My Take: The Rise of the Rest
by Raj Attiken, November 25, 2014: When our forebears envisioned Seventh-day Adventism becoming a movement that would eventually have global reach in spreading the good news about Jesus, it is unlikely that they anticipated the day when people from every kindred, nation, and language would be involved in making decisions for the church at the scale we see at a General Conference Session today. The shift from seeing people as our missionary projects to having them by the hundreds at our table with voice and vote is a shift of massive proportions – the ramifications of which we could not have anticipated or planned for in the formative stages of our governance and organizational models. It is one thing to be the carriers of a life-altering message to what was perceived to be the “dark” places of the earth (we didn’t always recognize that God was in these places even before the missionaries got there); it is quite another thing to have people from these regions have significant voice in the decision-making councils of the church.
We once saw ourselves as curators of a “made-in-America” religion who were deeply committed to preserving its content and its form wherever we planted it. As did other faith groups involved in the Christian missionary movements of the past two or three centuries, we took great pains to ensure that the young plant of Adventism remained in the pot in which we transported it, and that it did not get transplanted into native soil. What was then thought to be a wise strategy intended to protect and preserve content, form, and function from the transforming (seen more as adulterating) effects of native cultures, has turned out – in the long run – to be both a liability and an asset. Adventism, along with some other Christian groups, has remained for long as a foreign religion – refusing to adapt and adopt indigenous forms that could have given it a contextual relevance and vibrancy that it has not achieved in many places. At the same time, it has enabled Adventism to have a certain current appeal because of its identity with the West.
Our success in maintaining a Western (mostly American) imprint within Adventism wherever it is present is evidenced in the pleasure we have taken in pointing out that we can travel to any country in the globe and find that the local Seventh-day Adventist churches are very similar to those in the Western world. A common church hymnal, a common Church Manual (only recently with addendums recognizing regional differences), a common Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly, a common order of worship, a common set of fundamental doctrines, common baptismal vows, a common centralized funding system, are all artifacts of our efforts to maintain uniformity. We have thus succeeded in maintaining both a western identity and a degree of global uniformity.
In recent decades, we have witnessed tectonic shifts in our world. Culture has been reshaped. Increased literacy in many countries, global travel, internet technology, social media, broadening of worldviews, and other forces have resulted in the development of a “fusion culture” in many places. Many non-Westerners have become eager to learn the ways of the West. After all, people always want to copy those they perceive as having succeeded. Many see modernization and Westernization as the same thing. As a result, the old high culture and traditional order are gradually vanishing in many developing countries (exceptions remain). Local and modern is growing side by side with global and Western. As the world expands and embraces more of the globe, religion is also becoming a melting pot, with Western forms being overlaid with local elements, or vice versa. This is the state of the world in which Adventism also exists. The church is not exempt from the strong forces at play in a society that is following two narratives: one indigenous, and the other, Western.
It shouldn’t surprise us, therefore, that we have begun to see a strange mixture of insecurity and assertiveness in recent years when such issues as women’s ordination are placed on the church’s global agenda. People worry that the West is now changing the church that the same West brought to them and legitimized. They also harbor the perception of being shaped by powerful, distant forces that are beyond their control. And by people who do not share their values. Feeling uneasy with these trends, they attempt to hold on to some form of religious nationalism for succor and stability.
The rise of pride and confidence among Adventists across the globe, mixed with a degree of fear, insecurity and anxiety regarding the changes occurring in the church, form the landscape in which the 2015 General Conference Session will be held. Elements of the unprecedented changes in many countries will arrive with the delegates in various forms and intensity. The leaders we now elect and appoint to Conferences, Unions, and Divisions, have learned Western protocols and rules on how the game of governance and decision-making is played in the church. They also know how to put their own indigenous imprint on matters of faith and practice. They know how to be moderately Western and thoroughly nationalist. Their influence on delegates from their regions should not be underestimated. All of this adds a degree of complexity to our governance and decision-making processes at a General Conference Session.
Regardless of one’s persuasion on issues such as women’s ordination, there are some foundational and deeply complex governance questions that the church needs to face today, when people in all parts of the world are no longer objects or observers but players in their own right. What should a General Conference Session be about, given a global context that is vastly and radically different from the one that gave birth to such sessions (the first Session reportedly had 20 delegates—all from the Midwest!)? What kinds of substantive decisions, if any, should we expect a global assembly of some 2,500 people from vastly varying cultures and world-views to effectively make for the global church? If we continue to insist that such large numbers of people will make binding decisions for people living in over 200 countries representing some 900 language groups, what steps will we implement to ensure that these delegates are fully informed and understand the issues from theological, cultural, ecclesiastical, social, regional and national perspectives (this will involve far more than mailing out a document and holding briefings based on it)? How will we manage the tension between the weight of General Conference Session actions and the principle of distributed authority that informs how we are organized as a denomination? My sense is that the answers to these questions, if honestly pursued, will radically reshape our governance structures and processes. At the least, it should change our practice of placing substantive issues on the agenda for action.
General Conference Sessions, as they are currently constituted, do not lend themselves to effective decision-making. The issue of women’s ordination – whether we see it as theological, cultural, or ecclesiastical – does not belong on a General Conference Session agenda, for the reasons I have named above. To place it there would be an act of gamesmanship that will do irreparable injustice to the Adventist faith community. That’s my take!
almost a racist comment?
Raj, I have been meaning to say how delighted I am that you have joined us at AToday! I will be so happy to be able to keep up with you and your thinking more than I have been able to since I moved to Kentucky!
To respond to this particular essay–I think you are exactly right. Tens of thousands can’t efficiently make a decision that is unilateral. Besides, as you point out, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of issues that should be decided by the people in the local region and do not need to remain the same for the whole global entity. I don’t know how likely it is that this change will be made anytime soon, though.
Dozens, or hundreds of issues such as?
Raj is right. Many are trembling at the possibility of there being either outright confrontation or worse. It would be better left off. No one wants to see anything horrible and/or divisive come out of the session.
The problem is, of course, that everyone is expecting it to be on the agenda, and the Annual Council has authorized it to be there, with three possible solutions. So now if it is left off, even that will cause consternation.
I love my church, and don’t want any such political issue to detract us from our mission to evangelize the world.
Agreed–a good blog.
Missionaries from other countries universities have many tribes enrolled. They have peace on campus mostly… When kids go home they belong to their own tribes and sda’s from one tribe kill sda’s from another tribe. This GC may learn sone drastic lessons on cultural relations it should nit have to learn. “When in Rome”, takes on new meaning in viewing cultural relations.
There are things that of paramount.importance to discuss. Things such as the necessity to lift up Jesus above all else. This world will throw in that which needs not to be added. But Jesus is soon to come and lifting Him up and how best to do this is what we need to be concerned about
I believe that the ordination question as currently worded has the potential to set the church moving in the right direction. “The Rest” of the world knows more so than we in the west do that “implementation details” coming from a far are not an efficient or effective way to carry out the mission of the church. The question before the GC is not about whether the ordination of women is theologically, culturally, or ecclesiastically the correct thing to do. It is, should divisions have the autonomy to make the choice. If the delegates prayerfully consider Romans 14 they will see only one appropriate answer. Paul acknowledges that Christians will differ on what they believe God wants them to do. However, they are not allowed to criticize and condemn each other for those differences. If someone believes differently from us, we make them sin if we force them to BEHAVE as we BELIEVE (Romans 14:14). Furthermore, if we do not follow our own convictions we are sinning (Romans 14:23). The same concept is also found in James 4:17 “Remember, it is sin to know what you ought to do and then not do it”. It should be clear to all that a “No” vote will force large segments of the church to choose between what they believe God is calling them to do and the decision of the GC. I can’t imagine delegates deliberately forcing others to make that choice.
Well put – as usual. It reminds me of how hard it must have been for and on astronomers to get across the idea that the universe did not revolve around the earth.
When we do not have basic understandings, we allow cultural items to get main stage attention and the only result is polarity. At the same time, precious time and effort are lost on the things that need our effort and attention.
Thank you Raj for asking the key questions.
I agree with you that perhaps the topic or Women’s Ordination may not not rise to the level of committing to global policy for many of the reasons you mention. I appreciate your view of our church’s journey, reflecting on our historical through current perspectives.
Adding to that thought, it occurs to me that our organization’s “formational bones” should be intentionally supported when contemplating any reformation to our overall structure. I view these bones reflected in simple terms like MISSION[what is our task?], and VISION [what does it look like?].
MISSION: WHAT IS OUR TASK? We share an important part of this mission with common believers all over the world, or varying faiths other than Seventh-day Adventists: It is to share the good news of Jesus and His saving grace to all the world (1st Angel’s Message).
But what makes Adventism stand out from the rest is the commission (co-mission?) to take seriously and own as our added charge the 2nd and 3rd Angels’ Messages. It is within these charges that I see relevance of those “dark places” where cultures have for centuries ruled and existed as a result of direct pagan and hedonistic societies. Sin was culture-driven as a direct influence of the Evil One’s attempt to dominate. Attempts to counter such influence has resulted in over-correction; even today in our own country’s Native American ministries’ best intentions of many like-faiths of ours. We trample on harmless culturisms while attempting to turn their culture-driven spiritualism behaviors that value medicine-men, spirit-worship activities and symbolism, etc. Of course similar errors have been committed in other foreign cultures, as you mention. What gets to me is that today, “other societies” of many faiths are now sending their own ‘missionaries’ to ‘immoral America’ because our own society has become so sin-driven!! We should more humbly consider the charge to “Come out of her, My people.” We’ve become the pagans! 🙂
VISION: WHAT DOES OUR MISSION LOOK LIKE? This is where I would place a strong emphasis on a world-wide effort, with all the cultural implications, including Women’s Ordination. Sure, our churches around the world look just like the Baptist and Methodist church buildings of the West. And we sing their very same hymns, written by their very own songwriters. We even have defended these Baptist and Methodist culturisms as sacred to our own spiritual worship and walk.
Like Women’s Ordination, I am viewing these as culture-specific. Perhaps we could build mission church worship buildings to reflect their own local sentiments and cultural appreciations. Perhaps local music patterns of melody and cadence could reflect the Gospel story more effectively to these foreign peoples. And, as people groups around the world have their own leadership understandings evolved over generations –and perhaps centuries– we could consider that these spiritual leaders of the Gospel could become more effective within their own context of what being a humble of follower of Christ could look like within their own sensitivities.
But how does one design such an educational and strategic global reformation? It’s a good thing that the Holy Spirit is in charge. Perhaps we should take deep breath and look expectantly for what He can do with this challenge. After all, the rest of us are at wit’s end!
I have read all your comments and I see that at the end all of them are the result of culture. When the missionaries came to us, they teach us to put the Christian principles in first place. We Had to abandoned several costumes, and we did it for the love of our Lord. That way unity was maintained. No matter where you were in this world we were reclined as Adventist. Can we sacrifice our desires for the good of the cause?