Forum Discussion: Can Dialog With Other Faiths Help Adventists Overcome Internal Conflict and Strengthen Identity?
by
By Adventist Today News Team, September 12, 2013
The weekend of September 6-8 brought together 170 Adventist academics from across North America to discuss how dialog with other religions might help the Adventist movement overcome "the liberal/conservative divide" and strengthen Adventist identity. Speakers included Brian McLaren, the well-known evangelical author; Dr. William Johnsson, retired editor of the Adventist Review and special assistant to Pastor Ted Wilson, president of the denomination's General Conference; and Dr. Samir Selmanovic, an Adventist minister who founded Faith House in New York City, a nonprofit that hosts multi-faith conversations. The meeting was held in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
McLaren's books have helped young Adventists find a renewed commitment to their faith. Brenton Reading, one of the organizers of the meeting, shared with Adventist Today his own journey. He had a strong Adventist identity, went through Adventist schools, graduating from Southern Adventist University, then encountered ideas he had not been exposed to before and found his faith deconstructed. He started with a more conservative faith, hostile to outside influences but when it was deconstructed, he moved away from Adventism, until he discovered McLaren's writing.
McLaren's critique of his evangelical background was supportive of Adventist beliefs in the wholistic nature of humanity, the danger of the doctrine of eternal burning hell, and the importance of health. "Reading Brian McLaren actually brought me back to the Adventist Church," said Reading. "And I'm an active member of my local Adventist church today because of him."
Both the conservative/hostile Christianity and the liberal/benign Christianity fall short in McLaren's view. Instead he advocates "a strong faith rooted in clear identity that interacts with others in loving and benevolent ways, a strong/benevolent faith." Reading said, "I think that is taking the best from our conservative and liberal traditions. It's been described as a third way because it's a new approach to how we live our faith."
McLaren's books have attempted to deal with the increasing discomfort in new generations of believers with the conventional conservative and liberal versions of Christian faith, a trend widely expressed among younger Adventists. Selmanovic and Dr. Ryan Bell, a community organizer and religion professor from California, are two Adventists who have discussed these themes with McLaren in prior events. "This was a reunion," Bell said, recalling that they were all three involved in a conference on urban ministry in 2002 and have continued to exchange ideas.
Johnsson's Sabbath morning sermon was the highlight of the weekend, according to a number of participants. He talked about his career in the Adventist ministry and broke down in tears when he revealed that after 15 years as a missionary in India, he had not made a single friend outside of the Adventist community. He told how he later became close to a Muslim sheik in Australia. “He ended the sermon by encouraging us all to go out and make friends outside of our immediate community and let those friendships impact us,” one participant told Adventist Today. He received a standing ovation.
Representatives of other faiths were invited to respond to the major presentations and share their perspectives. These included Amin Issa, a Muslim leader, and Deborah Levine, a Jewish worship specialist. The crowd also seemed significantly younger than past years to several observers. Bonnie Dwyer, an executive with the Association of Adventist Forums (AAF), the sponsor of the event, told Adventist Today that 26 students were present, most from Southern Adventist University.
Books by all three of the key speakers can be purchased through major online booksellers. AAF may distribute audio recordings of the presentations.
In my very early days in the Church, I resisted any hint that somehow the Adventist Church (My Church!) possessed any parallels in Babylon or the Beastly sisterhood. I resisted, in fact, any implication that somehow My Church could be scientifically analyzed, or that My Church somehow could be defined by "worldly cause-and-effect.". I was raised to believe that the Adventist Church was unique, that God Himself directly influenced our development and dispersion through the world, by the agency of the Holy Spirit working on human minds. To adjust to the concept that "all churches share at least some similarities and given enough time and circumstance will tend to behave in the same manner" was a bit faith-wrenching. Somehow it seemed to push God away from the rudder as Creator of our movement, and replace him with an evolutionary model "common to all religions."
It occurs to me that others may have, or may have had, similar concerns. I notice that news and opinion items here at AT that tend to explain dynamics in the Church through science, logic, demographics, or sociology seem to garner less immediate interest. Is there a built-in Adventist aversion to studies and discussions that dissect our Church using traditional demographic, sociological, and anthropological methods?
ED
I never really thought about your question, Ed, and am not sure I agree with your assumption. My sense is that most educated church people are junkies when it comes to the pseudo-scientific methods that sociologists and psychologists employ to give their opinions the patina of objective authority. Christian leaders are huge consumers of the stuff that is churned out by The Barna Group. No matter what the results, the studies affirm how much expert Christian pastors and educators, armed with the latest research and polls, are needed to guide, inform, and reform the church. I've never seen anything I would dignify with the word science that offers an explanation for church dynamics. Did you have something specific in mind?
I'd be interested, Ed, in knowing what makes you think that Adventists are averse to soft science research. The Genesis Study is widely used and referenced within the church. Certainly sociological research has its place. But it generally contains much observer bias, is given too much weight, and is employed by its consumers to push pre-existing agendas. Most people who cite studies to support opinions already had the opinions before the study came out. It seems to me that there are too many variables to have much confidence in the controls that are used, to say nothing of the fact that the research is very expensive, making its cost-effectiveness dubious.
I'll be monitoring to see what comes out of Aaron's fire on this question… Are we as Adventists suspicious of those who attempt to explain the realities of our Church through an intellectual lens? I think it's a germane question given the above article. Perhaps no one else will agree…..
Of course in feel-good conferences, anything is possible. Whether dialogue with other faiths overcomes intra-faith conflict or strengthens identity depends very much on how the conflict and identity are defined. To paraphrase Dennis Prager, sometimes clarity is more important than agreement, and sometimes one's identity is rooted in unhealthy, destructive religious traditions. At the risk of stereotyping, I would venture that academicians of different faith traditions generally find it very easy to dialogue with one another because their faith identity is primarily intellectual, and thus faith differences seldom creates consequential conflicts. Christ wasn't very good at dialoguing away conflict with the religious leaders of His day, precisely because He had a strong faith identity which actually gave rise to conflict.
I need to see something a bit less nebulous to be persuaded that the question posed – "Can dialogue with other faiths help Adventists overcome internal conflict and strengthen identity?" – can be answered in the affirmative. But it does sound like a really sweet idea… I suppose you could take a poll after a conference like this and ask the participants, while the echoes of Kumbaya still hang in the air, if they feel like their dialogue helped to overcome internal conflicts and strengthen identity. Probably an overwhelming majority would say absolutely. And then, given such compelling scientific data, how could I continue to be a skeptic?
I see that my good friend Nate is exercising his considerable rhetorical skills by using terms such as "pseudo-scientific methods" to characterize sociological and psycholoigcal studies of religious institutions. He asserts that such studies are "churned out" by such organizations as The Barna Group to give previously formed opinons "the patina of objective authority." He then states that he had never seen anything that he would "dignify with the word science that offers an explanation for church dynamics.".
One wonders how Nate defines "science" in the context of the topic at issue, i.e., sociological and psychological studies of religious institutions. I'm assuming that he does not think it is possible to do a scientific study of religious institutions. So what kind of studies would he like sociologists and psychologists to undertake? How about going into a trance and seeing what insights one can come up with?. Or perhaps Nate would advocate the formulation of various conclusions about what drives religious institutions and then cast lots to decide which conclusion is correct? Perhaps he could suggest some other avenue of investigation that would conform to his view of an appropriate way to study the religious phenomenon in human societies..
Casting lots would be an alternative, but with a caveat: Only if it agreed with the preconceived beliefs of those who choose to give it credibility.
As a pastor for many years I can testify that sociological research for church growth and dynamics does contain "much observer bias," and "is given too much weight, and is employed by its consumers to push pre-existing agendas." Nathan's observation is obvious to many of us, I don't understand why his discription is so out-landish to the libs here?
What methods, if any, do you seek to know the growth of a world church? Are you contending that no such surveys should be trusted as all are biased or have agendas?
It seems that the SDA church has taken many such surveys in the past. Are they all as waste of time and offer no information of worth?
Businesses that are selling a consumer product are most interested in how that product meets customer needs, or how and why it could be improved. Religion is selling a product and seeks customers who believe in its integrity. How can you know what methods are best, or is there simply one plan that is repeated over and over? Surely, the evangelistic prophetic meetings that are being held today are no different, other than modern technology employed, than 50 years ago. In the NAD the attrition rate is equal, or more, than coversions. Does that demonstrate that we have no need for surveys?
Let me assure you that I think research on church growth and dynamics can be extremely useful. There are lots of unknowns that good research can shed light on. It's just that good research isn't necessarily science. Behavioral science research, at least in humans, is seldom replicated, nor is it falsifiable, because the conditions of the study are so poorly controlled and contain too many variables. Calling such research science serves to infuse the inferences and moral conclusions drawn by the "experts" with an authority that is unwarranted by research results that, on close inspection, often turn out to be manufactured.
There is much in the soft sciences that is logical, reasonable, and valuable. I majored in history and sociology in college. My point was not to denigrate sociology or other analogous disciplines, but to protest the notion that such disciplines are scientific. Help me understand just what it is that makes behavioral research scientific, Erv. I am not talking about neuroscience here, but the kind of research that is used to analyze church dynamics.
The results of surveys can be shown in statistical figures. Are you claiming that statistics is not a scientific endeavor? All medical studies are calculated on statistics; why not all studies involving numbers?
Ah, I was hoping you might mention that, Elaine. Actually no, I do not believe that statistics are science, any more than I believe that mathematics is science. Statistics can and must certainly inform and guide science, just as reason, logic, and experience inform and guide science. But they are different disciplines and different epistemological tools. When statistics are applied to demographics, politics, human and social behavior, the results are not necessarily scientific.
But the reason I suspected and hoped that you would choose to focus on statistics as the identifying feature of sociology and psychology that gives them entre into the "science" club is that probability and statistics, applied to science is the essence of Intelligent Design theory. I find it greatly amusing that liberal scientists eagerly confer the label of scientific and academic respectability on the highly progressive and imprecise "disciplines" of sociology and psychology, because those fields of study use the statistical methods of science to reach conclusions that feed the naturalistic metanarrative of "progressivism." But I.D., which utilizes precisely the same mathematical discipline as evolutionary science and the behavioral sciences to reach conclusions which call the progressive metanarrative of naturalism into question, is not only totally unscientific, but should not even darken the hallways of the sacred temples of academia. Now go figure…
Very interesting perspectives indeed,Just to mention a few things i have found out to be common within our controversies.We seem to argue with the objectve of expressing our interlectual prowess,We argue to basically win(not sure about it though i am yet to land on a conclusive argument,presumebly because none of us have an overlaping school of thought), Could it be simplistic of me to give a blanket view that God must/should be in control if at all we believe in a true church,I am an adventist who will forever "fight" from within but i find it rediculars that a lot of our energies are directed towards defending our past than forging our way forward.We are adventists and there is no doubt about it,we are here to stay,If anyone thinks they can scare us out,I can tell them we are here to remain,The foundation of our church is build on controversy and none of will go any sooner,a solution to one conteroversy will automatically trigger the next wave,We are simply a controversial lot.Having said all that rather spuriously,Our reaching to other denominations would only require doing away with our hardline stand,invoke reason and objectvity rather than defending the past in the name of avoidance of collapse,self defeating indeed.
Nate,
I do not claim that the "soft sciences"–psychology, sociology, etc., are true science compared to math, physics, etc.. But statistics are constantly used in all these, so it is not that statistics are wrong, but tht there very well may, and have been biases in arriving at the results. Because ID proponents use statistics in their zeal does not imply that all statistics are erroneous.
There was a significant revelation recently in the medical studies showing that deliberate falsification of results reported may have been due to the financial funding–usually a large pharmaceutical company. I read such with a great portion of doubt.
You are not saying that all surveys are false or useless? The SDA church has long taken surveys which offer results that could be helpful in its mission.
Elaine,
How I wish church leaders had heeded the results of some of those surveys! I have seen them perform amazing contortions to avoid recognizing the obvious: that the church was becoming increasingly out-of-touch with the public, socially irrelevant and major changes were required if the trend was to be reversed.
Elaine, I think you missed Nathan's point that you can't have it both ways!
As one can see from the following, the foundation of evolutionary thinking is statistics given an imagined vast pool of probablistic resources "
i humbly venture to disagree with much of the faith and truth that social statistical studies have any scientific empiracal evidence. Evey study starts with the built in bias of the sponsor of the study's parameters, then the bias's of the study team, the ever evolving culture of the study's objectives, and then of course the integrity of final presentation (will I be fired if i return what my sponsor doesn't want??). In business finance, when preparing quarterly or annual financial statements, one has actual accurate factors to work with; this is perhaps scientific as the replication utilizing proven acceptable practices permits the Auditors to verify and approve.
However when dealing with the human creature, the diverse makeup of the individual and lack of consistency, multiplied by the numbers involved, renders nothing more than a general result, never a precise actuality of the goal seeked. This protects the Study group's from criticism as they can't in short term be proven wrong. Most studies lead to more studies as most are never acted on, with any or much of the study's recommendations, therefore rendering them as costly pursuits of wasted effort. The ten year census is also a shotgun approach, with thousands data gatherers involvd. All states in the US have professional statisticians day in and out auditing the changes occurring with greater accuracy than thousands of gatherers at decade's end shuffling around. It's probably just a ruse of providing temp employment. The human animal as a group cannot be trusted to be truthful, as the leaders tend to be corrupt, and naturally feather their nest.
Elaine, do you really want to go here? A) I never said that statistics are erroneous. I said that just because a discipline uses statistics does not mean you can call it science. B) You can't decide whether or not something is science based on whether you agree with the conclusions. Most scientific hypotheses turn out to be unverifiable or wrong. Galileo was wrong in some of the theories he pursued with great zeal. That doesn't mean what he did was not science. He used empirical observation and mathematical calculations to falsify geocentrism.
Whether or not I.D. theorists reach correct conclusions, and whether or not they do it with zeal is totally irrelevant to the issue I posed: Why are sociology and psychology entitled to greater scientific respectability than I.D., if the basis for calling them sciences is their use of statistics and mathematics to test, validate, or falsify their theories? I assure you that if you read papers on I.D., or Stephen Meyer's Darwin's Doubt, you will quickly realize that I.D. is far more scientifically oriented and disciplined than the so-called soft sciences. The fact that I.D. proponents are usually Christian is no more reason to discredit their scholarly work than is the fact that most neo-Darwinists are atheists a reason to discredit their scholarly work. And I think the argument that sociology and psychology are more scientific disciplines than I.D. requires remarkable self-delusion and intellectual dishonesty.
Finally, I agree that surveys can be very useful. I think the church should be far more open to critical self-examination by obtaining surveys, and analyses of inflated membership rosters, that are as objective as possible. I just don't think it is necessary or reasonable to call such undertakings scientific.
i find it apprehensive that boosting people to leadership in the SDA church, the LDS and other ecclesiastical hierarchies, presumes by the laity that the Lord God personally places a mantle round their shoulders and a triple crown on their heads, and automatically they become prophets, and are raised up as God on earth. These elevated, can have feet of clay, blind to the true needs of the people, and of their church, and no more of the knowledge of God than the studied ones sitting in the pews. Also perhaps no more Spitural power of the HOLY SPIRIT working through them. Yet they are accepted by most as actually chosen by God, rather than waiting in line to receive the golden ring, and instant elevation to God's "heavenly board meetings", rather than the Ivory Tower board that pontificates here on earth, with directives and Bulls, with all that is worthy passed down, but nothing of note escaping upward, as the conference sieve snatches it, and is put in the files as "eternal pending consideration.
"Christ wasn't very good at dialoguing away conflict with the religious leaders of His day, precisely because He had a strong faith identity which actually gave rise to conflict."
Isn't He our Exemplar? Why not follow His example much more closely? Why all the debate about so-called surveys, etc?
Maranatha
One of the reasons I left the SDA church and ministry many years ago was because of the queasy lack of solid ground in religious discourse. All religious conclusions are illusory because there are no "facts," just belief. As a simple example, I could agree that baptism by immersion was better than the other modes. But then, on what basis? When I reviewed the history of baptism, I found my arguments were no "better" than for pouring or sprinkling . Why then should I represent my church as have a more pure rite to the degree a child baby baptized in the Lutheran church should join mine and be immersed? With this, and many more complicated issues, on what grounds does one be an SDA rather than a Methodist or a Catholic?
While dialogue with other denominations has some attractions, what critical criteria does any side apply to maintain identity? Can't we all just get along? And unite under one banner?
Surveys, studies, statistics, etc., don't provide rudders to steer the religious ship either on a hierarchal or laity level.
Perhaps the true believers are correct in their tenacious hold on the unique Adventist teachings as a bellwether of singularity in the religious world. The Catholic church, on its part, has done exactly that with great success, yes, even in the face of horrific scandal.
Bugs asks an interesting question: Why does one be an SDA rather than a Methodist or a Catholic? In First World Adventism, the answer for the majority is that one was born into that particular Christian denomination and sees no reason to leave. I'm sure the zealous converts will have a different reason and that is their right. For 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th generation Adventists, they probably stay for the same reason that 2nd, 3rd, 4th, . . . . . . 10th Generation Methodists stay in their religious tradtions. Why leave? Theological systems of various denominations are created by humans for particular reasons and they can be changed. It may take a long time, but eventually change comes. In the meantime, stick around and help whatever denominatiion you happen to be born into become of benefit to the human family. In the case of the Adventist tradtion, there would not be a lot of medical institutions around if it had not been for that faith tradition. That's enough of a reason. To get these institution, you have to put up with a lot of theological ideas which have problems. The theological ideas can be argued about while, in the case of the Adventist traditiion, the medical institutiions can help people. It's a reasonable tradeoff.
I have about thirty of my academy students from nearly forty years ago listed as "friends" on Facebook. As nearly as I can tell, most are loyal yet to the SDA church. It appears, Ervin, you are correct that most starting in the church find no reason to leave. I think there is a harmony level most religious believers seek and find in their faith that keeps them on a steady course. Most of them have no interest in trotting around the minefields of this or similar forums. Life has enough vexing issues away from the haven of their faith. And it isn't that they don't have issues or questions, but they find ways to accommodate, maybe even pacify disturbing rumblings of discontent with their church. For example, one with whom I have had contact on existential issues is active in a liberal SDA church and finds guidance in the theological work of Bultmann.
Having served as a chaplain in an SDA hospital, I vouch for your positive evaluation. I have no idea how many, but I know some of the hospitals had property or money contributed for startup from grateful non SDA citizens who valued the care they received. I'm sure it wasn't just technique that earned that response, but a level of care expressed beautifully by staff members. I enjoyed the effect of that tradition when I was a chaplain and felt the institution still was a cut above the rest because of it.
Is the SDA health care system being eroded away by active currents in the health care industry?
Bugs- "Is the SDA health care system being eroded away by active currents in the health care industry?" Another excellent question. It depends who you talk to.It's obviously a complex question. Adventist Today just published an article on the very high salaries of administrators at Adventist hospitals. This subject is way above my pay grade, but I know people who do know what's going on and the whole subject is a mine field with very difficult options to negociate. It would be interesting to come back in 100 years and see if the Adventist hospital system is still Adventist. .
What is meant by "Adventist Hospitals"? I've been several times in Catholic hospitals and the care is excellent, the sisters offer to pray for you, their charges are no different. Can someone give reasons why Adventist Hospitals are superior or is their mission any different than other hospitals?
I come back to the question alluded to earlier in comments, to restate it more explicitly, "To what extent is Adventism and its culture exceptional, compared with other religions and cultures?”
Theologically conservative Adventists seem to see Adventist doctrines and lifestyle as exceedingly elevated—as literally handed down from heaven in complete and unalterable purity for all time until the Little Cloud closes this chapter on the Great Controversy, and when something DOES go big-time wrong, it is often blamed on human error/apostasy (frequently spelled apostacy) in departing from The Blueprint.
By contrast, those of a more moderate theological persuasion see our church as possessing some very strong points in its favor, but differ from staunch theological conservatives in pointing out that original Adventism was often exceedingly off the mark theologically and culturally, and that it is important to continue to find and implement Present Truth as we perceive better and more biblical ways to move forward. But this said, I would come back to the central question, "Do we as Adventists (overall) see ourselves as exceptional, above all other Christians?" Perhaps I ask the question badly, but the topic is exceedingly interesting and impinges on imprecations of non-exceptionality invoked against Adventist health and other manifestations of organized Adventist life. How do we really rate in various "Religious Consumer Report" matters on a scale of true exceptionalism? What areas of improvement seem most urgently needed, if any? I was raised in a family of strong Adventist exceptionalism, and will undoubtedly hold these opinions strongly throughout life. I am proud of a great deal in our church, but have been seriously chagrinned by feet of clay we have seen, primarily in financial and theological openness and in ability to flex with the times to open avenues of opportunity for minority groups that in years past have been judged as inferior to white Anglo males. We may in fact have regressed in some of these areas since the death of the prophetess….
Edwin,
Excellent observations. It seems you are raising the question: Is Adventistism still exceptional? To me the answer is a clear negative. It is far more than just being separated from the prophetess because the church has become lost in the wilderness of traditions and formalities instead of walking in the clear, guiding light of the Holy Spirit who empowers believers for ministry.
To bring this back to the original topic of dialogue between religious groups, what value can we expect from such a dialogue if the various participants are each lost in their own concept of exceptionalism? If each comes into the discussion with an attitude of "My doctrines are correct, so that means you have to be wrong"? What I have seen resolve such conflict typically is not a doctrinal argument but the obvious working of the Holy Spirit revealing the will of God. Often this is a direct result of divine revelations displaying the prophetic gift that we reject as unnecessary in the present while esteeming as proof of past exceptionalism.
With the amalgamation of hospital systems (Catholic/SDA in Denver, for example) and the removal of some SDA hospitals from the SDA system (in Mass., I believe), you do raise a good question. But we live by myths, some of which have foundation in fact. Time modifies all good stories. Good memories pad the past with pleasant interpretations where, for the sake of convenience, facts may relegated to second or third place.
Brian McLaren is part of the Emergent church movement, and his theology boarders on the edge of Universalism. Of course this is in lockstep with the trajectory that the modern Seventh Day Adventist church.
The discussion a few days ago, about Adventist exceptionalism, reminds me of a story I once read about an old rabbi in a small village in eastern Europe. He was renowned for his sagacity, and uncanny ability to know the answer to just about any question that was asked of him. One day some teenage boys hit upon a plan to discredit the rabbi. They approached his home just outside town, with one of the boys cupping a small bird in his hands. The scheme was clever. They would ask the rabbi if the bird was dead or alive. If the rabbi said the bird was dead, they would let it fly away. If, on the other hand, the rabbi said it was alive, a gentle squeeze would crush the life out of the bird, and prove the rabbi wrong. And so they asked the old man, "Rabbi, this bird we are holding…is it dead or alive?" The rabbbi gently smiled at them, and replied, "The answer, my boys, is in your hands."
And so it is with Adventism. So it has always been with faith communities. They answer to the question of whether our church is, was, or will be exceptional is in our hands. There are many places in the world where Adventism is indeed exceptional, not because of its doctrines or idiosyncratic subculture, but because lives transformed by Christ's love and sacrifice are always exceptional. As the secular histories of the world are written, ancient jewish religion and culture were not particularly exceptional. Christianity is only deemed exceptional because of its political, sociological, and demographic significance. Strip away the remarkably enduring "myths" constructed by 1st and 2d Century religious fanatics, and Christianity is no more exceptional than any other religion.
Spirit-filled lives, surrendered and committed to incarnating the gospel, cannot help but be exceptional. And when those lives move synergistically with other similarly committed lives, learning to be members of the body of Christ, there you will find an exceptional church.
Amen! And Sooo True!
"Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect: but I press on, if so be that I may lay hold on that for which also I was laid hold on by Christ Jesus.
Brethren, I count not myself yet to have laid hold: but one thing I do, forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before,
I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." Phil. 3:12-14