Goodbye... for now.

Readers,
This is the last Wheel I will moderate. Let me know if there is someone out there who would like to assume command. (The transition will be an easy one.) My novel needs more regular attention, as does the research I am doing on the history of my family.

To the 500 or so regular followers, who have included Spong in our journey together, I bid you a fond farewell. I am also indebted to Mike Murray, my AT guy and very special friend, and the two previous moderators who kept the Wheel spinning for so many years. Our efforts comprise a pioneering Internet book of free essays, insightful theology, and religious cartoons that will never go out of print.  Check it out!

Love and best wishes,

Andy Hanson
aphanson@csuchico.edu

A Political Q and A

By John Shelby Spong
http://johnshelbyspong.com/

From time to time I receive a letter which requires an answer that is too long for the question and answer format of this column, so I have to use it as the column itself. Such is the case this week, so I will interrupt my Matthew series for a week to respond to this question. JSS

Gavin Young, from Las Vegas via the Internet, writes:
I have said before in response to some of your columns and I will say it again, you need to stay out of politics and stick with theology. I can’t believe the misinformation about and defense and support for our current Celebrity-in-Chief, BHO (Barack Hussein Obama) aka Barry Soetoro. First of all, the President has NO AUTHORITY other than what he’s given himself to initiate a war. He/She MUST HAVE Congress’s approval. In what can only be described as a patronizing speech, BHO asserted FIRST OF ALL, that he has the right and authority to start a war or attack Syria WITHOUT Congress’s approval. He then went on to say that he would allow Congress its opinion as a gesture of “good will,” but again, he reiterated that the authority rests solely with him. Really?

Witness the recent barricades around the people’s monuments in DC or the cancellation of the Army/Navy football game. BHO has no right to perpetrate such acts. Bishop Spong, please wake up and get real about this “President.” No presidency has been so shrouded in secrecy from its very beginning. BHO is very quickly becoming a dictator and history is repeating itself. What are you going to do when you wake up one morning and we’re under martial law and all your Constitutional rights have been stripped? When you’re no longer allowed to write your column or books because you’re a Christian? At last count, President Obama has committed at least 13 impeachable acts during his presidency yet no one stands up to him. When is a law not a law? When BHO says it is or it isn’t.

I am frightened for our country, very frightened. Please get more information (i.e. the other side of the story) before making pronouncements in favor of BHO. Have you ever asked yourself why BHO’s aka, Barry Soetoro, is registered to vote at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? And what about the fact that his long form birth certificate is now well known to be a complete forgery? And as far as trying to curtail our debt, well the facts speak for themselves. When the national debt reaches $20 trillion, our economy will implode within a few hours. May God forbid that ever happens. The USA is already #16 in best countries to live in. What’s up with that? And what caused it? I love you dearly, Bishop, and am a HUGE fan of yours (please come to Las Vegas), but you really need to become as well informed about politics as you are about theology and biblical interpretation.

Dear Gavin,
I really love it when I get a letter like yours, filled as it is with prejudice, veiled racism and profound ignorance and you want me to stay out of politics and stick with theology? Then in an act of rare hubris you not only accuse me of “misinformation,” but you then proceed to illustrate your charge with the most egregious expression of right wing extremism I have read in a long time! So let me respond to your tirade with as much rationality as I can muster.

Do you want me to stay out of politics so that your feelings about politics will not be challenged? What is your understanding of being a Christian? Have you ever read the Bible? When Jesus sums up the Law, the Torah, he does so by exhorting us to love God and to “love our neighbors as ourselves.” In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke has Jesus define our neighbor as a Samaritan, the object of the deepest Jewish prejudice in that era. So, how do I love my neighbor? It seems to me that one does that by opposing all the things that dehumanize a fellow human being.

What does that mean politically? It means one works against slavery, against segregation and against any other form of social prejudice. It means one works for equal pay for women. One works to see that women have equal access to higher education, equal opportunity in every area of society from religion to the military, to equal opportunity in business success. It means that one opposes everything that holds up the glass ceiling on women’s aspirations and to be either the President of the United States or the Pope.

It means that one builds a basic dignity into the social fabric of this nation which mandates that a safety net will always be present in our national life beyond which no one is allowed to fall. It means that one works for an equitable tax policy that will not allow the wealthy so many loopholes, which only they can exploit, so that they wind up paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than do their secretaries or maintenance personnel. It means that one works to remove discriminatory laws against gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual people. It means that one seeks to provide adequate health care for all citizens whether they can afford it or not. It means that one does not allow workers to be exploited or to work in unsafe conditions.

It means that society adopts a minimum wage high enough to allow one who works full time to be able to live on his/her pay. It means that one does not allow an economic system to develop that grinds away until 90% of the wealth of this nation is in the hands of one percent of the population. Those are the ways we follow the mandate to love our neighbors as ourselves!
This kind of society does not just happen it is created by the decision-making bodies elected to govern the corporate society. That is what the political process is. Do you really think that because one has a religious perspective one should be disqualified to speak out on political decision making? Can worship be separated from justice and still have any integrity?

Your hostility toward the president of the United States, a man elected handily in 2008 and re-elected by a margin of more that 5,000,000 votes on 2012, would be laughable if it were not so distorted! “Our Celebrity-in-Chief?” You sound jealous! Your use of BHO (Barack Hussein Obama)) and Barry Soetoro” as names for the president reveals your pettiness. Your suggestion that he has no authority to initiate a war is out of touch with the facts of history. Presidents, as commander in chief, have always had the right and the duty to respond with force when the nation’s people or our vital interests have been attacked. In 1950 President Truman responded to an attack by the forces of North Korea on our ally South Korea, with whom we had a mutual defense treaty. People called it not a war, but “a police action,” but it cost this nation 50,000 members of the armed forces and caused us to commit a huge army in the field, first commanded by Douglas MacArthur, later by Matthew Ridgeway and during that “police action” this nation carried out a full scale invasion by sea at Inchon. The Korean War did not begin with a declaration of war by Congress, but with the decision of the President. Yes, under the Constitution, only the Congress can declare war, but the Commander-in-Chief has to respond to an attack when it occurs. Waiting until the legislative body can act is not always possible.

This president, whom you disparage so crudely, has stopped a war in Iraq, he is winding down a war in Afghanistan and he was able by using the threat of war to get Syria to dismantle and to destroy its arsenal of chemical weapons without a war. Your lack of knowledge about the history of this nation is substantial. Ignorance is not a sin, but it does disqualify you from being taken seriously by me or anyone else.

Your rhetoric reaches levels of mental disorientation when you talk about Mr. Obama becoming a dictator, by suggesting that he is guilty of 13 impeachable acts, by suggesting that his administration has been shrouded in secrecy and by talking about one’s constitutional rights being stripped away.

Your rhetoric sounds like the paranoid elements of the NRA that seem to think that a required background check before one can purchase a gun is tantamount to stripping us of our constitutional rights. Every single one of the world’s great democracies except the United States requires a background check for gun ownership. The universal result of that requirement is not the loss of a constitutional right, but the significant lowering of the murder rate in those nations. For you to claim that the birth certificate of this president is “well known to be a complete forgery” is to reveal that you no longer live in a world of rationality.

You tell me that I am not qualified to speak on non-theological issues. I do not know the basis upon which you make that statement, but let me do something that I seldom do in order to call your thinking into question. Let me share with you my credentials that qualify me to participate publicly in the political debate in our nation. I have engaged in a life long study of both history and politics. I have written a weekly column for 14 years that seeks to explore and to illumine every area of human life. As a national columnist I have been credentialed to be part of the press corps attending the national political nominating conventions on two occasions. I have interviewed major political figures. I have been interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, William F. Buckley, Charlayne Hunter-Gault, Charles Gibson, Kathleen Sullivan, Peter Jennings, Bill Maher and many others. I have read biographies of every president of the United States. I have traveled to most of the nations of the world. I hold seven honorary doctorates from major universities in America. I was elected to be the Quatercentenary scholar at Emmanuel College of Cambridge University in England in 1991 and chosen to be the William Belden Noble Lecturer at Harvard University in 2000. My portrait was commissioned to be painted and to hang in the “Hall of Honor” at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Chapel at Morehouse College in Atlanta for my contributions to civil and human rights. I believe I have earned the right to be part of my nation’s political debate. You certainly have the right to disagree with me on any issue, but I have serious questions about whether you have earned the right to stand in judgment on me.

I’m glad you are “a huge fan.” I hope some of my values might rub off.

http://nakedpastor.tumblr.com/

Dear Mr. Akin, I Want You to Imagine...

Eve Ensler discusses the politics of rape.
Article

Dear Todd Akin,
I am writing to you tonight about rape. It is 2 AM and I am unable to sleep here in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I am in Bukavu at the City of Joy to serve and support and work with hundreds, thousands of women who have been raped and violated and tortured from this ceaseless war for minerals fought on their bodies.
I am in Congo but I could be writing this from anywhere in the United States, South Africa, Britain, Egypt, India, Philippines, most college campuses in America. I could be writing from any city or town or village where over half a billion women on the planet are raped in their lifetime.

Mr. Akin, your words have kept me awake.

As a rape survivor, I am reeling from your recent statement where you said you misspoke when you said that women do not get pregnant from legitimate rape, and that you were speaking "off the cuff."

Clarification. You didn't make some glib throw away remark. You made a very specific ignorant statement clearly indicating you have no awareness of what it means to be raped. And not a casual statement, but one made with the intention of legislating the experience of women who have been raped. Perhaps more terrifying: it was a window into the psyche of the GOP.

You used the expression "legitimate" rape as if to imply there were such a thing as "illegitimate" rape. Let me try to explain to you what that does to the minds, hearts and souls of the millions of women on this planet who experience rape. It is a form of re-rape. The underlying assumption of your statement is that women and their experiences are not to be trusted. That their understanding of rape must be qualified by some higher, wiser authority. It delegitimizes and undermines and belittles the horror, invasion, desecration they experienced. It makes them feel as alone and powerless as they did at the moment of rape.

When you, Paul Ryan and 225 of your fellow co-sponsors play with words around rape suggesting only "forcible" rape be treated seriously as if all rapes weren't forcible, it brings back a flood of memories of the way the rapists played with us in the act of being raped -- intimidating us, threatening us, muting us. Your playing with words like "forcible" and "legitimate" is playing with our souls which have been shattered by unwanted penises shoving into us, ripping our flesh, our vaginas, our consciousness, our confidence, our pride, our futures.

Now you want to say that you misspoke when you said that a legitimate rape couldn't get us pregnant. Did you honestly believe that rape sperm is different than love sperm, that some mysterious religious process occurs and rape sperm self-destructs due to its evil content? Or, were you implying that women and their bodies are somehow responsible for rejecting legitimate rape sperm, once again putting the onus on us? It would seem you were saying that getting pregnant after a rape would indicate it was not a "legitimate" rape.

Here's what I want you to do. I want you to close your eyes and imagine that you are on your bed or up against a wall or locked in a small suffocating space. Imagine being tied up there and imagine some aggressive, indifferent, insane stranger friend or relative ripping off your clothes and entering your body -- the most personal, sacred, private part of your body -- and violently, hatefully forcing themself into you so that you are ripped apart. Then imagine that stranger's sperm shooting into you and filling you and you can't get it out. It is growing something in you. Imagine you have no idea what that life will even consist of, spiritually made in hate, not knowing the mental or health background of the rapist.

Then imagine a person comes along, a person who has never had that experience of rape, and that person tells you, you have no choice but to keep that product of rape growing in you against your will and when it is born it has the face of your rapist, the face of the person who has essentially destroyed your being and you will have to look at the face every day of your life and you will be judged harshly if you cannot love that face.

I don't know if you can imagine any of this (leadership actually requires this kind of compassion), but if you are willing to go to the depth of this darkness, you will quickly understand that there is NO ONE WHO CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE to have or not have the baby, but the person carrying that baby herself.

I have spent much time with mothers who have given birth to children who are the product of rape. I have watched how tortured they are wrestling with their hate and anger, trying not to project that onto their child.

I am asking you and the GOP to get out of my body, out of my vagina, my womb, to get out of all of our bodies. These are not your decisions to make. These are not your words to define.

Why don't you spend your time ending rape rather than redefining it? Spend your energy going after those perpetrators who so easily destroy women rather than parsing out manipulative language that minimizes their destruction.

And by the way you've just given millions of women a very good reason to make sure you never get elected again, and an insanely good reason to rise.

http://nakedpastor.tumblr.com/

Why A Man Eats Another Man’s Heart

(CNN) -- A Syrian rebel carves the heart out of a dead man and bites it. His comrades nearby cheer: "God is great."

This is from a video that is circulating on the Internet. The appalling footage has all the world asking: What kind of people could do this?

We tell ourselves these men must be monsters, people utterly unlike us, people we could never understand. But we don't say this because it is true. We say this because it is comforting to think so. The far more frightening possibility we must face is that such evil is not diabolically inhuman or beyond understanding. It is human -- very human.

How can ordinary men commit such horrific acts? The war criminals I have met did not start out by desecrating corpses, torturing villagers or murdering children. They got there slowly. There are some men who are natural monsters, but most monsters are made.

This is how you make them.

First, take a man (and yes, it is most often a man) and isolate him. Separate him from his family and friends and put him in an information bubble, an echo chamber cut off from the outside world. Make him conform to the values of his new group by exploiting his insecurity and need for approval. This is the first step in any war.

Second, train him to think that the world is painted in black and white, not shades of gray. Train him in either-or, binary thinking. Either you are my friend or my enemy. Either you are pure or impure. Either the people you love are safe or they are in immediate peril. Either you are all right or you are all wrong.

Third, physically exhaust him. Break down his body and spirit -- through brutal training or prolonged combat -- until he can't think straight. Subject him to a system of harsh and arbitrary punishment and equally arbitrary rewards. Condition him to feel helpless. A man who feels like he has lost control over his life is a dangerous man, because hurting others feels like control.

Fourth -- and this is the most important part -- start small. Work up to atrocity step by step. Put him into a strange and frightening environment with minimal regulation. Let the aggression escalate. Each violent act he commits while trying to survive will make the next act feel easier, more natural.

The first time he kills a villager, it is terrifying. The second time, it is hard. The third or fourth time, it starts to feel almost easy. Eventually, he finds himself competing with his fellow soldiers to see who can do it fastest, most often, most creatively.
Watching videos like this, and thinking thoughts like this, it is easy to lose hope. In war, are we doomed always to descend into barbarism?

The answer is no. The nightmare video from Syria is not inevitable. The very same steps used for creating monsters can also be used to stop monstrosity -- you just need to reverse the steps. Some people are born moral heroes, but most are made.

And this is how you make them.

First, take a young man and start small. Work up to altruism and moral courage step by step. Each small thing he does to attend to the suffering of another or stand up against injustice will make the next act feel easier, more natural.

Second, give him a clear system of rules with predictable consequences. Teach him he has the ability to make choices about his life, and that these choices matter.

Third, teach him that the world's problems aren't as simple as us-versus-them, good-versus-evil. Teach him that there aren't easy solutions to complex problems. Teach him to tolerate, without fear and anxiety, life's difficult ambiguity and uncertainty.

And finally -- to those of you, like me, who are parents of young boys -- teach him to seek out "the other": Other clubs and groups, other sources of information, other places to see, other kinds of people, other cultural values. Spoil him with diversity, so that if there ever comes a time when he is called to war, he will always remember to see the world through the other's eyes. He will fight, but he will fight against an enemy that he sees as a person, like him. He will see their humanity, and in so doing, he will preserve his own.

James Dawes, director of the Program in Human Rights at Macalester College, is the author of "Evil Men" (Harvard University Press, 2013).

Seventh-Gay Adventist, The Movie

Dear SGA Film Community,
This past Sabbath afternoon we had our largest screening yet--at least 450 people--at the CrossWalk Church in Redlands. We've visited a lot of Adventist churches over this project, both filming and now screening, and each has their own personality. This church's mission--learning to love well--really connected with the heart of the film. It was a tremendously positive screening and discussion that focused on listening and finding harmony even in difference. One of my favorite moments came towards the end when an older man at the very back commented. He started by saying, "Just a few hours ago, I had no idea this screening was happening. But I found out and came. I just need to say, 'Thank you, thank you, thank you.'" At this there was applause in the audience. Then he added, "This is where is starts. No matter your beliefs, this is where it starts."

26 Screenings; 5,200 People
Believe it or not, that Redlands screening was our 26th screening! A year ago today we were preparing for our very first screening in San Francisco with the people featured in the film and a small audience, and now over 5,200 people have come to a community screening and discussion! Wow--I just did the math now looking at our completed events. I could not have guessed last year at this time that we'd still be able to be doing screenings right now. I would have thought we'd have long since run out of funds. Now, truth be told, we have come close on several occasions this year to doing just that, and we are currently without a permanent address to help keep expenses low during this screening phase, but somehow this ever-growing community that has come together to make this film happen, and we've always been able to schedule the next screening and book our flights. And the small ripple effects are starting to be felt. Even I am getting surprised by film mentions on social media, blogs, and websites as people talk about the film's impact and their experience. It's wonderful to see. Thank you!

Upcoming Screenings
There are at least 10 more screenings coming soon (more likely). Here is the list:
Chattanooga, Sunday, Nov. 4th 
Atlanta, Thursday, Nov. 8th 
Keene, Sunday, Nov. 11th 
Chicago, Tuesday, Nov. 13th 
Benton Harbor, Nov. 15th (likely adding a second screening that same night due to high demand) 
Toronto, Nov. 18th 
Inland Empire area of CA, Dec. 1st (TBA) 
New York City, Dec. 15th 
Seattle, Feb. 9th (Coming soon) 
San Diego, Feb. 21st (Coming soon) 
Glendale, Feb. 23rd (Coming soon) 
Columbus & Dayton, OH (TBA, but Feb or March)
You can RSVP and check for new screenings on our website: http://www.sgamovie.com/screenings

Oh--and, quite pleasantly--we've been asked to submit to three more film festivals! The screening at the Seattle Lesbian & Gay Film Festival went incredibly well two weeks ago, and I think these additional invitations are based on personal recommendations from festival programmers. This is somewhat unusual choice of film for an LGBT film festival, particularly since neither Stephen or I are gay (despite several rumors which we just take as compliments; ) We're passionate about both the church and the LGBT community engaging in this conversation since the people featured in our film have told us often that they feel on the margins of both of those communities. In the church they are marginalized and misunderstood because of their LGBT identity, yet in the LGBT community, they are marginalized and misunderstood because of their deep faith. Both the church (Adventists and others) and the LGBT community have too often been complicit in the idea that faith and sexuality are an either/or proposition instead of a both/and.

Huffington Post & the Adventist Church

You may have heard that the Adventist Church voted on wording changes to their two documents that mention homosexuality. The headlines said that the church made changes to show "more compassion" for its gay members. Now, I have talked to several people with a great deal of knowledge about this committee that was recommending changes, and I know they weren't due to actually present recommended changes for at least another year. The fact that they hurried up these changes speaks to me of the pressure they are starting to feel to change their approach. I'm sure the 5,200 people who have seen the film are starting to make an impact as are the many other great organizations and efforts--some that have been around a while, like SDA Kinship, and some new ones, like the Intercollegiate Adventist Gay Straight Alliance (IAGC). The president of the IAGC, a student at Andrews University, wrote a response to the supposed new "compassion" in these documents. I completely agree that it's a positive sign the church feels pressure to be more compassionate, but the actual changes are a far cry from adequate. 
Here's the article.

Adventists, Excellence, and Some Other Matters

by Larry Downing

Have you noticed the number of church leaders who have recently left their positions for employment with Adventist Health? Union presidents: Rosco Howard and Dennis Carlson. ADRA: Chuck Sandefur. Media: Lonnie Melashenko. These examples are only the latest of the dozens of others employed by Adventist Health whose resumes include a stint within the Adventist hierarchy. (And I personally know of others who would like to join their colleagues, should opportunity present itself.)

I’ve now and again wondered how the Adventist Church might be different today had these individuals been given the freedom to apply their skills and creativity within the church structure rather than the healthcare industry. In the context of thinking about how one might address the matter of the Adventist brain drain to the health system I picked up the May 2011 Adventist World that arrived in the day’s mail and read with interest an interview with Paul Brantley, general vice president for strategic planning and assessment with the title “Can We be Adventist and Excellent Too?” First confession, I had not been aware of the department Brantley heads until reading the Adventist World article, nor had I heard of Paul Brantley. Confession two, since retirement, after 40 years in parish ministry, I have been associated with Adventist Health.

Elder Brantley, in his responses to questions from George Johnson, Jr. articulates why it is important for the Adventist church to strive toward and achieve excellence. Using Psalms 8 as his authority, Brantley concludes that we serve an excellent God. Likewise, he affirms, Geneses 1 declares that every thing God does is very good, (p. 11).

In response to Johnson’s question, “What are examples of ‘opportunities for excellence’ that, in your opinion would help the church advance most in its pursuit of quality?” Brantley lists three areas. Second on his list is this: “Leader growth, assessment, and nurture. According to author John Maxwell, “no organization advances higher than the caliber of its leaders. Great organizations develop leaders through a methodical process of assessment, coaching, and nurture. A robust performance record helps each church leader grow in current and future positions. This is a growth area for the church with immense potential. “

My questions: Has anyone attempted to determine why a significant number of top church administrators have left their positions to seek employment in healthcare? Is it really about money or are there other less obvious but significant forces at work? Is it important to know why people leave denominational employment for other endeavors? How might the church and its future be less when creative and talented people leave before their time?

Brantley’s third area: “Stewardship and accountability. The Seventh-day Adventist Auditing Service offers superb financial oversight. Less robust is oversight of the numerous programs and services offered by the church. Do they in fact add value?”

Great question! The matter of added value is a significant point. The Adventist church has over the years spent millions on the Net programs. We in the pastorate know they are not effective. We shudder when we are told we are to support yet another fiasco. And they keep coming like a persistent plague.

I recall a conversation I had with someone I know who was a North American Division executive. He was visiting my church as part of a local conference meeting. When I saw him outside I pulled him aside and said, “Tell me why we spend all this money on these Net programs. We pastors know they are not effective.” His response went something like this: “We know it, too. We really do not know what to do. There are right-wing people with money who insist we have these programs, so here they are.” My response: “What a waste.” His: “Yea, I know.”

Toward the end of the article (p. 12) Brantley lists three things every North American Division church member should know about how the church plans. Number one: “In the North American Division we believe in collaborative rather than top-down planning. We feel it is not our role to do the planning for churches, conferences, union conferences and institutions. Rather, we can plan only for those functions here within the NAD for which we are directly responsible. In the process we want to be sure that everything we plan for and carry out in the NAD actually adds value. For that’s our assessment role. Planning and assessment work together.”

Excellent objective! Is it the way the local parish minister see it? Go to your pastor. Read Brantley’s statement. Ask him/her if this is how he/she sees it. Ask a dozen or a hundred others. I believe, based on my conversations with peers, that you will find that they believe church planning is from the top down. It’s that simple. If you need evidence, read the article that follows on the next page: “Successfully Hosting NET 2011. A simple prescription for maximum results.” Ask your pastor how much in-put she/he had in this venture. When I read the article I wondered if the editor caught the clash that resonates when comparing one article with the other, or was it an editorial prank to run the articles back to back? One affirms the NAD works in a collaborative mode. The other? “Here’s the program, guys. Here’s how you are to do it. And here is what we expect of you. If it fails, it’s your fault. We gave you the plan for success, and you blew it!” (A bit overstated, I admit, but this is the bottom line.)

Brantley’s third point: “Finally, we at the North American Division are available to provide guidance with any entity (union conference, conference, institution, or church) that wishes to work within church structure to construct a system of planning and assessment. We want that percentage to approach 100 percent.”

This is a great offer! Talk to your friends in the church and take this man up on his willingness to be involved in a local parish. Few there be from the NAD who have ever made such an offer, much less actually gotten down and dirty in a local parish. I’d love to see a parish accept the invitation.

Ethnic Adventism: Boon or Bane?

by Larry Downing

Some time ago I was asked to participate in a panel discussion at the Loma Linda Church. Our assignment was to respond to the above question. I looked up “ethnic” in the dictionary and learned Adventism is ethnic. I emailed the moderator and asked if we were to take literally what the title asks. He replied, “You are no fundamentalist!” (His words, not mine).

I took some comfort in this assurance. I also concluded that his response gave permission to expand the discussion. I modified the question to read: Ethnic Diversity within Adventism: Boon or Bane? To add a bit more pizazz I tired another: “Mixed-Up Adventism: Boon or Bane?” I wondered if the ambiguity in this phrase might trouble some so I modified the question to read, “The Mix Within Adventism: Cool, or Not?” My answer: an unequivocal “Yes!” or, perhaps, “No.” Let me explain.

When we look at the composition of the North American Adventist Church we bring to the discussion components associated with theology, politics, economics, ecclesiology, psychology, ethics, and sociology. The sociological aspect, including the dynamics associated with the Church Growth Movement, has had significant impact on the Adventist church we see in most metro areas.

The Church Growth Movement began in the early 1960’s when Donald McGavran, Win Arn and others began to explore how to enhance church growth and what elements contribute to congregational growth.

In their research, these scholars, many of them based in Southern California, discovered and identified specific principles and practices that were common to growing congregations. They found, for example, that “Like Attracts Like.” This finding was developed into a principle: Target those who are most like you. We are, so goes the theory, more comfortable with people like ourselves. The greater the mix, the less the comfort. If one accepts this premise, diversity is not the ideal. Think of the potential for a Church of the Cloned Saints!

Note that in this discussion, ethics and theology play second fiddle to sociology. We, as Trinitarian Christians, take seriously the theological propositions set forth in the Newer Testament. We pay attention to how we apply our theological conclusions—the oneness of humanity, for example. There is within our belief in Trinity a precedent that gives emphasis to equality. This factor encourages us to include parity among people into our ecclesial equation. All have equal worth before God. Separation is not an option. And within this Trinitarian oneness there is diversity. There is not a sublimation of one to the other nor are there degrees of significance among the separate individuals. As a prophetic voice, we are called to proclaim and model this oneness of humanity.

The teachings and practice of our Lord and his apostles affirm that within the construct of our faith there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female. There is to be no shibboleth between or among races, groups, nationalities, languages or other demarcations that we have invented to define one person or community from another.

Our theology has no truck with corporate structure that places efficiency, production and bottom lines above relationship. Our theology does not allow us to incorporate a practice in our churches that conflicts with the admonitions and behaviors advocated by the Lord and the biblical writers of the Newer Testament. There is a right thing to do and an ethical way to be. To do or be otherwise is to violate the essence of the Christian faith.

My answer, then, to the guiding question “Ethnic Adventism: Boon or Bane?” is that ethnic diversity within Adventism is a boon and is to be celebrated. We are not to be governed by corporate interests or defined by those practices associated with corporate mentality. Scripture is our handbook and theology is our guide. It is our obligation, under God, to turn round any practice or policy that limits or diminishes our theology. Likewise, it is our mandate to support and promote any practice or policy that enhances the oneness of the body of Christ.

On a conceptual level, it is appropriate to ask, “How can we maximize the benefits that implicitly arise from the rich diversity that is Adventism?” “What example does our church offer for racial and ethnic unity that we can share with a society that struggles with ethnic and racial diversity?”

The acronym WWJD (What would Jesus do?) I find less than satisfying. Acknowledging that what I’m about to ask is closely allied with this question, I will ask it anyway. “Suppose we had the opportunity to sit opposite the Lord and He asked this simple question: What have you done to bring people together?”

In the past two decades the Caucasian, English-speaking Adventist membership numbers have remained static or diminished. Visit an English-speaking congregation in most metro centers on any given Sabbath and you will find in most of them a diverse ethnic and racial mix. Expect to see that the Caucasian segment is less than half of those who attend. This is both a cause for celebration and a reason to be concerned.

Our mission emphasis has produced converts that give new meaning to the old hymn, “Bringing in the Sheaves.” We celebrate the fact that the North American Adventist church is one of the most diverse religious organizations in the country. But the celebration is shadowed by the loss of significant numbers of Caucasian, English-speaking members, especially young adults and youth. New converts and immigrants have not replaced the missing members! The change in church demographics leads us to ask: “What might the now majority groups in the church do to assist the Caucasian minority?” We have race, language, and ethnic specific camp meetings, youth organizations and special events, except for the Caucasians. “Should there be a Caucasian camp meeting or youth conference?” “Should Caucasians send out an SOS Macedonian Call?” “What responsibility do the ethnic groups have to the decreasing Caucasians?”

These questions and numerous others await answer. We can publish our successes and celebrate our achievements. Well and good. But we have yet developed a practical method that has brought together the diverse groups that is mutually beneficial.

As one who has spent more than a quarter of century as a pastor in multi-ethnic, multi-language, multi-racial congregations, I confess I spent more time attempting to make things work than I did in developing a theology of ministry to the people mix in my congregations. I gave higher priority to keeping peace in the congregation than in the development of sound philosophical base for ministry in a metro area. Creating a place where people of good will came together for a common purpose was a good start, but it is not the final word. We worship together, now what? Where do we go from here? The answers to these and like questions await response. We have not yet decided who will begin the process, much less complete it.

What’s Your EQ?

by Andy Hanson

The cover story of the October 2, 1995, Time Magazine asks “What’s Your EQ?” and goes on to suggest that “emotional intelligence may be the best predictor of success in life”. What is “EQ, is it important, and if so, is it possible for teachers and parents to make a positive difference in the EQ’s of our students.

Read more »

Why not a statement of beliefs?

By Andrew Hanson

Ellen White's Contribution to Adventist Doctrine, by Kwabena Donkor, an Associate director of the Biblical Research Institute, is an authoritative, eye-opening must read. (Adventist World, NAD Edition, March 2009) His words suggest a way for the Adventist Church to examine, review, and/or update existing beliefs in a way that would reflect the biblical scholarship that has taken place since our founders, working from the King James Bible, established Adventist theology back in the last decades of the 19th century.

Read more »

Relevance, Part 3

A couple of things have happened in the last few weeks that inspired me to begin this series on relevance.  This will be the concluding post - but you may find this theme throughout much of what I write (both in the past, and in the future).  When I preach, when I write, when I do just about anything, I ask myself, what is the point?  And this becomes the question I have to ask about God, His Word, and His Church - what is the point?

For me, I've found meaning in God.  The Bible was a little more challenging - but once I moved past the cultural distortions, I have found great relevance in those words.  I'm still wrestling with the Church though.  I'm wondering, what is it that people are trying to do there?

Read more »

I hope

Note: This was recently published as one of Nathan Brown's final editorials as editor of Record, the Adventist church's news magazine in the South Pacific Division.

I hope . . .

I hope we do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God.

I hope Christianity is real--to you.

I hope we can better seek, celebrate and create beauty in our world.

I hope we can learn to listen better--to God, to each other and to our communities.

I hope we really believe that "it is more important to be kind than it is to be right."

I hope we can focus more on faithfulness than our various measures of "success."

I hope we can admit that "we don't know"--that we don't have all the answers and that's OK.

I hope we can be less worried about control and more interested in community.

I hope we can one day recognise women as equally human, equally Christian, equally capable and equally called.

I hope we spend less time reinforcing our walls than building our centre.

I hope you're a treehugger, both literally and metaphorically.

I hope we have stopped "selling" God.

I hope our first response to disaster is to help the hurting, not pull out our prophecy charts.

I hope we can learn to be more humble, more generous, more courageous and more joyful.

I hope you watch the sunset sometimes.

I hope you don't believe everything you read in our church publications.

I hope we don't really think music is as important as some would have us believe.

I hope we can find better ways to remember and share Sabbath, and better things to do on Sabbath afternoons.

I hope you are seriously bothered by injustice, poverty and oppression--and are moved to do something about them.

I hope you rejoice you're a Christian.

I hope we aren't so busy running a church that we are forgetting to participate in the kingdom of God.

I hope you watch less TV.

I hope we can learn to address hard questions, to disagree well and to embrace those who are different.

I hope your explanation of what you believe actually sounds like "good news"--to you and to others.

I hope we can find our voice as a church and begin to speak out on things that matter in ways that our community understands.

I hope there is a stage of life between bright young thing and old hack.

I hope you're vegetarian--for so many reasons.

I hope we are a church that serves the world, not panders to the noisy few.

I hope we can lament.

I hope we still "believe in Christ, live the life."

I hope you read a good book this week.

I hope we can practise the art of apology--and the art of forgiveness.

I hope we are aware of how technology changes us and that we resist blindly pursuing the latest gadget or fad, instead seeking what is most real.

I hope we can learn from other religions, faiths and traditions, respecting their best and seeking their good.

I hope you enjoy and share some kind of art, creativity or similar passion.

I hope we can become a church that values fresh questions more than tired answers.

I hope we aren't just another brand of Church Inc.

I hope we can develop a faith that is more ordinary and everyday--and, in this way, ordinary and everyday can be redeemed.

I hope we can come up with--or borrow--better reasons why we do and believe some of the good things we do.

I hope you believe we can change the world.

I hope we maintain a sense of wonder at the hugeness, variety and miracles of life.

I hope faith, hope and love still remain.

I hope "right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant" and that it is possible to overcome evil with good.

I hope in Jesus, His life, His death and His resurrection.

I hope to see Him some day.

I hope and I pray.

I hope . . .

"Much dreaming and many words are meaningless. Therefore stand in awe of God" (Ecclesiastes 5:7, NIV).

Working Relationships in a Christian Community

by Andy Hanson

One of the most difficult things that many of my university students have to do when they begin student teaching is to establish a positive working relationship with their master teachers. These are the teachers who allow my students to use their classes to gain the teaching experience necessary for them to demonstrate teaching competence.

My students are, almost without exception, intelligent, enthusiastic, and committed. They are also inexperienced and prone to make mistakes both in pedagogy and decisions related to classroom management. As a consequence, master teachers must frequently confront them with their mistakes. It is at this point that positive working relationships are tested.

Since the most important letters of recommendation in personnel files are those from master teachers, my students attempt to conform to the wishes of their master teachers. Most of the time, when my students are asked to jump, they ask how high. But there are times when philosophical differences, and matters of teaching style and personal preference become a serious issue. These are the times when students ask me how they should proceed. Safety seems to lie in simply doing what the master teacher asks, no matter how irrational these requests appear to the student. Confrontation seems dangerous.

Almost without exception, I counsel confrontation. Experience has taught me that working relationships can only be maintained if people talk about their differences, and sooner rather than later. It is much easier to discuss issues rationally and productively before frustration builds to disgust or misunderstanding becomes accusation.

I attempt to convince my students that productive working relationships can only be maintained if differences are aired. And in my experience, when productive working relationships are maintained, differences can be resolved, accepted, or even valued.

In Mathew 18:15-17, Jesus counseled confrontation as the proper way to settle disputes. His followers who confront their theological differences honestly, thoughtfully, and straightforwardly promote healthy spiritual growth within the Christian community and strengthen the bonds of Christian fellowship. These principles are reflected in the following two quotes: the first from Malcolm Hein and the second from Isaac Asimov.

“There is little room left for wisdom when one is full of judgment.”

“It is my philosophy of life that difficulties vanish when faced boldly.”