My Take: A Global Family Needs a Global Mind
by Raj Attiken, July 22, 2015: Management consultant Peter Drucker famously said that culture eats strategy for breakfast. He was, of course, talking about organizational dynamics. Culture ate theology, policy, and procedure in the Seventh-day Adventist Church for breakfast and lunch at the church’s 60th General Conference Session in San Antonio. Which leads us to ask: Given the global nature of the church, are we destined to live with the reality that our policies and ecclesiastical practices will be held hostage by the cultures that have dominant representation in our decision-making assemblies?
It was evident during the business session discussions that our “global family” thinks and acts provincially. This provinciality was not confined to nations and geographical regions. It was evidenced also in organizations within the church that are enclaves of insularity, and whose “culture” promotes a certain sequestration. In the decision-making process, it is understandable why individuals would insist on putting an imprint only on outcomes that align most closely with the indigenous culture of their place or organization. Hence, regional and sectarian identities asserted themselves on several agenda items in San Antonio. We functioned often as self-enclosed cultural entities that are mutually external to each other.
The identity of individuals, and groups of individuals, is inescapably marked by the particularities of the social and cultural setting in which they grow and develop. Their identity is linked to parental figures, peer groups, teachers, religious authorities and community leaders, and to particular languages, religions, customs, and the construction of gender and racial differences within their communities. As the church has taken root in diverse cultures it has also been profoundly shaped by the particularities of these different cultures.
Being a “global family” requires that we cultivate a “global mind” and know something about the reality in which our brothers and sisters live. To speak of global Adventism – Adventism extended in space and time – means simply that Adventism cannot be understood exclusively from one cultural perspective. The church must take seriously differences in cultures, ethnicity, gender roles, and social location, and equip its members to understand these differences, if it is going to be an authentic representative of the kingdom of God on earth. At a minimum, we must ensure that those who are selected to serve on decision-making assemblies of the church understand the cultural nuances that animate the life of the global Adventist family. In a global decision-making body such as a General Conference session, we are called to do not just what fits our culture to the exclusion of others, but what allows the church in all cultures to flourish.
I am not making a case here for a Western or American narrative to be accepted by all. No language or culture has a monopoly on God, the gospel, or theology. I am asserting here that all parts of the global Adventist community have narratives that those in other parts must seek to understand and respect. They also have contributions to make to the rest of the Body of Christ. No church in any culture may consider itself sufficient to itself and to its own culture.
Christianity has seen those eras when the Church saw little need to take other cultures seriously or to understand them on their own terms. Theology was viewed as a systematic set of universal truths that applied to all cultures and thus simply needed to be translated into local languages. Just as truth is universal, so too was there one theology for everyone in all cultures. The new era that the world has entered into, with its changing demographics of Christianity, has nudged us to recognize that Biblical interpretation involves text and contexts. Contexts, with their particularities of time, place, culture, and social location, give theologies their specific texture.
While we celebrate the wonderful diversity that characterizes who we are as a church, we must also be keenly aware of the tensions that exist when divergent cultures come together to address common interests and concerns. These cultural tensions will not simply go away, nor can they be fixed by merely voting policies or mandating practices. A system of decision-making about what is right or wrong, good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate that is weighted towards cultures that have the largest number of votes is a deeply flawed system.
Since Seventh-day Adventism relishes its identity as a fast-growing worldwide church and global “family,” we must nurture greater understanding of, and appreciation for, those who make up this family and how they influence and shape our identity. Yale theologian Miroslav Volf proposes that each church in any given culture must say, “‘I am not only I; all other churches, rooted in diverse cultures, belong to me too.’ Each needs all to be properly itself.”[i]
We must also design systems of decision-making that recognize and respect the distinctives and nuances in belief and practice of the church in the many cultures that make up global Adventism. In order to achieve this we must find ways to enhance the cultural competency of our leaders and members alike. That’s what it will take for us to truly be a robust, functional global community. That’s my take!
(I invite you to post your ideas on how cultural competency can be cultivated within the SDA community.)
[i] Volf, Miroslav. Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), p. 51.
If right and wrong are a list of things that God hates arbitrarily but strongly, then “culture” will
Always be steamrolled in an attempt to keep God from being mad at us.
Fundamentalist thinking is very efficient because the outcome is guaranteed in the mind of the individual and even then, doing nothing is always a safe fallback.
Consequences don’t matter either. Fundamentalists are willing to put up with extreme (difficult) lifestyles in order to guarantee salvation; so there is no appeal to practicality either.
Examples abound (Amish, Fundamentalist Mormons, Orthodox Jews etc)
Suffering is noble–a sign of being peculiar– and happiness is decreed and also becomes dogma.
I remember a while back listening to a program about an Orthodox Jewish woman who was basically celibate in her marriage.
You see the laws of niddah, as derived from the Bible and interpreted by them, decree that a woman is unclean during her period as well as one week after the last spot of blood is seen.
During this time, her husband cannot so much as hold her hand or otherwise touch her–even by accident.
But there are women who for one reason or another spot (bleed) from time to time irregularly (not related to the period necessarily). She was one of them.
So basically her husband sometimes only touched her once a month or not at all for several months as she bled irregularly.
This caused extreme anguish, but being fundamentalist there was no escape. This was what God required of her. She was not allowed to reason her way out. She had to make do with her life as it was.
That is the nature of this issue we’re facing as a church.
So how do we approach fundamentalists within the church?
You have confirmed the challenge within the church.
How did Fundamentalism “get” in the church? It can only be eliminated by actions and education. When the “white man” went to different countries, was equality of all part of Adventism, as it should have been?
The same authority that did not properly teach must now engage in a planned program of re-educating in the equality of all God’s children.
Will we define “global culture” from our point of view, or God’s point of view? We see the problems from trying to define it from our viewpoint. So, what is it going to take for us to adopt God’s viewpoint?
Christianity has a long history of teaching culture along with theology. God did not call us to teach either culture or theology, but to come into an intimate relationship with a powerful and loving God who has promised to live within each of us and use us to spread His love. Yes, it is difficult to change a culture where the people are highly patriarchal and view God in that way and think the culture of the church should be reflective of their culture. But God has called us to teach HIS culture and to learn to live in HIS world. So, when will we become more focused on living HIS way?
This whole article is nothing but pure politics. Every culture in the world is mingled with sin. We are not here to patronize any “culture” nor bring it into the kingdom of God.
The Jews were to represent the only “culture” that God had in mind. It was to represent the kingdom of heaven, and it excluded any and all cultures of this world with all their perverted ideas about sin and righteousness.
Modern Adventism has abandon this reality in favor of some “unity” that is nothing more than antichrist in its theology and application. Truth incessantly attacks cultures of the world as being wicked and heathen.
The world is to be converted to God’s “culture” if people want to be saved. But now the church wants to be converted to the world. True bible spiritual perception is mostly dead in the SDA church. We have patronized sin for so long, and now we want to justify what we have done and are doing in the hope that we can escape the judgment of God. All we have is a political church that emulates Rome in how it explains itself and justifies its actions of rebellion. The “unity” advocated is pure evil beyond comprehension. The bible has been abandon on many levels and the end is self destruction.
Bill don’t totally disagree but not sure if entirely true either. God imposed certain cultural-specific rules on the Jews. But a bunch of those applied to Jews only – never to Gentiles – such as circumcission.
In other aspects, God only imposed broad principles, such as the Noahide principles of Gen 9, which are in effect replicated in Ger-Alien parts of the Torah in Lev 17 and 18, and the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15. For Gentiles, God prescribed no such detailed rules but expected each Gentile culture to apply and adapt godly principles to localised situations.
The problem with the Pharisaic-Christians of the Judaizing party, which the Apostles condemned in Acts 15, was their inability to distinguish the Jewish-specific rules from mere culture. They thought to impose circumcission on all God-fearers, including all Gentiles, even though the Torah itself never required as such.
The point being, we are not simply to emulate the culture of the Jews, which I take as your implication. God never expected such, the Torah has never demanded, and the Apostles have likewise made that clear.
The problem in Adventism, just like the ancient Pharisaic-Christians, is the inability to distinguish godly principles from localised cultural adaption. Contrary to your suggestion, local cultural adaption is not sin. Paul said he will act like a Jew to win Jews, and act like a Gentile to win Gentiles. To follow your logic, that Pauline approach would be sin itself.
“Bill don’t totally disagree but not sure if entirely true either. God imposed certain cultural-specific rules on the Jews. But a bunch of those applied to Jews only – never to Gentiles – such as circumcission.”
It was a sign of faith in Christ. And we don’t impose baptism on the heathen either. Unless and until they come to faith.
The article was logical and expresses the reality of our world, whether we like it or not. Of course, a church is going to take on some of the influences where it is located.
The early missionaries who went to these places were also quite conservative (nonprogressive) in their outlook and tended to emphasize doctrine over living out the Gospel. Therefore,if women were not equal (as in Islam) or seen as ministers (RC countries), this would impact the church. I have heard a returned missionary defend stealing because “it was part of the culture.” Why didn’t they make all the commandments of equal importance? Sabbathkeeping was certainly not part of their culture!
Bill – I’m old enough to remember when it was a sin to go to a movie, go bowling, wear jewelry, open-toed shoes, sleeveless blouses, wedding rings…. & the list goes on.
Was that cultural? Or do you still see those things as sins? Did someone in the church decree that God changed His mind? And who was, or is, right or wrong?
Many of the old Adventist taboos (no jewelry, no theater, no clothing that bared patches of skin, no dancing, etc.) were adopted straight-up from conservative Christian groups of that time in the US, such as Baptists. These were “Christian culturally conservative” practices of that era, and as these prohibitions have died out, or been replaced with new ones (such as Male Headship) some Adventists have quite naturally switched right along with these other conservative religious cultures. There is nothing in the Bible for or against some of these early prohibitions adopted by the Adventist flock. Clearly the intent at the formation of the denomination was to project the denomination as a reputable, observant, settled organization in tune with organizations from which the post-Millerites had gained, and would gain, a great number of future converts. It’s not a bad idea, as Paul points out, to at least outwardly honor the styles, mores, and values of the people one wishes to introduce to deeper truths, in the longer term….
You raise a good point about what was adopted from other churches and there are a number of other things on that list including at 11 a.m. for a worship service, using sermons as the primary method for spiritual instruction, etc. That hour for a worship service traces to Martin Luther and when he was sober enough to stand in front of an assembly following his drinking on Saturday night and sermons were a way of teaching the people who had no access to the scriptures or who illiterate and could not read it. Though, considering the things some Adventists have chosen to believe (like Male Headship) it appears that some otherwise literate people today are only spending enough time studying the scriptures to find what suits their purposes instead of learning what God teaches.
It is easy to see things in such a good vs evil view when you’re not allowing God’s love to transform you and show you the mission purpose He has waiting for you. When you’ve discovered what the Holy Spirit wants you doing for Him then your attitude will change, as God did with me. Instead of seeing the world in terms of right (as defined by how I see it) vs antichrist theology as I once did, I now see the power of God at work and the ways He wants me drawing people to Him by loving them and ministering to their needs. My focus is no longer on the evils I am combatting, but on the love of a powerful God who is not obliquely and forcefully ordering people to come away from sin, but attracting them into His great righteousness and love. Oh, how I wish you would discover the immense and incredible love of God so you can begin ministering it instead of just throwing stones at everybody who doesn’t see things the exact same way you do!
Global corporations adjust and adapt to local situations to become successful. McDonalds operates world-wide, but their menus are catered to the locals: in China they serve food that is native and relished. They would be confined to the U.S. where they originated if this wasn’t planned.
For Adventists to attempt to maintain a global community with one-size-fits all is already showing almost irreparable damage which will grow, if no changes are made. The western divisions will not forever adopt the culture of the southern hemisphere, and the southern Adventists should not be expected to adopt western culture in order to remain good Adventists.
I don’t think that the no-vote in itself is the big problem, but more the lack of global leadership. The vote reflects the cultural differences that naturally exist in a global community, and as such the result of the vote was quite predictable. The problem here, as I see it, is that what the assembly was asked to vote on should never have been put before the assembly. This is the kind of issues that should be handled within the frame of a constitution, adapted to the reality of a pluralistic world-church. The real challenge here is constitutional. A constitutional state does not ask for a public referendum on issues like this, because this is taken care of within the constitution – ref. US Supreme Court on the issues of same sex marriage.
The kind of problems that arise as a result of the vote on WO reveals the pathologies that stems from an elitist, autocratic model of leadership and decision-making within the Church. The Church is not constitutionally rigged to handle the challenge of cultural and religious diversity.
Furthermore, the Church needs to pay much more attention to questions of biblical hermeneutics. It’s present hermeneutics (if it has one), is severely hampered by fundamentalist and absolutist perspectives. The SDA Church must rid itself of it’s infallibalistic approach, and open up for a recontextualization of it’s own identity in the world.
It’s greatest challenges are it’s strong methaphysical theology and how political power is…
Continuation:
..distributed. Without a constitution that secures the interests of the total body of the Church, referendums by simple majority vote end up as “The winner takes it all!”
Very good logic. I think you are right on!
“I see it, is that what the assembly was asked to vote on should never have been put before the assembly.”
I agree–this showed poor leadership on all fronts. And the way it was handled lacks credibility. perhaps even its handling reveals the different ways decisions are made in different societies. We need to accept we don’t always understand each other. Then perhaps dialogue can begin. “Come let us reason together.”
The elitist, autocratic leadership suppress cultural and religious diversity in exchange for votes to sustain their dynasty. Issues are often presented and manipulated to achieve the desired outcome which has no biblical standing. Just a reminder: Corrupt dynasties eventually self destruct. Is this where the SDA church is heading?
The directionless Adventist “Global Family” is missing is a “Global Mind” because it isn’t sure what it is. And that is because it dares not admit what it was, a theological failure from the gitgo.
It’s undermining problem is that Jesus hasn’t returned as predicted. It can’t go forward and it can’t return to what it wasn’t. So the issues of headship, WO, the credibility of the GC and its leadership, the struggles over basic definitions of belief, in reality, are secondary, of minor consequence for Adventism’s survival. As one can see on this forum, nothing but disputes over jots and tittles.
The real hidden, totally ignored, issue is the core of Adventism, its birth in falsehood. Not intentional by those original interpreters of prophecy, but a faulty structure eventually built on massive miscalculations with damning results to this day.
The church has imprisoned itself in a time warp by nature of its proclaimed end-time mission. It dare not look to the future with serious intent. To do so would require it to deny its past and admit its original sin of self-aggrandizement and prophetical abuse.
The official church cannot undo its history. And it obviously cannot own up to it either. The result is paralysis, official Adventism is reduced to a quinquennial General Conference which is both a carnival and tempest in a teapot where a good time is to be had by all. And that is the best it can do without confronting its past.
Wow, Bugs, you blow my mind! Bravo!
Really! He rarely has anything good to say. He’s here to make us mad or try to.
EM, I welcome being challenged and even corrected.
I don’t expect anyone to enjoy having cherished myths questioned. So I understand your statement. However, I’ve never seen your reply to any of my statements as your effort to correct me. Why not start with this one?
My positive alternative always has been and is to concentrate religious discourse on God as love.
Your summation of the quandary facing the SDA is precise. TW missed a golden opportunity of not tabling the WO question.
To remove the controversy from becoming a schism, all he had to do was not to bring the question to the floor, just announce that the question had been answered in previous actions.
Yes, indeed.
While there has been great disappointment and griping among those who were voted down at GC, I believe most of them have, in the end, been able to look at the big picture and model God’s patience and forgiveness. But I have heard a number of comments about emerging cultures’ delegates who have said words to the effect that NA and Europe have been in the majority and held the reins long enough, and now it is their turn. That is not the kind of attitude or mindset that can be taught otherwise.
Yes, as a result of the vote we are seeing the anger of some against the west come to fruition that tends to turn this into more of a political/national/racial issue that has nothing to do with faith or the church.
I have had to ask myself–do I want to be part of a family like that? My faith is in Jesus and not an organization with too many who are influenced by worldly ways of doing business.
Sounds like a perfect PLAN; the body of the Church going to Heaven with CHRIST. The peace and joy promised within the battle is also a blessing; I would not trade them for the world. HE is our finisher; he will grow us in FAITH, patience, Charity and teach us Love, through Love. We learn that we do not matter; others are the important ones, in Love. Then we can actually understand Love.
We learn to appreciate and stand for others; Loving those that help, no matter the denomination. We have no tolerance or patience for those that claim the works, efforts or testimonies of the Saints or those that have gone before us; especially for their individual purposes or motives. We do not suffer spoilt children. We appreciate wisdom and those that look after our Souls. We love the entire body of the Church and cherish such service in conviction.
I will yell at the top of my voice “no matter where HE may lead, where you may go or what you may do; serve HIM”.
I would hope and by HIS WILL we leave our children a Remnant Church; instead of remnants of a Church. Do you think that HIS plan will not be executed; with or without us? Do you think that HE will not protect and care for HIS flock; with our without us? Maybe we place way toooooo much on us even being in the picture to start with; except by HIS Love. Maybe with prayer and conviction we can serve HIM in Love.
“It was evident during the business session discussions that our “global family” thinks and acts provincially.”
I disagree. What I see in this essay is an effort to embrace the “big tent” philosophy where doctrine is subsumed into the prevalent culture. It’s controversial and divisive and would split the church.
IF Adventist Today is moderating these discussions, please let me suggest that it is inappropriate to use the word, “we” to refer to what other people are doing when the writer obviously doesn’t consider himself as having the problem he is describing.
Ephesians 5:
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
We are one body. We are all subject to CHRIST in everything; both good and bad. We are give responsibilities and commanded to rebuke failures in such. There are no individuals.
We have a job to do and Souls to save. We have suffering to relieve and needs to be met. We are the stewards of our FATHERS garden and granted the strength of conviction and blessings of HIS Love in such. Our promised gift is beyond our understanding of value. We have the responsibility to ensure everyone understands and has access to that gift. We are the Church; we are are about our FATHERS business. I would think everyone would want to be a part of the strong HOUSE of CHRIST; not an individual in the world alone?
Matthew 12 (and Mark 3):
29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
It appears that over 50% of families, and or homes, do not have a father figure in the home,
except for the occasional drop in of men “friends”.
You wrote: “We have a job to do and Souls to save. We have suffering to relieve and needs to be met.”
Agreed, So, when are you going to let the Holy Spirit show you the ministry He wants you doing so you can begin demonstrating His redeeming and transforming love to others instead of just throwing Bible verses at them?
Oops! The above was supposed to be a reply to “Reality.”
I thought you were nominated and accepted to help to Church move toward being the beacon of compassion? I would agree, pray and support you in that(and remember we Love you). Some will be convicted in compassion through HIM and save by HIM; but others require fear.
The BIBLE is our sword? Should we not at least use the SWORD to warn? We know many will hear “depart from me”, that’s pretty scary. We know prophesies of the last days; should we not tell everyone, so they might be prepared and beware (displayed without our individual interpretations)? We know what has, is and will happen; but that only makes the job more difficult (and scary).
To all:
We are in daunting times. Much Conviction and Faith are needed for the Church in these last days. I have and continue to ask for prayers, ideas within wisdom, guidance and works for others (and rebuke if needed); Love is sometimes tough (and appreciated).
Remember we are trying to pull others out of the fire; those out there are much more important than we are and the strength of that which we fight is great. We should never allow stumbling blocks against HIS will or Scripture; we are commanded to not allow such.
We are the Church; inseparable. We all have different callings with jobs to do and the results of those are very critical; but our voices are not. The PLAN is not ours; it has existed forever. Are we not foolish spoilt children to think we have a better plan?
Raj Attiken has written an excellent article calling us to increased cultural competency and awareness. At the end of his article he invited us to provide suggestions to accomplish this in our churches and lives. Here are my ten suggestions.
1. Communication method: Identify the person’s preferred method of communication. Make necessary arrangements if translators are needed. Church bulletins, web pages, newsletters, directories, word of mouth, whatever personal preferences persons have, they need to be respected.
2. Language barriers: Identify potential language barriers (verbal and nonverbal). List possible compensations.
3.. Develop a support team for assistance.
4. Comprehension: Does the person and/or family comprehend the cultural context they are interacting with?
5. Beliefs: Identify, respect and validate religious/spiritual needs and beliefs.
6. Trust: Does the patient and/or family appear to trust their fellow members, are they comfortable? Remember to watch for both verbal and non-verbal cues.
7. Recovery: Does the patient and/or family have misconceptions or unrealistic views about the church or it’s members? Make necessary adjustments.
8. Diet: Address culture-specific dietary considerations, preferences and needs. Potlucks may or may not be enough.
9. Assessments: Conduct assessments with cultural sensitivity in mind. Watch for inaccuracies.
10. We have biases and prejudices. Examine and recognize yours and decide how God can help you.
Mine would be:
1) Stick with GOD (Psalms 16).
2) Stick with GOD’s PLAN (Hebrews 10).
3) Teach GOD’s PLAN (Titus 2).
4) Tell everyone they should stick with and teach GOD’s PLAN (Matthew 5).
5) GOD’s PLAN belongs to GOD 2 Peter 1.
6) Culture and individual doctrine does not matter (
“Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Mark 7:7.
7) Love others (the entire BIBLE).
8) Watch out for stumbling blocks of others Romans 14.
9) Be ready to help Acts 15.
10) Spread the TRUE WORD 2 Timothy 4.
We can look and see the failure of these in 2 Timothy 3. We dig the hole, create the mess, ask for suggestions to correct and still do not return to HIS PLAN. Such wisdom.