Reinder Bruinsma Page 2

23 Jun

HOW DO MY BELIEFS MATTER IN REAL LIFE?

In

By Reinder Bruinsma … It was more than twenty years ago, but it is an experience I will not easily forget. I received a message with an urgent request. Would I please come and visit brother Jones (not his real name)? He was terminally ill and was eager to see me before he would die. Our brother was a member of one of the Adventist churches in Amsterdam, but I was not his pastor. I was, at the time, in charge of the Dutch Adventist publishing house. So, I wondered why my visit was important to our brother.

I knew who brother Jones was, but, frankly, I did not like him. He was one of those persons who are always right in their interpretation of the Bible, who always wants to have the last word in Sabbath School, and who knows exactly how a real Adventist should live.

But what could I do? I went to see him the day after receiving the message. When admitted to the room where he lay in his bed, he wanted no one else to be present. He told me to look under the bed for a tin box. When I found it, he instructed me to open it and to look inside. I saw a pack of 1000 guilder notes. (This was before we had the Euro.) “You may use this for your ministry,” I was told.

Somehow, I knew instinctively that something did not add up. I therefore asked my treasurer to put the money in the safe. I wanted to know where the money had come from before we would use it. Brother Jones lived for about three more weeks and during a few pastoral visits, the local pastor discovered how brother Jones had acquired the 30,000 guilders (worth about 15,000 dollars at the time). Just a few months earlier, brother Jones’ older sister had died. He had been appointed to care for her estate. Her savings were in the tin box that I had been given. The sister of our brother was a Roman Catholic, and she had left instructions that the money should go to her parish church. But, brother Jones, being a truth-filled, prophecy-loving, Catholic-hating Adventist, did not want to see any money go into the “Babylonian coffers” of the Catholic Church. He knew a much better destination and decided to re-route the money.

Of course, I made sure the money ended up with the local Catholic parish. However, the experience made a deep impression on me. Here was a church member who was convinced of the truth of every syllable of the Fundamental Beliefs, who was an avid reader of all the Ellen G. White books that had been published in the Dutch language, and who would spend a good number of hours every week in mining all the “present truth” from the Sabbath School lesson quarterlies—but what good had it done him? On his deathbed, this one hundred percent ultra-orthodox Adventist was prepared to lie and cheat. Of course, it was for the good of “the work of God”, but it was despicable deception, nonetheless.

It’s time to find out what difference it makes

The experience with brother Jones inspired me to write a little book. It was published by Pacific Press, and the editor who guided the manuscript through the pre-press process, gave it one of the longest titles in recent Adventist publishing history: It’s Time to Stop Rehearsing What We Believe and Start Looking at What Difference It Makes. The experience with brother Jones has stayed with me. I asked myself the question: How can one be so religious and so focused on being doctrinally correct, and yet, at the same time, so blatantly ignore the moral principles of the kingdom of our Lord? Is it possible that we constantly ‘rehearse” our doctrinal beliefs, but that this remains a useless exercise and makes no difference in how we live?

I decided to take another good look at each of the Fundamental Beliefs—27 at that time; the 28th would be added in 2005—and to ask in each case: What difference does it make in my every-day life that I believe this? It became a fascinating exercise. I must admit that there are a few Fundamental Beliefs that did not seem to make very much difference in daily life, whatever way I looked at them. But I was determined to find some element that made a difference. For if a doctrine does not make any difference in the Christian praxis, it might as well be eliminated from the list.

Let me just mention a few examples. Fundamental Belief No. 3 is about God as our heavenly Father. So, I asked: How does a better understanding of the Fatherhood of God help me to be a better father for my children? Belief No. 4 is about Jesus Christ. This raised the question: How does a better grasp of who Jesus was help me to become a person who resembles Him? How will becoming aware of how Jesus broke with traditions as He served the people He met, give me the courage to be a non-traditional person in my support for others. Belief No. 10 deals with the Sabbath. Worshipping on the seventh rather than on the first day of the week surely makes me different from all the other fifty or so people who live in our apartment building. But does the experience of celebrating the Lord’s Day add an extra dimension to my life? Does it not only make me stand out from the crowd, but does it make a difference for me by importing divine peace into my busy life, and by providing me with the unique time slot that I need to cultivate my relationship with God, with my loved ones, and with God’s creation?

Wrestling with this pivotal question, what real-life difference my doctrinal beliefs make was extremely meaningful for me, but, apparently, it also struck a chord with many readers. This small book brought me more reactions than anything else I wrote before or after. Again, and again, people wrote me or told me that what I had written had given their faith a real boost and had made their religion into something more than a set of religious teachings to which one is supposed to give intellectual assent.

“The truth will set you free”

In John 8: 31 we read how Jesus is in a conversation with a group of Jews “who had believed him.” Jesus tells them that they will be real disciples of His if they “hold” to his teachings. Then follows a crucial statement, when Jesus declares: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (vs. 32). Note that the truth will not simply give additional information, and that it does not just satisfy our intellectual curiosity. No, the truth will do something very special for us. It will set us free. It will make us a better person. It will make us more balanced, more tolerant, more outgoing and more content. How? Because it is that the kind of truth that comes from Above and is, first, personal, and relational. This is what Jesus underlined when He told his disciples: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. Knowing Jesus is not limited to knowing about Jesus. It is more than theological learning and more than saying “yes” to several Fundamental Beliefs. Knowing Him is having a personal relationship with Him; it is being guided by the hand of our heavenly brother (Hebrews 2:11).

The apostle Paul is the foremost theologian of the New Testament. At times, his theology is rather complicated. Even Peter acknowledged that Paul’s “letters contain some things that are hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). But for Paul, theology as a system of beliefs—important though it may be—never stands by itself. We consistently find in his letters that Paul’s theology is translated into praxis. The question “What is the content of our faith?” is linked to the question, “How does our faith change us into a better human being, in the service of others?

Perhaps the Letter to the Ephesians illustrates this principle most clearly. After having given a theological explanation of what “living in Christ” means and underlining the importance of unity in the Body of Christ, Paul switches gears and urges the believers in Ephesus to live as children of the light: “Be imitators of God . . . and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us, and gave himself up for us, as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (5:1). In the remainder of the letter, there follows lot of advice that guides us in our various relationships. Or, if you want another example of how faith is linked to praxis, go to the Letter to the Colossians. Some issues in the earlier part of this letter continue to puzzle many theological minds, but then the apostle focuses “on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (3:10).

God will judge our brother Jones. He may well have possessed some redeeming qualities that I did not detect. But he helped me to look beyond truth as a system of theological statements to Truth as a relationship with Jesus Christ, which gives meaning to my life as I continue to “grow in Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).

–Reinder Bruinsma, PhD, has served the Seventh-day Adventist Church in publishing, education, and church administration on three continents. He recently received a royal decoration for his contributions to the life of the church and to society. His forthcoming new book is about the how, when, and why of the Second Coming of Christ. He writes from the Netherlands where he lives with his wife Aafie. Email him at: [email protected]

29 Mar

WE NEED A FRIEND NOT AN ENEMY

In

By Reinder Bruinsma … Some twenty years ago, I attended a meeting in Miami about evangelistic strategies organized by the leaders of the Inter-American Division. In most countries in that part of the world, the majority of the population belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. To my surprise, one of the top leaders of that division appealed to the participants to be much less aggressive in their attempts to “convert” Roman Catholics to Adventism. He argued that by constantly criticizing the leaders of the Catholic Church in the evangelistic programs, we lay the basis for, or reinforce, a critical attitude, which the new members are likely to maintain once they have joined the Adventist denomination.

I doubt whether this strong advice led to any major change because many of the evangelists in Inter-America and elsewhere continue to use confrontational tactics to get the attention of their audience. This may well contribute to the unfortunate reality that for many Adventists the ideal of defending the Truth implies aggressively confronting “the enemy,” who supposedly is bent on destroying God’s Truth and will, ultimately, fiercely attack those who have accepted and defend that Truth. In traditional Adventist thinking, the enemy is first and foremost found in the Roman Catholic tradition, but also in other Christian movements that have adopted some of the Catholic dogmas—Sunday keeping being, of course, paramount among these.

Where Did This Come From?

Not all Adventists think alike. Some feel that the time has come to end all bashing of other Christians, Catholics included. Others believe that protecting our Seventh-day Adventist identity, as the commandment-keeping remnant church, requires that we carefully maintain our traditional stance. No doubt, this discussion will continue, but it may be useful for a better understanding of the issue if we look at its historical context.

To say that early Adventism was rather combative in character would be a strong understatement. Admittedly, nineteenth century Adventists needed to be combative in the world in which they lived. The denomination began when a number of small groups of (mainly) former Millerite believers started to hold meetings, studied their Bibles and gradually reached consensus about a number of biblical truths that the members of other denominations regarded as totally unfounded or even as horrible heresy. During the first decades of their emerging movement Adventists were usually viewed as weird and not as bona fide Christians. In particular, their conviction that God wanted them to keep the seventh-day Sabbath rather than Sunday—which they denounced as a “popish” invention—created a lot of opposition.

As the nineteenth century progressed, a strong movement emerged that wanted to make America “a Christian nation.” One key element in this process would be legally enforced Sunday worship. As a result, several states enacted “blue” laws that made Sunday keeping obligatory. As this occurred, in several places Seventh-day Adventist were fined or even incarcerated for disobeying these laws. Ever since, there have been attempts from various political and religious groups in the United States (and in some places in Europe) to enforce Sunday keeping. And ever since, Adventists have feared that one day these tenacious attempts will succeed and make life for Sabbath keepers very uncomfortable indeed.

The Influx of Millions of Catholics

Also, as the years went by, the growing strength of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States was seen as an immense threat. Originally the United States was staunchly Protestant. From a mere 50,000 Catholic believers in 1800, they had increased to 200,000 by 1820 and 2 million by 1860. And by the turn of the century, the number of American Catholics stood at 12 million (in a total population of 76 million). No wonder this created a lot of uneasiness. Moreover, it was widely believed that some countries exported their most undesirable citizens. Also, the newly arrived immigrants were often prepared to work for lower wages and this was considered unfair competition on the labor market. But what was perhaps even more important: people feared that the ultimate loyalty of these Roman Catholic newcomers would be to the pope rather than to American democracy. Perhaps the anti-Catholic sentiment of that time among Protestants in general, and Adventists in particular, can be compared to the resistance of many people of Western countries today to the arrival of large numbers of Muslims.

As the nineteenth century changed into the twentieth century, most of the strongly anti-Catholic sentiment among Protestants had gradually disappeared. But not so among Seventh-day Adventists. Their prophet—Ellen G. White—had developed a five-volume series of books about the conflict between good and evil. The books covered the Bible times, while also sketching the story throughout the Christian era. In her depiction of the history of Christianity, Ellen White vividly described the high points of faith and commitment and the low points of moral decay, the unbiblical notions and rebellion against God. As we look back and try to see her work in the context of the time in which she lived and wrote, we easily understand how for her—in her context—the Roman Catholic Church became the culprit par excellence. Her book The Great Controversy, which appeared in its more or less definite form in 1888, did not, however, significantly differ in its criticism of Catholicism from that of many other contemporary Protestant authors.

Ellen G. White was part of a nineteenth-century Protestant American environment, which differed greatly from our present globalized, multi-religious and multi- cultural world. Quite naturally, she saw Roman Catholicism as an ever-growing menace. It should also be noted that her thinking, in line with the attitude of most of her contemporaries, was almost exclusively focused on what happened in the United States and in Europe. She had very little to say about spiritual developments in other parts of the world or about the non-Christian world religions. In all her printed works one can only find a handful of references to Islam!

The Great Controversy Theme Is as Valid As Ever

What does this mean for Seventh-day Adventists in 2021? Does this mean that all traditional Adventist criticism of Roman Catholic dogma and Catholic history must be forgotten? And do I want to suggest that Ellen White’s The Great Controversy has totally lost its value? Certainly not. The fundamental theme of The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan is, and remains, a fundamental aspect of Adventist theology and of its perspective on past, present and future. However, we must try to discover how the principles of this basic philosophy apply to our current situation.

Looking with twenty-first century eyes at Ellen White’s The Great Controversy, we may wonder whether she might have changed her appraisal of Roman Catholicism if she were still alive today. In fact, already during her life, with her express approval, the anti-Catholic rhetoric of her book was toned down, as the 1911 edition shows. But, apart from this, just as the Bible needs to be interpreted to make sense for us who live so many centuries later, this is also required when we read the works of Ellen White. The trouble is that we may find this rather self-evident when we read the Bible, but many forget that this principle also applies to our reading of Ellen White. When I read in the Ten Commandments that I should not “covet” my neighbor’s donkey, I understand that, for me, that means that I should not look with jealousy at my neighbor’s Jaguar. And, even though some Bible texts clearly condone slavery, we do not take this as a recommendation for us but fit this into the biblical context.

The “great controversy” is still a very relevant theme, but in our time, it may play out in a way that differs substantially from what Ellen White and her contemporaries experienced and then extrapolated into the future. An important part of their future expectations was the prediction that Sunday laws would soon be enacted on a global scale. Today, there are still many church members who expect that a coalition of Catholics and (especially American) politicians will use some, as yet unforeseen, opportunity to put these Sunday laws into effect. This will then, it is argued, be the beginning of a series of actions which will eventually make life unbearable for Sabbath keepers, culminating in terrible persecution and even a “death decree.”

It has often been said that it is difficult to make predictions, especially when they concern the future. This certainly also applies to this matter of Sunday laws. Global enforcement of such laws might have been a credible future panorama, but as we look at currents in our contemporary society, this looks highly unlikely. All around us we notice that interest in a weekly day of rest and worship has been waning, with no signs that this trend will be reversed.

We must come to terms with the undeniable fact that the Western world is no longer dominated by Catholics who are bent on destroying Protestants—and especially Seventh-day Adventists. Today, the main threat to the Adventist Church does not come from other Christians, but from the rampant secularism that has pushed God to the margins of our society, while non-Christian religions and sheer paganism are constantly gaining territory. Let us remember that in plotting the prophetic scenario we have often been overtaken by actual events in the world. It remains to be seen how the great controversy will eventually take shape.

Hope

Finally, our Adventist hope cannot be based on a triumphant conviction that we belong to a movement which claims loyal adherence to biblical truth, over and against all those who are part of the machinery of the arch-enemy. Our hope is based on Jesus Christ, who has already defeated the enemy for us. In following Him, we must not be propelled by aggressive combativeness against what we consider false teachings, but by love for our Lord and for all people around us, without regard to their religious persuasion. After all, although we hope that many will feel attracted to our faith community, our ultimate mission is to “win” them not for our church but for Christ! They need a Friend, not an enemy.

— 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 is latest books is “I Have a Future: Christ’s Resurrection and Mine. Email him at: [email protected]

05 Jan

ACTING JUSTLY, LOVING MERCY, AND WALKING HUMBLY

In

By Reinder Bruinsma — During the recent Annual Council of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, some 300 participants from all around the world voted two official statements. One of these expressed the church’s continued confidence in the ministry of Ellen G. White. It was agreed to put this on the agenda for the next World Session of the General Conference of the Church in Indianapolis (May 2021) for endorsement by the world church.

The other official statement was the response of the Adventist Church to recent social developments in society, in particular in the United States. It was titled, “One Humanity: A Human Relations Statement Addressing Racism, Casteism, Tribalism, and Ethnocentrism,” and dealt with the issue of social justice.

The statement reads: We maintain our allegiance to the biblical principles of equality and dignity of all human beings in the face of historic and continuing attempts to use skin color, place of origin, caste, or perceived lineage as a pretext for oppressive and dominating behavior. . . . We accept and embrace our Christian commitment to live, through the power of the Holy Spirit, as a Church that is just, caring, and loving.

Some will undoubtedly wonder what impact such official denominational statements have. Will they be read by a major portion of our worldwide membership, let alone be noticed by the society around us? A few members, here and there, will probably analyze every word of the statement and ask some critical questions. Is the document clear enough and complete enough? Or does it fail to mention some important injustices—for instance, the widespread discrimination against those who have a “different” sexual orientation?

Some church members may also wonder whether accepting full gender equality does not require that female pastors receive the same status as their male colleagues. Others will welcome the statement as it was voted and consider it important that the church raises its voice to make clear where it stands in this time of #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, and amid continued global injustice at a horrendous scale.

Perhaps the recent statements about social justice and confidence in the ministry of Ellen G. White are more closely linked than many might think. After all, Ellen White was quite outspoken about a number of important social issues in her time—an aspect of her work that some of her loyal followers today could pay more attention to.

Rules and Church Policies

Dictionaries define justice as the quality of being just and as pursuing righteousness, equality and moral rightness. To be just is to uphold the justice of a cause. To maintain justice in a society requires a judicial system, that operates on the basis of a body of just laws.

When we speak of social justice, we refer to fair and just relations between the individual and society. It has to do with such elements as equal opportunities, regardless of gender, race and ethnicity, and with such things as a defensible distribution of wealth and uniform access to education and health care. A democracy must develop a legal system that provides a solid basis for administering the kind of justice that is, indeed, “just,” and applies in the same way to every citizen and inhabitant of the country.

Churches must also operate on the basis of a clear set of rules. In the Roman Catholic Church and some other denominations, internal laws have, through the centuries, developed into a body of canon law. This has become so complex that ecclesial lawyers and ecclesial courts are needed to administer it. Most mainline Protestant denominations have a “church order” which regulates the way in which the church is governed and may be updated from time to time. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has collected its internal rules and regulations in two basic documents: The Church Manual and the General Conference Working Policy Book.

The focus of the Church Manual is on the inner workings of the local church and on its relationship to the conference to which it belongs. Its history goes back to 1932 when the first edition appeared. Amendments and additions are voted when the world church meets in its quinquennial world congress. It is no secret that in much of the non-Western world, the Church Manual plays a much more important role than in most of the western world. In some parts of the world, the Church Manual seems to have acquired a semi-divinely in- spired status!

The origin of the General Conference Working Policy Book (and its derived division and union policy collections) also goes back almost one hundred years. It has grown over time from a modest pamphlet that summarized the past decisions of the church’s leaders into a book of more than a thousand, fine-print pages. Each Autumn Council of the General Conference has a policy section on its agenda—as part of the constant updating of the “black book,” as the corpus of “Adventist canon law” is often referred to by church leaders. Increasingly, the issue of “compliance” with the policies by all organizational entities in the Adventist Church has become a hot issue, particularly with regard to financial management and the matter of ordination.

Acting Justly, Loving Mercy and Walking Humbly

Applying the rules of the Church Manual and the regulations of the denomination policy book demands a consistent concern for justice. This is, in fact, what God demands of us. In a famous Old Testament text, the prophet Micah is adamant that God requires that we act justly (Micah 6:8). This most definitely applies to leaders at all levels in the church. But the prophet immediately adds that God is not interested in mere outward compliance with a set of rules. “Acting justly” must be integrated with “loving mercy.”

Christ taught us to look at principles and to always apply justice together with mercy. Uppermost in our mind should be the thought that God is never in the hurting but always in the healing business. Acting justly does not first and for all mean that we follow the letter of the law, but that we apply rules in such a way that they will ultimately benefit and bless the people involved.

During my years as a church administrator, I appreciated the fact that the church needs rules and regulations, but I never felt that the letter of church policy was the ultimate answer in every situation. In some cases, I concluded that a statement from the Church Manual needed a creative approach, and that a strict application of church policy would not be fair or in anyone’s interest. In some instances, I have always felt, it may be even morally questionable to go by the letter of the policy book. “Acting justly” demands not just sternness and determination, but also intelligence and “loving mercy.”

Micah reminds us that another important aspect is connected with “acting justly” and “loving mercy.” God also requires, the prophet says, that we “walk humbly” with our God. Church boards, pastors, conference and union officials, and other church leaders may at times be confronted with complicated matters when no existing rule seems to provide a good solution, but a decision must be reached. They must always realize that having been called to a leader- ship role does not make them infallible, and in all humility, they may have to admit that they made a mistake that needs to be corrected. It is never easy for leaders (or, for that matter, anyone else) to admit that they did not “act justly” and/or failed to “love mercy”. However, “walking humbly” is a key aspect of what God requires.

The Long Term

“Acting justly” implies looking at the long-term impact of what we do. We see this powerfully illustrated in the story of King Solomon, when he was asked to adjudicate a case that involved two prostitutes. Both women had given birth to a baby. One baby had died, and then hell broke loose. Each of the women claimed to be the mother of the baby that was still alive. Solomon had to act justly. And he did. Reading and analyzing the story in 1 Kings 3:16-28, we discover that Solomon had a long-term view.

His aim was not just to satisfy one of the two women. His concern was: What is in the long-term interest of the baby that is alive? How could the future of the child be best protected? Who was the “real” mother? The woman who agreed to the extraordinary suggestion that the child be killed so that they would each get part of its dead body? Or the woman who was prepared to do anything to ensure that the child would live? This is an important consideration whenever we seek to “act justly”: not to focus on immediate short-term answers that push the real issue toward the future. Some of us are good at that, but we must look further ahead. “Acting justly” opens up a future for those who suffer and seek justice.

There is one further important aspect: Voting a statement about the importance of social justice remains a public relations gesture if those who voted it are not determined to put the principles the statement emphasizes into practice as they seek, in all humility, to “act justly” and to “love mercy” in their decision-making practices.

–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]

1 2