindness.

Ellen G.White also envisioned a similar purpose for institutional identity. Institutions and organizations were to maintain individuality, while simultaneously living in harmonious relational unity with other entities: “Union with one another comes through union with Christ. In Him, each institution is united to every other while at the same time, its identity is not merged in that of another.” 19 Free of self-oriented love, they were to engage in the harmonious task of expanding God’s mission in the world. In Ellen G. White’s mind, the harmonized unity between individual identity and the bond of togetherness embraces more than an exercise in semantics and a build-up of territorial comfort zones: “The world needs to see worked out before it the miracle that binds the hearts of God’s people together in Christian love.” 20

The united effort to live out God’s dream provides the freedom to search for new meanings, renewals, modifications, and creative expressions of faith without fear, for as Ellen G. White expressed, “Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator—individuality, power to think and to do.” 21 In this respect, her visionary motivation inspired the Church to re-imagine a robust future confidently as “thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men’s thoughts.” She spoke against the movement’s progress in terms of status quo or, as suggested by Frost, a “retreat into some fundamentalist us-vs.-them model.” 22

As early as 1892, her words challenged the church leaders: “There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed and that all our expositions of the Scripture are without an error.

The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not proof that our ideas are infallible” 23 In her mind, unity in diversity finds its locum in the creative vibrancy of God’s space, in which individual minds are united in the bond of togetherness and mutual respect “under the Great Head as branches are united to the vine.” 24 Consequently, the healing power of God’s grace empowers thought leaders and trendsetters to dream of God’s dreams and provide an innovative leadership pathway.

It may be concluded that the nature of Ellen G. White’s spiritual reorientation challenged the Church to join God’s presence in human suffering to create a space of safety and attraction raised on the foundations of His incomprehensible love and grace—making room for unreserved convictions and an ongoing search for meaning.

— John Skrzypaszek, DMin, a retired director of the Ellen G. White/ Seventh-day Adventist Research Centre, is an adjunct senior lecturer at Avondale University College, Coranboong, NSW, Australia. Polish by birth, John takes a keen interest in heritage, spirituality, and identity studies. He is married to Brenda and has two sons, Raphael and Luke. Email him at: [email protected]

 

1 Gorden R. Doss, Introduction to Adventist Mission (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 2018), 82.
2 Ibid.
3 Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, August 15, 1882.
4 Ellen G. White, Ms105, 1900.
5 Ibid.
6 Ellen G. White, Testimony for the Church, Vol 1 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948), 51.
7 Ellen G. White, Life Sketches (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1915), 54.
8 Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream (Bloomigton, IN: Indiana University Press, 2007), 39.
9 Douglas Morgan, “Society” in Ellen Harmon White, American Prophet, Edt, Terrie Dopp Aamodt, Terrie Dopp., Ronald L. Numbers (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014), 224.
10 Kevin Onongha, “Toxic Tribalism” Adventist World https://www.adventistworld.org/toxic-tribalism/
11 Ellen G. White, Letter 20, 1888.
12 Ellen G. White, Ms7, 1908.
13 Ellen G. White, Ms87,1907.
14 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1848), 539.
15 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 4 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1848), 65.
16 Michael Frost, Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 9.
17 E. G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3 ((Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1848),197.
18 E.G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 4 ((Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1848), 65.
19 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 7 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1848), 171.
20 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 9 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1848), 188.
21 Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1903), 17.
22 Frost, Exiles, 10.
23 Ellen G. White, Review Herald, December 20, 1892.
24 Ellen G. White, Ms 158, 1898.

28 Mar

LIVING INTO TRUTH

In

By Barry Casey … One of the things that enlivens any gathering of Adventists is the flow of stories about their upbringing. There will be stories about polishing shoes for Sabbath on Friday afternoons or cleaning the house or what could or couldn’t be done on Sabbath afternoon. Some will raise memories of Sabbath School, others of falling asleep to the bedtime stories of Uncle Arthur and of the change from the Youth’s Instructor to Insight.

These are origin stories, something like a personal Genesis of Adventism. We would be incomplete without them, both as individuals and as a community. Were we to do this ritual in any country in the world with fellow Adventists, we would hear continuity and disjunction, common themes as well as all the particularities of place and time, gender, ethnicity, and language? As has been pointed out many times, Adventists are wonderfully diverse.

Diversity within Adventism brings its own tensions: witness the painful struggle to come to terms with our sons and daughters in the LGBTQ+ community. Progress toward equality for women arrives in fits and starts, especially concerning women in leadership, including pastorships and the ordination that should accompany it. Racial inequality continues to shake our foundations, challenging the assumptions of the North American church.

It’s the assumptions that undermine us. Most of the time they are hidden, like foundation stones, and as long as the house stands upright, everything at right angles, they rest unchallenged. But when the house begins to sink and tilt, we dig down around the foundations and hope that it’s not too late for major repairs.

As they relate to diversity of thought within the church, there are two assumptions I have had to examine for myself.

The first is the construct that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is playing a unique and decisive role in history, that it will stand forth as the hinge upon which the whole universe will turn.

This was so much a part of my religious education that I saw no reason to question it until I began to read and study other world faiths and traditions. Then it became clearer that in order to maintain this unique position, it was necessary to believe that other religious traditions were either victims or perpetrators of deception. Our unique role was to save the victims from their deception and refute the deceivers.

The questions I had were about the certainty of our interpretation of the Bible and of prophecy, and whether the Holy Spirit was exclusive to our domain. In time I came to see that our truth claims could be understood from different perspectives, not all of them asserting that we had sole rights to The Truth.

It seemed likely that the emphases on the beauty and creativity of the Sabbath, the assurance of the Second Advent, and the importance of caring for the body, mind, and spirit, were recollections of resistance to a materialistic and despairing world. They offered practical ways to live from a stance of hopefulness. Our remembering and living out of this resistance were our contribution to humanity. These modest truths were among the many ways the Spirit had lifted up truth in the history of Christianity.

These truths that we hold in humility and exercise in grace do not—and should not—keep us from enjoying and benefiting from the rich traditions of other Christian traditions and other faiths. Every religion has something of value to share with us among a long history of practice. We can work alongside them, enjoy their worship, and be in fellowship with them. We may learn through comparison and contrast: the similarities will strengthen us; the differences will cause us to test our own assumptions.

The second assumption I continue to examine is related to the previous one. If the first singled us out from all of humanity, the second assumption, exclusivity, is the result of the first. It’s not something entirely within our control. Paul calls us to live sober lives, to live according to the Spirit and not the flesh. Yet, Jesus calls us to be light and salt and yeast in the world, to immerse ourselves in our communities and to be present to others. We are fallible humans attempting to be faithful disciples.

This is one of those fruitful tensions in the Christian life—how to be in the world and not of the world. I think it begins with humility and is sustained through grace. Before we are Christians, we are humans: fallen beings of glorious potential. We are part of the human race, subject to all its failings, horrors, despair, and fallibility. Humility is the proper response to these limitations; grace is the means to live with them.

This does away with triumphalism and the arrogance of “Onward, Christian Soldiers.” It calls us to avoid the prosperity gospel in all its forms and its opposite, a martyr complex that results in paranoia. We are here on this earth, and we have been called to God’s kingdom. We live in that tension.

This tension speaks of the most basic and most pernicious assumption, the one we rarely confront: that diversity as a fact within Adventism is an obstacle and a hindrance to uniformity. But that is a discussion for another time.

Practically speaking, living within that tension blurs the line between the so-called “sacred” and “secular.” As Jesus said to the Samaritan women, we will worship neither in Jerusalem nor in Samaria, but in the Spirit—a portable worship within the world. Like Jesus, we do this in order to speak and to listen to those who are unlike ourselves. This is hard. This is something I shrink from, even as I am curious and hungering to know how others think and act. But these metaphors of salt, light, and yeast are the very templates of life in Jesus’ kingdom.

The experiences we live are the currency of human communication. The experiences of others—written, spoken, lived out, viewed—are our textbooks for life. But I should amend that: to call them “textbooks” connotes a fixed curriculum, a grade, and a final result. They are more likely points of contact between people and imply a presence that lingers, overcoming distance, time, and prejudice. It is through this presence, a voice and a spirit, that we grasp by analogy what it means to worship God in spirit and in truth.

If our experiences of God in Christ mean anything, they will come to us as we are immersed in our lives of doing laundry, sitting in traffic, and trying to understand and be understood by others. God is God overall. This continual act of translation between the inward work of the Spirit and our outward life with others invites suppleness and receptivity rather than isolation and exclusiveness.

The most authentic response to the Spirit I can make every day is to recognize the risen Christ in the midst of the buzzing, blooming confusion of life. The work of the Spirit is to lead me into truth, not once for all, but continually, day by day, for life.

–Barry Casey taught religion, philosophy, and communication for 37 years in Maryland and Washington, D.C. He is now retired and writing in Burtonsville, Maryland. More of the author’s writing can be found on his blog, Dante’s Woods. His first collection of essays, Wandering, Not Lost, was recently published by Wipf and Stock. Email him at: [email protected]

28 Mar

A LOYAL ADVENTIST: SKEPTIC, HERETIC, AND REBEL

In

By Mark Johnson … “Why are you so loyal to the Church?”

This question was recently asked of me by my father, whose journey into and out of Adventism over a 97-year period makes an interesting case study.

He was not being critical or cynical. He was not necessarily being complimentary. He was just comparing the similarities and differences in our experiences with the organization.

I had no ready answer for him but after some thought,

I have concluded that there is one main reason why I have remained in the Church while he has chosen to leave. He was raised in an era when Adventists were not “allowed” to ask questions, and I was blessed with parents, pastors, and teachers who encouraged them (my father was led to believe the Church wouldn’t, or couldn’t, seriously address his issues and concerns, while I have discovered a robust and cohesive theology, hidden away in Adventist teachings, that makes a great deal of sense to me).

Paradoxically, while my father marvels at my loyalty, others have wondered if I am a real Adventist.

A church is recognized by its beliefs and behaviors. Beliefs are determined through the processes of exegesis and hermeneutics, and these beliefs then lead to certain behaviors among the members. Those who doubt a church’s use of exegesis and hermeneutics, are skeptics. If one disagrees with a church’s beliefs, they are a heretic. If one flouts a church’s behaviors, they are rebellious.

Rebels send the message to the youth and weaker members of a church that the rules of the carefully cultivated lifestyle are irrelevant. This threatens social disintegration. Thus, the community must act to stigmatize dissent.

But it is so easy to be a rebel in the Adventist Church! There are so many rules to break!

As a young man growing up in a small-town Adventist church and school, I subconsciously categorized my class- mates’ families by how strictly they adhered to the Adventist “blueprint.” The best Adventist families had a mother and a father who were still in their first marriage; they did not, however, wear wedding rings to prove it, nor did they wear any jewelry; they claimed to believe in the Bible as the only rule of faith, but they also tended to include the writings of Ellen G. White; they regularly attended and actively participated in the weekly church services; they did not work, eat out, or do anything personally pleasurable on Sabbath; they did not go to the theater, nor did they dance; they had daily family worship, reading from the annual Adventist devotional books and the Sabbath School lesson quarterlies; they were vegetarian; they did not smoke; they did not drink alcohol, coffee, tea or cola; the females dressed modestly and behaved with appropriately-subdued decorum; the males had crewcut or flat-top haircuts and took strong leadership roles; the children went to Adventist schools; they denied being legalistic, but the attitude of “give me another law and I’ll keep it,” was frequently encountered; and, those of appropriate age voted a straight (in both meanings of the word) Republican ticket (I did not meet an Adventist who was openly a Democrat until I was in college, or a gay or lesbian Adventist until many years later).

Unconditional and disinterested love was a concept we heartily endorsed, but just as vigorously ignored.

The clearest way to express rebellion in the Church was by smoking. Alcohol use was a close second. These behaviors essentially signaled to other members that you no longer wished to be considered an Adventist. Many of the rest of the rules could be breached in ways that conveyed individuality without showing an unacceptable level of open defiance. In those halcyon days of communal naivete, one could retain membership, though draw a great deal of criticism, by wearing earrings, or short skirts, or Beatle-length hair, or by swimming on Sabbath, or publicly drinking a CokeTM or going to see something like The Sound of Music in a movie theater.

Over time, the level of rebelliousness attributed to various questionable behaviors waxed and waned. In college, the stigma of movie-going had become rather passé, but the length of my hair was of very great concern. Also, the attitudes and guidelines around sexual behaviors took on a much greater emphasis.

Heresy takes more work than rebellion. It begins with a skeptical attitude of doubt, but it requires a fairly in-depth understanding of doctrine to achieve. For Adventists, the most common source of heresy is uncertainty surrounding inspiration. While several pastors have told me one does not need to believe in the inspired writings of Ellen G. White to be a good Adventist, her pronouncements are so intertwined in our basic beliefs and doctrines that it is a very difficult position to balance successfully. It has been my experience that most members who lose faith in the inspiration of Ellen G. White eventually see little reason to remain in the denomination.

While many members may rebel against the apparently rigid rules found in some of Ellen G. White’s writings, I believe that true heretical dissent in the Church comes mainly from a resistance to her views of what happened on the cross. C. S. Lewis stated that “The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter.” I would argue that theories as to why Christ had to die are also important matters.

In large part, it is these atonement models that separate denominations from one another and differentiate heresy from orthodoxy in the Adventist Church. While many of us may focus on those things that we think make us different, such as our beliefs on a recent creation, the gift of prophecy, Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary, the meaning of the Sabbath, the nature of man in death, the role of the remnant and the end of sinners, I believe the crux (Latin for “cross”) of the problem that ultimately divides us is what we believe happened on the cross and why.

I do not have the space here to explore the various atonement models, but suffice it to say, it has been

my experience that most evangelical Christians and Adventists agree that the importance of the cross is that by shedding His blood, Christ somehow bought forgiveness from sin for those who accept His sacrifice, thus granting them a path to eternal salvation and keeping them from the fires of hell. This is basic Reformation theology, and it may be wonderfully good news for sinners.

My reading of the Bible, Ellen G. White, and some leading Adventist theologians, however, has led me in a slightly different direction. It has been called a heretical direction by some. I believe that my personal salvation is not of primary importance to the rest of the universe. It was not the principal reason for Christ’s mission to earth. It is, however, a wonderful by-product of His infinite goodness. Christ came primarily to reveal and vindicate the character of God. This needed to be done to answer the questions that had led to the rebellion of sin in the first place: Can God be trusted? Does He truly love His creatures? Does sin really lead to death? What is God’s role in the death of sinners? Are His methods and motives as benevolent as He claims them to be? Can the universe truly be governed on the principle of love? What difference does it make why we obey Him, just as long as we do?

The problem, as I see it, is not with our fundamental beliefs. It is in how we emphasize and present them.

Every Adventist I know claims to love Jesus and supports justification by the righteousness of Christ as revealed on the cross and agrees that the preeminence of the character of God is vital and sees the importance of an orderly universe governed by the laws of God, including the Sabbath.

But there are at least two streams of Adventism. Each stream accepts our fundamental beliefs but presents a very different picture to the world of what we claim to believe. One group appears to value mercy and the unconditional, disinterested love of God for all fallen humanity. They believe that the truth spoken in love is God’s only instrument of persuasion and healing. The other group appears to worship a God of fearful judgment. They believe that the truth presented with terrifying images of apocalyptic beasts and final destruction is the best way to achieve conversions.

While our theology must account for both mercy and judgment, we do not worship a two-faced God. Fear is used to manipulate and control. Love casts out fear. Skep- tic, rebel, and heretic that I am, count me in the group that believes in unconditional love, even in judgment.

–Mark Johnson, MD, is a retired public health physician and the chairman of the Boulder Vision Board. Email him at: [email protected]

1 … 92 93 94 95 96 … 237