My Take: Pluralism
by Raj Attiken, February 5, 2015: There is heightened anticipation about the upcoming General Conference Session in part because of at least two items that are slated to be on the agenda: authorizing Divisions to decide whether or not to ordain women for pastoral ministry in their respective territories and the revisions to the Fundamental Belief on creation. It is unlikely that decisions regarding these matters will be received with equal enthusiasm by all segments of the church, given the nature of these issues and the current diverse composition of the global Adventist Church. The actions are likely to be seen by some as an affirmation of historic Adventist values, by others as a compromise of these values, by some as reflective of the cultural and theological diversity of the global church, and by others as being out of touch with the theological and faith maturity of contemporary global Adventism. Some fear that actions on these issues could splinter the denomination, as has happened in other religious groups.
My take is that we, in the Adventist Church, have arrived at a time when we need to give consideration to the nature of pluralism within our denomination and how it affects our life as a church community. While the notion that two or more divergent and even opposing views can legitimately coexist in the Adventist Church might initially appear to be radical, some honest reflection will point us to the reality that pluralism already characterizes our relationship to our beliefs and practices. Pluralism, as a practical and operational hermeneutic for life, is already a very present reality in the church. We are a community in which individuals and groups of individuals hold different perspectives on many doctrines and issues. What we haven’t done, heretofore, is formally acknowledge that this is so, that it is an inevitable reality in today’s world, and that we must learn how to relate to it in a wholesome way.
Pluralism is the nature of the global society we live in. People who hold different perspectives than ours occupy the spaces we occupy in the church. To believe otherwise is to be oblivious to reality. Beliefs and practices are no longer sequestered within communities or geographical regions. Instead, they coexist with other ideas and beliefs within the same communities. No impenetrable fences or walls exist. Efforts by individuals or groups to prescribe their particular ideology as the only permissible or plausible one cannot and will not succeed in a pluralistic environment.
The pluralism I describe here is not relativism (the view that truth is not absolute, but exists only in relation to particular contexts, cultures, societies, etc.) or syncretism (the fusion or merging of different beliefs and practices). Instead, pluralism is an encounter of commitments, and does not require us to leave our identities or beliefs behind. It not only recognizes that diversity exists within the church, but it energetically engages that diversity, actively seeking to understand across lines of differences. Pluralism does not imply that there is no one truth on anything, when considering mutually incompatible truth claims. Nor does it imply that there are no foundational truths that we can embrace. It invites us, however, to hold on to these truths gracefully, in humble recognition that now “we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror,” and that “all that I [we] know now is partial and incomplete.” (1 Cor. 13:12, NLT).
It can be argued that it is a sign of a faith community’s maturity that, on matters of belief and practice, multiple perspectives can coexist in the same space within that community. That in the face of differing perspectives and unresolved debate, it does not call people to rigidly align themselves on one side or another, but to take seriously their personal quest for deeper understanding. That it displays a strong commitment to fostering ongoing conversations regarding the nature of its life together as a community, its values, and its mission.
The presence of pluralism and discussions on how to relate to it lend themselves to no easy answers. The issues are many, the arguments complex, and the responses varied. It would be hard, though, to overstate the practical significance of this topic. Acknowledgment of pluralism as a feature of contemporary Adventism will allow conservatives, liberals, progressives, fundamentalists, and other groups to each legitimately feel that their version of Adventism merits a place at the “table”; we can stop all witch-hunts to smoke out those on the “other side” of issues and label them second-class Adventists or not Adventists at all; we can disband our heresy patrols on college and university campuses and in churches; we can hold fewer church business meetings to throw people out of our fellowship because of what they believe or don’t believe; we can shut down our propaganda websites and invest in things more useful; we can even resort to respectful conversations with those whose views differ from us. Best of all, we can enjoy a safe and healthy environment in which to pursue a quest to deepen our understandings, strengthen our faith, and enrich our community.[†]
It is somewhat naïve for us to continue to act as if a vote by a committee, council, or assembly – even after earnest prayer and supplication — will necessarily garner global agreement of belief or practice on any issue. It is just as naïve to believe that unity within the Church can be achieved simply by obtaining a majority vote on any item at a General Conference session. Shouting louder will not produce unity or uniformity. Thumping the pulpit harder doesn’t garner agreement. Even obtaining a majority vote on any issue does not usher in unity. Those among us who are determined that we will convert others to our perspective, if not through conversation and debate, then through votes at an assembly such as a General Conference session, are on the wrong side of reality. The effort to resolve the tension between two opposing ideas through a vote at an assembly, or to declare which idea is right and which is wrong, or which one is favored by God and which one is not, is a misplaced effort.
I do not expect pluralism to be our newest “fundamental belief” or credo. But I do wish that at this upcoming General Conference session, when setting up the items for discussion, debate, and action, our leaders would declare a clear and unambiguous public recognition of the pluralistic nature of the Adventist Church, and of the implications of this reality on how we live with differences in beliefs and practices within our community. On why we can hold different views, be engaged in different ecclesiastical practices, embrace different rituals, and still be fully and authentically Adventist. On why a charitable environment that is conducive to open and honest conversations on opposing perspectives is essential if our beloved community is to be a robust community. Such a declaration at the General Conference session will not only influence the spirit in which conversations occur, but will also influence what happens within our community after the votes are taken. It will certainly be an act of incisive leadership.
Let’s formally and publicly acknowledge what we’ve known for a long while. Let’s declare pluralism as the “new normal” in Adventism. That’s my take!
[†]In light of the current reality of a pluralistic church, it would do us well to consider issues such as the impact of pluralism on “present truth,” on Adventist identity, on our Fundamental Beliefs, and on church unity.
(This comment belongs with – My Take: On Being Distinctive: https://atoday.org/take-distinctive.html)
Raj,
You’re right. Exceptionalism appeals to some inside the church. I’ll go even further than you doubt about it failing to impress anyone outside because it makes a negative impression that in recent decades has become increasingly significant. Why? Because we’ve become so focused on proving our distinctiveness that we’ve lost touch with how to communicate the basics of the Gospel to a dying world. Instead of being personally involved with delivering God’s redeeming love and ministering his soul-healing power, we’re willing to pay pastors to do it. Worse than that, we’ve fallen under the delusion that by just warming a pew on Sabbath we’re associated with those who are doing God’s work and somehow are doing what God wants us to be doing. Then we expect the world to hear the shouting of the Gospel that exists only in our heads and wonder why they aren’t listening.
A little lady warned us that a great “falling away” would happen before Jesus returns. I think we’re already seeing it happen. Only the people who are falling-away are those who are focused on being spiritually distinct and arguing about specific doctrines instead of becoming so lost in Christ. I dream of the day when others will look at us and see the love of Jesus in the same way He declared whoever had seen Him and seen the Father.
(This comment belongs with – My Take: On Being Distinctive: https://atoday.org/take-distinctive.html)
Agree Bill, this is the basis of my writing…..the church is really pulling away from the world in a way that astonishes and saddens me…just this morning I refused to attend a small Sabbath group forming in my community because they insisted that they dont want anyone coming to the group who have opposing views to what the “bible” teaches which interpreted is “their” view. No thanks I said, I only want to be part of a community of believers where differing opinions can be aired and discussed…not interested in sitting quietly by while propaganda and traditional sayings are repeated ad-nausium…
(This comment belongs with – My Take: On Being Distinctive: https://atoday.org/take-distinctive.html)
Almost every day at lunchtime at work a co-worker and I study the Bible together. We’re reading through the New Testament one chapter at a time. Today we were reading 2 Timothy 1. The insights God is giving us as we read together and share is amazing. He’s pentecostal. I’m letting God grow both of us and it is an amazing thing to see and experience.
It all comes down to your view of God.
If God is demanding and exacting then you’ll focus all your energies on trying to keep him from being mad at you.
(This comment belongs with – My Take: On Being Distinctive: https://atoday.org/take-distinctive.html)
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:35)
“It is not … religious privilege, which proves that we are members of the family of God; it is love, a love that embraces all humanity.” (Thoughts From The Mount Of Blessing, p. 75)
“We must not think, ‘Well, we have all the truth.’ … The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light.” (Evangelism, p. 296)
(This comment belongs with – My Take: On Being Distinctive: https://atoday.org/take-distinctive.html)
Well said Raj…..we used to call this the “Fortress Mentality” in the ministry days. The world is evil and the people in it and so we are all huddling around the piano at prayer meetings praying for God to get us home. The problem is that God wants us out there and doing good instead of focussing on being good…I see a split coming in the church and it will look like what you have described……a religious right wing movement in an Amish kinda way that huddles and centralises in a community of faith out of touch with the world instead of spreading out…..the end is not yet but many are behaving like it is….
(This comment belongs with – My Take: On Being Distinctive: https://atoday.org/take-distinctive.html)
Thank you, Raj, for expressing your thoughts, my thoughts and I suspect, the thoughts of millions of others in the church, as eloquently as you have done. I was leading a Bible study a while back in which the participants were made up of several Seventh-day Adventists and a Lutheran. We were progressing gently through the study and emphasizing and reaffirming traditional Seventh-day Adventist teachings when the Lutheran chimed in and protested that we appeared to be just sharing the Seventh-day Adventist position on everything. “Why can’t we just study the Bible and let it speak to our hearts instead of you people telling me what to believe?” That question led me to reassess my approach to studying the Bible with others. We need to be careful that as Adventists we are not just religious salesmen and sales women who are merely seeking to “sell” our “superior” wares to others. God speaks to other Christians as well, and although Seventh-day Adventists have a special, though not perfect, understanding of end-time events, there is much that we can learn from other Christians. The sooner we realize that Laodicea is not the Seventh-day Adventist Church but the entire Christian Church, the sooner we will understand that God is appearing and appealing to all Christians. Being a special and “peculiar” people should be an honor given to us by others and not one we give ourselves.
Why not let the Lutheran lead the studies?
I found the distinction between pluralism (good) and syncretism and relativism (bad and not at all the same) helpful.
Would that every SDA Christian could access this thread. It might open hearts to the reality of a great problem that stands to cause a split in the Church. Perhaps the rank and file are not aware of the size of the plurality that exists.
Truth is truth.
Not “your truth” or “my truth”.
Adventism was founded as a movement to spread the end time
message to a world not prepared to see the end. Not to do
social justice, not to read into the Bible things that are
not there.
We need to stick to Present Truth not muddy the waters with
what WE want.
Do we think we know better than those who came before us or are we simply following our carnal natures?
Scripture says in response to structural injustice: “Let justice roll down like waters” and “do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God” – and there are many other verses from the prophets along these lines. Jesus challenged the injustices of his day, reaching out to the outcasts and marginalized in defiance of the prevailing theology and class consciousness of his time.
Jeremiah 22:15-16 says,
“‘Why did your father, Josiah, reign so long? Because he was just and right in all his dealings, made sure that justice and help were given to the poor and needy, and everything went well for him. Isn’t this what it means to know me?’ asks the Lord.”
The Biblical mandate to do justice is always present truth until justice reigns on the earth, “on earth as it is in heaven.” If we believe in a new heaven and a new earth, we should live its values as we prepare to live in a time when all things are made new.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church was founded on a common belief in God’s presence in common experience among the founders rather than a common doctrine, and thus their assertion of the Bible in total as their doctrinal confession.
For the next six decades Ellen Whits served as the continuing incarnation not of God but most certainly of God’s absolute presence in the church as its membership grew and as it buried those of common founding experience.
With the passing of Ellen White 100 years ago this year, the Seventh-day Adventist Church embarked on a journey to redefine its identity. Without any longer a common experience or an obvious incarnation of God’s presence to hear or read from, we were adrift. For the next five or six decades posthumous collections of Ellen White’s comments were turned into books to echo the sense that God was still speaking through Ellen White and thus was present.
By 1980 Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership had fully endorsed doctrine as the core identity of, well, how else to put this, God’s former presence.
And the sharper the distinctions the more valid their truth seems to be the mantra. Thus the revisions of the fundamental beliefs in Texas this summer.
This does not bode well for a tent the size of the whole world.
I appreciate your brief interpretation of Adventist history. Unfortunately, Adventist leaders decided (like Islam with Mohammed) that Ellen White was the last prophet, and have not allowed for or nurtured Adventists who have been gifted by God with a prophetic anointing. So, they leave and go elsewhere where they can function in their gifting (at best, in healthy Christian communities); try hard to fit into the operational theological and ecclesiastical structures of Adventism, with varying levels of success; give up in despair, perhaps never really knowing who Christ gifted them to be; or challenge the denominational status quo, and often pay a steep price (especially if in denominational employment). God’s presence is always accessible, but the messengers of the presence are often rejected. So we get a lot of doctrine and bureaucracy, and if any individual or group gets too excited or emotionally reactive in the Spirit to the power of the Everlasting Gospel, denominational police bring out the wet blankets to put out the fire.
Mark wrote: “Unfortunately, Adventist leaders decided (like Islam with Mohammed) that Ellen White was the last prophet, and have not allowed for or nurtured Adventists who have been gifted by God with a prophetic anointing.”
I could hardly disagree with this more! In my opinion, most Adventists view the “prophetic anointing” in terms of public preaching and, to some extent, the written/published word; and that most consider some of the well-known preachers and some prolific writers to be, or to have been, prophetically anointed.
Mark wrote: “So, they leave and go elsewhere where they can function in their gifting (at best, in healthy Christian communities); try hard to fit into the operational theological and ecclesiastical structures of Adventism, with varying levels of success; give up in despair, perhaps never really knowing who Christ gifted them to be; or challenge the denominational status quo, and often pay a steep price (especially if in denominational employment).”
I would submit that this commonly/frequently happens if and when someone claims ‘new light’ that is directly contradictory to that which has already been revealed in the Bible. If someone has such ‘prophetic light’ they should “go elsewhere” in my humble opinion.
Mark,
I fully agree with you. To believe that Ellen White was the last prophet is to disbelieve scripture. As evidence of this, consider the following.
First, throughout history God has often sent multiple prophets at the same time. God loves His people and wants to communicate with them. The absence of another prophet does not indicate Ellen White was the last prophet God will send, but more likely indicates how badly those who claim to be followers of God have rejected Him.
Second, claiming widespread publication removes the need for God to send another prophet denies the personal and intimate nature of the work of a prophet. For example, much of the work of Ellen White was delivering personal counsel from God to individuals. As the church grows, the volume of need for such communication must likewise grow and quickly exceeds the physical capacity for one individual to be God’s mouthpiece.
Third, the claim imagines that we know the mind of God. Such is utter hubris, if not blasphemy.
L. Sherman, SIR/MS. With respect, your faith in the Bible will lead you into the Eternal House of God. Praise God.
The Bible relates in Acts 2:17 “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith GOD, I will pour out my SPIRIT upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. VERSE 18: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my SPIRIT; and they shall prophesy. It is not God’s intention to leave mankind alone without a continuation of additional TRUTH and LIGHT, relative to vast Knowledge and Wisdom that future generations would and could absorb, as they were exposed through living, education, and probing the Earth and the Heavens. GOD has not left us alone, but as GOD Jesus stated, we would have with us, GOD the Holy Spirit, to convict of sins; mentor us to repentance; and guide us in “ALL” Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom and TRUTH. God the Holy Spirit is available to provide these truths in Wisdom unmistakinly, to all who respond to His presence.
We know the additional truth as it will not alter or change the parameters of LOVE, of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of His Blood, shed for all who by faith accept His Grace. Praise God.
I hunger for a truly “big tent” Adventism as Raj is calling for. Not simply a recognition or toleration of plurality, but a loving embrace and affirmation of it. A major concern of mine is that there are those of us who consider ourselves Adventists of charismatic orientation, who believe in practicing the full spectrum of spiritual gifts that we observe in the New Testament church, including the spirit of prophecy (in this view, we should have functioning prophets who get words from the Lord and experience dreams and visions CONTINUOUSLY in the church, and not be putting all of the burden of prophetic anointing on Ellen White). Contemporary and highly emotional worship, laying on of hands for blessing and miraculous healing, speaking in tongues, experiencing physical manifestations of the presence of Holy Spirit… Adventists whose journey includes these practices have no safe place within the denomination. Maybe a bigger tent that intentionally embraces pluralism would make room for an Adventist charismatic expression without fear of reactionary rejection.
The growing sound of liberal voices calling for unity will begin to sound the alarm on the importance of giving a faithful tithe as the GC session moves closer. Liberals know conservative money is important . Liberalism must feed on something- it really cant thrive on its own. This is why the unity or at least the financial commitment of conservatives must be kept intact to keep the machine moving.
Rather than manipulating the giving decisions of conservative Adventists “to keep the machine moving”…maybe better to accept and embrace the pluralism that is already present and well-established in our diverse denomination, as so eloquently stated by Mr. Attiken. In other words, quit the dishonest game of pretending to be something that we are not. Then we can joyfully support the organism that is a worldwide spiritual community, and thrill for the ways that Jesus, love, worship, healing, education, development, and religious liberty are being generously shared and advanced worldwide through our denomination. If we have surrendered to an identity as bureaucratic machine, God help us.
What you describe sounds much like many other denominations. I think some will find their money being used more efficently in other christian models of development. I think liberal adventist are attempting to sell themselves as a distinct denomination while not really being that different in substance.
I suppose if attention is not paid to playing the political games to keep tithe-payers happy, it could affect the financial viability of denominational structures, particularly our multiple-layered administrative bureaucracy. But that could be a good thing in the long run. Also, it is true that as Adventism has become more pluralistic, it has paralleled the development of other denominations as they mature, so that distinctive beliefs and practices become less of a dominant focus, and fellowship and openness to influences from other spiritual communities becomes more common. However, it is my guess that most Adventists, regardless of label or category within the Adventist tent, feel intense loyalty to the distinctive doctrines and spiritual or cultural practices of the faith, although interpretations of those beliefs and practices will vary widely.
The loyalty is more to Adventism than to Christ. Loyalty to a denomination should never be confused with loyalty to Christ.
Adventism shouldn’t even be a denomination – it should be a movement. But I agree there is a massive danger of organisational loyalty becoming the be all and end all.
I suppose that may be the case with some. But spiritual beliefs and practices, Adventist or otherwise, at best support us in our relationship with Christ. So the two loyalties should be part of the same Christian experience. But, thank you for the good feedback as a reminder of what is most important.
For many years I tried to understand the SDA Church’s obsession with so many “Fundamental Beliefs”. I have reduced my fundamental beliefs to two, Love God and Love Others. The idea that the SDA Church will be able to expect the millions to be 100% in agreement on all 28 beliefs seems a bit preposterous. I have found a large, local Baptist Church that feeds my soul like no other. Further more, no one seems to mind that I am not in agreement with all the Baptist “Beliefs”.
God has made it very clear that when the “Great Controversy” is finally over, there will be many who are wondering why they are on the outside looking in. My role is to represent God, to love others, and to not be afraid to get my hands dirty. Don McFarlane you nailed it as did your Lutheran friend.
Totally agree. And the number of FB is growing. When will it stop! I think in reality we could have about 7-10 and that is it. The reality is some of the current FBs are really ‘secondary’ or ‘non-essential’ issues, such as IJ or Ellen White.
Unfortunately there is a much clearer example of Adventist pluralism in the Pacific where SDA Churches in 5 nations observe Sunday as the Sabbath, but GC Session doesn’t have the courage to address it despite several attempts by members to submit it to the GC Session agenda through due process.
However a friend and I have been published on Amazon regarding the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/SABBATH-DRAMA-OUR-Robert-Vincent-ebook/dp/B00SSP3VI2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423469999&sr=8-1&keywords=sabbath+the+drama+of+our+age
I agree with the GC on that issue. The Sunday is the Sabbath if a national government changes the names of its weekdays. We are seventh-day Adventists – not Saturday-day Adventists.
“In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
Not a time of national honor, as I recall.
Correct me if I’m wrong. “I am saved by the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ.” He has given me freedom to choose between the angels, Michael the Arch Angel/Jesus Christ or Lucifer, the DESTROYER.”
Can we agree, on Who we Worship, and who is the Head of His Church? Or do we agree, to make the 29 doctrines, a mandatory belief, before we “permit” someone to be baptized into “our church?”