What the West Doesn’t Understand About the Adventist Church in Africa
by Alvin Masarira
Please welcome Dr. Alvin Masarira as a new columnist for Adventist Today. Alvin is originally from Zimbabwe, and is now a Structural Engineering Consultant based in Johannesburg, South Africa. He lived and studied in Germany and the United States before moving to South Africa, where he was an academic for 7 years at the University of Cape Town before moving to Johannesburg. He is married to Limakatso, a medical doctor who works as a Public Health professional. They have 3 pre-teen children.
The Adventist church has a world membership estimated to be between 18 and 20 million. (This is only baptized adult members and when one considers of those who attend church services on Sabbaths and the unbaptized young people and children, that number could be much larger.) Of the thirteen Divisions, three are in Africa. The latest Adventist Yearbook sets the population of the West-Central Africa Division (WAD) territory at 399,646,000, with 3,894 Adventist congregations and a total church membership of 654,852—a ratio of 1 Adventist to 610 others. In the East Central Africa Division (ECD) the population is 359,674,000 with 13,820 Adventist congregations and a membership of 3,116,320—a 1 to 115 ratio. The Southern Africa-Indian Ocean Division (SID) has a territorial population of 190,060,000—10,251 congregations and a membership of 3,441,232, for a ratio of 1 Adventist per 55 people. All this means that Africa has about 7.2 million of the 18 to 20 million world membership—every third Seventh-day Adventist.
In spite of our large numbers, the rest of the Adventist world struggles to understand us. What follows are five features of the Adventist church here. (Please understand that there is wide diversity within the membership, as to be expected from such a large population: social status, level of education or other differences. So these observations are of necessity much generalized and won’t apply to everyone.)
The Church as Family
Africans see the church as is an extension of the immediate family, and so Adventists spend a lot of time with fellow believers. In the West many of you prefer to reserve most of the Sabbath hours for time with immediate family. But in Africa, Adventists generally spend almost the entire Sabbath daylight hours with the church family. It is common practice for us to spend Sabbath at church or in church activities (morning Sabbath school and worship services, lunch at church with fellow believers, afternoon program until Sabbath vespers at sunset). This is how Adventists in Africa understand and practice the concept of family and community: the Adventist family is a close unit that has an intricate role to play during moments of joy as well as times of sorrow.
The Laypeople’s Initiative
The African Adventist lay people have a deep sense of ownership of the work of the church. They carry a significant portion of the work of evangelism and organise their own outreach activities without waiting for official church programs. It isn’t uncommon to find Adventist lay people preaching on the street corner or in public squares on the village, on their own initiative. This may be partially forced on us because of the limited number of pastors available, meaning many congregations in Africa are run by lay elders. With pastors having so many churches (some as many as 20) the leadership duties fall on the local elders who serve as de facto pastors of the church.
Leadership
It is difficult for those outside Africa to understand how leadership is practiced here, especially in the church. There is a perception that leaders here have absolute power in African society and organizations, that they are seen as kings or chiefs who should not be challenged.
Here are some questions I’ve heard: Does the concept of chieftaincy play a role in how church leaders are viewed? When the leader has spoken can anyone else challenge them? How do African Adventist understand the concept of “servant leadership”? Do Africans believe that all church leaders are ordained of God and therefore should not be challenged?
The answers to these depend on the context, but I will say that it is far too simplistic to assume that leaders in Africa have absolute power. What is true is that there is a strong desire within African communities to reach consensus on issues. The idea of voting on an issue is fundamentally “un-African” since it creates winners and losers. The role of the leader is to guide the people to a consensus position and that might require that the leader “nudges and pushes” one side or the other. This can lead to a perception that the leader has absolute power, which is not necessarily the case. This however does not mean that the role of “consensus builder” isn’t occasionally abused by some leaders, the “nudging and pushing” becoming dictatorial.
Contrary to popular belief, women indeed occupy leadership roles in African society. Because of the migrant labour system, men might be working in places far from their families, so it’s left to the women to provide leadership. It is not uncommon to have families and churches led and run by women. This means that the idea of female authority is a practical issue, not a deeply theological issue.
Understanding Scripture
The question of how one reads, understands and interprets the Bible is a contentious issue in the church and a lot of the controversy among believers happens here. Even highly educated theologians disagree on how certain parts of Scripture should be understood. African Adventists tend to drift towards a more “literal and plain” reading of the Bible, whatever that means to each. The issues of context emphasized by Western readers receive limited consideration in Africa. The more literal understanding of Scripture could be because the African culture tends to resonate more with the Jewish culture, which forms the background of the Biblical narrative. It helps to explains how Africans understand the Bible’s definition of gender roles in the family and church, as well as family structures or leadership issues (both in society and in the church).
A Practical, Holistic Faith
In African culture life is viewed in a holistic manner. One’s physical, emotional and spiritual aspects are intricately intertwined. Religion and faith must speak to all aspects of life which is why churches that do not deal with the practical realities of life are not very popular in Africa.
In many African countries, the Adventist church was viewed as standing on the sidelines as the people fought against colonialism and oppression. That made it unpopular because we were seen as indifferent to the struggles and the aspirations of the people. For the Adventist Church in Africa to make a big impact in the society it needs (at least in some parts of Africa) to be intentional about how the gospel addresses the practical problems of the people. For example, in the passage of the “sheep and the goats” in Matthew 25: 35 – 46 we could emphasize not just judgment, but Jesus’ words “for I was hungry and you gave me food”.
•••
The Adventist world church tends towards uniformity, and unlike some other Christian churches the nature of our belief framework doesn’t allow for big variations. This creates a dilemma for the church in Africa in that it struggles with contextualization, trying to be African in spite of our strong western roots. Because our highly centralized system doesn’t provide room to define who we are, we are seen as being one of the most western churches in Africa. The five features that I’ve described should be seen in the context of a church caught between two worlds and often struggling to find its own unique identity.
I spent only a little time in Africa but this statement reflects precisely my experience there!
“In African culture life is viewed in a holistic manner. One’s physical, emotional and spiritual aspects are intricately intertwined. Religion and faith must speak to all aspects of life which is why churches that do not deal with the practical realities of life are not very popular in Africa.”
Great article! Looking forward to more!
Alvin,
Thank you for your insightful article. You’ve given us a number of contrasts to consider. I took particular note of your mention about the struggle of the church to be relevant in society when it historically has been seen as “western” and standing on the sidelines in dealing with cultural and social issues. That may not be as different as it seems from what is being seen today in the US, Europe and other countries where the advance of liberal-socialism is driving a wedge of separation between faith and community and the relevance of churches is being increasingly questioned.
Alvin
You’re making valuable inputs. Thanks for taking time to share the African Perspective of Adventism.
Alvin well said my good friend thanks for sharing these important insights.
Alvin, your message:
“The Adventist world church tends towards uniformity, and unlike some other Christian churches the nature of our belief framework doesn’t allow for big variations. This creates a dilemma for the church in Africa in that it struggles with contextualization, trying to be African in spite of our strong western roots. ”
is excellent, eloquent, and deserves to be engraved in the minds of those who claim to be “missionaries” to wherever they are assigned. I will never forget the welcome I received upon arriving at my assigned post with my family (as a young overseas worker) by the local church leader in a moment of candor:
“I wish they had just sent us the money instead of you, your belongings, your family, and your culture.”
is timely and
With the importance of traditional cultural practices and approaches in Africa compared to the western world is results in problems that unless understood seem almost insurmountable.
In the western world, particularly the U.S., Canada and Australia, their histories of settling their nations depended on very strong, independent people who left their homeland to come to an unknown world. Individual freedoms and laws to protect those freedoms became the foundation of their governments. Today, that is why the western world and Africa have almost seemingly impossible barriers when strict
practices are required of the world church; practices that may be viewed by some as biblically fundamental, while the other half wish to respect individual perspectives that are based on different reading of the Bible.
Bridging this chasm is what the church is confronting the church and unless they can be decided respecting all divisions of the church there could be more and greater division leading to schism.
Hi Alvin,
Thank you much appreciated and enjoyed your material. We need to produce more, time has gone of promoting oral literature. We have to document our style of worship instead of complaining and blaming other brothers. We have a rich African culture that need to be documented.
Much appreciated and good work.
Regards, Ncedo Mcani, Cape Town.
Thank you for this. One wonders if these issues have been discussed openly and publicly in Adventist circles—those missionary stories we hear suppress these important considerations. I know from experience, too, that not only do African Adventists suffer from being torn in two directions, Asian Adventists do, as well, even though the social and economic stability of most Asian countries allows them to simply move ahead in their church on their own terms. Trying to force unanimity in all operations is a hopeless, as well as thankless endeavor. I fear that Adventism’s 19th century American roots, themselves, prevent many church members and leaders from even being able to see the “value of difference” and the powerful advantages of dynamic interchange—the sum is often greater than its parts. Again: This is a thoughtful, frank, essay that goes a long way in explaining why communication across cultures is so difficult, and why pretending that it isn’t is possibly operationally suicidal. That we don’t bring these issues into the pews is shameful.
This is a really interesting perspective from inside African SDA church culture.
In response to Winona’s observation about the 19th Century roots of Adventist authoritarianism, I would offer that religious diversity and individualism is a historical aberration. Authoritarian religious culture has been the norm throughout world history until the second half of the 20th Century, hasn’t it?
I seriously question whether diversity in religious belief and practice within a community of faith is viable in the long term. Churches which have gone down that road are dying. Their members and former members are embracing a nominal diversity in the civic arena that feels very much like political moral authoritarianism. African churches appear to respect the importance of tradition, though it’s not perfect. They intuitively understand that too much diversity weakens community cohesiveness.
We in the West are very present oriented. Needs, wants and feelings are the holy trinity that constitute our guide and metric to determine how well we are doing and what we should be doing. It sounds like African religious culture has a much keener sense of being rooted in a past to which they have a sense of gratitude and obligation, as well as a future for which they must build and sustain a spiritual legacy.
I don’t know why it’s shameful that we don’t bring these issues into the pews – or even what you mean by that statement. we can discuss pretty much what we want in my church.
Nathan, “Authoritarian religious culture has been the norm throughout world history until the second half of the 20th Century, hasn’t it? ”
The answer is no. The kind of authoritarianism you describe began in the third century with the power of Roman rule coupled with western philosophy. Prior to that, (near) Eastern thinking was more the norm. This is why the NT appears often at odds with itself, as the two cultures of east and west clash in its formation. I can recommend Alvin Boyd Kuhn’s ‘In the Shadow of the Third Century.’
The missionisation of other cultures is as much about transfer of the dominant culture, ours, as it is about exposure to an alternative religion. There is in the Cleveland Museum an ancient African artefact. One could glibly consign it to an age of animist religion or pagan culture. Until one reads the inscription that was found with it: ‘This world is a market place. The other world is home.’ Is it really necessary to radically alter this kind of enlightened thinking?
I am happy and impressed to know that your congregation allows free discussion on religious or denominational topics; I think many of us do have the opportunity to have free conversation in Sabbath School, but not “from the pulpit.” We are a denomination whose operational strength lies in education—in teaching—and in our belief in our responsibilities to care for our physical selves as well as to our spiritual ones—in health care. Not being open about how the Adventist message is taken and contextualized outside of North America is falling far short of “teaching.” I have never heard in my own congregations or from “special programs” about missions any testimony of the sort that Alvin Masarira has just shared, no mention that we must understand these basic concepts. I have never heard anyone from the pulpit explain what the American parts of our message works its way through various African (or Asian) cultures—what is looks like, how it affects families and their systems. I have never heard an African at a national or international Adventist meeting testify to their different understandings of the language we use and the Bible they read. I find this shameful, since we are supposed to be educators; it seems to me that we have withheld information, or, at least, encouraged those from other cultures to silence themselves or simply tell us what “we” want to hear. This clear presentation of the Message in Africa is a breath of fresh air and a necessary discussion…
Nate, if authoritarian religion was constant down to the mid-20th century, how do you factor in the Protestant Reformation? The standard explanation is that traditional authoritarian Christianity ended about 500 years ago with the Reformation, which sowed the seeds for Modernity and led to the particularly extreme kind of individualism that we have today, along the way creating such things as the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, etc. You seem to take a somewhat modified view of that standard historical narrative, or am I not understanding you?
I am a little puzzled by Monte’s comment that “The standard explanation is that traditional authoritarian Christianity ended about 500 years ago with the Reformation, which sowed the seeds for Modernity and led to the particularly extreme kind of individualism that we have today, along the way creating such things as the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.”
Perhaps Monte’s has read a different set of authors and books on this subject but my understanding of the “standard explanation” is certainly not that authoritarian Christianity ended with the Reformation or that the Reformation sowed the seeds for Modernity. And it certainly was not responsible for the ideas contained in the Bill of Rights.
The most important changes in Western values on this point occurred during the Enlightenment. The Reformation ended the domination of the monolithic Medieval Western Church in parts of Western Europe, but it had only, at best, limited influence on religious attitudes. A number of the Reformation churches were just as autocratic as the late Medieval Church had been.
As for the origin of Modernism, certainly the Reformation was one factor, but there were a number of other factors much more influential in changing the orientation of Western culture from “Medieval” to “Modern.” Even the term “Modern” was created by Renaissance intellectuals, not Reformation writers.
But perhaps I am missing something here. Monte might wish to clarify his comment.
We must have read the same books, Ervin! The U.S. Founders and those who wrote our Constitution were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment philosophers: John Stuart Mills, John Locke and many others. Washington, Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, so prominent in our early history, were Deists and professed no allegiance to a church. It is another myth that continues but lacks evidence.
Generally agree, Elaine and Erv, it was the Enlightenment which paved the way for both Reformation and modernity. But Elaine, the philosophers you describe were latecomers to the party. One strong thread of the process, eg, can be seen in the Medicis, in the 1400’s, sponsorship of scholars who took an interest in some ancient (Hermetic) literature which came to them from the East, ie, Islamic scholars, in their open period, had gleaned the best of the Western tradition and translated it into Arabic. That literature was lost to the ‘dark’ west for so many centuries, but scholars like Pico della Mirandola (? sp), under the auspices of the early Medicis, began to bring the mystical thinking in those documents into the (secretive) study of folks like Leonardo da Vinci on one hand, and Giordano Bruno on the other. So began the dawn of the new age. And in its light, we all prefer to think we stand. The US founding fathers stood in that more secretive, mystical tradition, it would appear.
To Serge (there is no “reply” under Serge’s name).
Yes, I am very familiar with the flowering of Islam much earlier than the enlightenment and their preservation of Aristotle’s and other philosophers of the time. All scholars build on the shoulders of those before them. Freedom of thought, belief, and opportunity are the hallmarks of our Constitution and the Founders ensured that this country would not emulate those countries, even from which they came. The U.S. is still recognized as unique in never adopting a state religion but written into the Constitution that it would never be a test for office or prohibited or controlled in any way. This is one of the main reasons so many wish to become U.S. citizens.
ERV
I agree with you on your history. The French Revolution had an impact on religion as well. Catholicism wasn’t the only persecutor. I have read how Protestants destroyed the artistic works of many cathedrals in England and I am sure Europe as well. Today we see ISIS destroying great historical places. Protestants persecuted Roman Catholics, but we rarely hear about this and their church-state connections.
Alvin,
Insightful as usual. A church must be relevant indeed and it is a challenge. The more the church is considered irrelevant the less growth witnessed, this is true of numbers in SID as well.
Pregnant is the point of our membership levels vis a vis our voice.
I remember once at a Varsity week of spiritual emphasis, this guest preacher from the USA had a digital camera and he had to spend almost 10 minutes “trying” to lecturer us on what the “tiny little box” was(his words) and how it works..really? I just realised that people in Africa are one of the least understood lot. However, like any other people in the world, our perceptions, convictions and attitudes are shaped by our African experiences and histories, histories that are even linked to colonisation, where by Africans believe in worship that is deeply embedded with the society and addresses elements of survival. Honestly speaking, Africans were introduced to christianity during times of colonial oppression and thank God, God had a reason for that to happen. Being African means always living on the edge. The economics and the politics of this continent make us who we are. Our history shapes us. Unlike the West where the youths get an unemployment benefit allowance, we do not have that luxury here in Africa. All we have is each other and sweating for our needs, wants and all. Spending time at the church all sabbath days from morning to evening submerge us into a pool of waters of hope and courage so that by the time the sabbath is over we emerge reconfigured and recalibrated to face our next daily struggles of fending for our families, job hunting, and some of those challenges that are so uncommon in the West. There is beauty in diversity and it should be tolerated…
I have spent a little time in the Congo DRC near Kisangani each of the last eight years. There is a immense amount of suffering there. On one of the trips over I sat next to brother Godfrey, a Congolese man who has served as a Missionary Brother of Charity for forty years in Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu’s (Mother Teresa’s) religious order. I told him about the work our little self-supporting mission at Kisangani is doing. When I finished he said, “If you are telling the people about Jesus, you are doing a good work.”
When people have nothing, telling them about Jesus is giving them much. Sometimes my brothers and sisters in Adventism seem to forget about Jesus Christ. They think Adventism is about something else. Around atoday.org you’d think Adventism was about oppression. Liberation Adventists – save these people of God from the oppression of the SDA church and western thought.
Why don’t you tell the people about Jesus instead? You would do a good work. Sin is oppression. Each one of us if oppressed by sin, we are suffering. Africans are suffering because of Africans’ sins. Africans need to identify with Jesus, not with there own horrible, messed up, culture. It’s universal. He is the answer everywhere to every question.
Alvin, as an African who subscribe to an Adventist worldview, I am proud that a small window has been opened for other continents to understand how we as Africans have responded to Adventism! Be blessed my friend!
“I seriously question whether diversity in religious belief and practice within a community of faith is viable in the long term.” Nate.
I would add anyplace and anytime.
Nathan and Suffering …
“I seriously question whether diversity in religious belief and practice within a community of faith is viable in the long term.”
Actually, diversity in religious belief and practice seems to have been the key to the survival of the early Christian church as documented in Acts 15.
And a most practical demonstration of diversity among today’s Seventh-day Adventists is to found in reading pretty much any comment thread of Adventist Today articles.
So what holds us to count ourselves as Seventh-day Adventists as diverse as we are? It is a question worthy of exploring. Thank you for in a real way inviting us to do just this, Alvin and Adventist Today.
I suppose, Bill, it all depends on what one considers diversity. I think of diversity as acceptance of a wide range of opposing theological beliefs and practices. That’s pretty subjective I know.
Notice I used the term “communities of faith.” I see the SDA church as a denomination – a corporate institutional organism – not a community of faith. At its best, it facilitates communities of faith which may and do have widely disparate beliefs and practices.
Nathan,
“I see the SDA church as a denomination – a corporate institutional organism – not a community of faith.”
“I seriously question whether diversity in religious belief and practice within a community of faith is viable in the long term.”
So do you see the inevitable plight of a denomination to be a civil war among the various communities of faith that arise within its social corpus, with the winner ultimately barricading itself from the defeated and the rest of God’s creation in a desperate effort to preserve its soul?
Google maginot line. Google reformation, click protestant.
How can a denominational enterprise morph into seeing itself as utterly dependent on a dynamic community of faith embracing the presence of the Comforter as the world turns, rather than continuing to simply attract a community of faith utterly depending on the denominational enterprise as the source of its faith?
Is the rhetorical nature of such a question what you are proposing, Nathan?
Or do you find the question inspiring and empowering?
(I’m feeling inspired this morning, thought I admit that Sabbath School yesterday left me overwhelmed by the sense that for me this question had become rhetorical. The sermon, after 30 minutes of feeling, ‘How did she possibly get scheduled as the sermon presenter?’ concluded with a powerful personal testimony to God’s power to save being undiminished by our personal failures to respond accordingly.)
Google LCMS, ELCA Seminex, The Battle of New Orleans. Lutheran. There you will see what happens when a denomination decides pluralism is unacceptable. There is a royal schism i.e., a new denomination/s arise.
LCMS does not allow women to train in the MDiv program because they do not allow women to serve as pastors PERIOD They have no female seminary professors, either. You may not agree but they are consistent. A woman is allowed to serve as a deaconess; therefore, training is provided at the seminary level in a deaconess program. Of course, they have no history of a woman leading them by the nose, managing their sexual conduct, their theology, their eating and dressing habits, their recreation, etc., etc.
In addition, the Synod and Concordia Seminary,
as part of the Synod, adhere to the religious
and doctrinal belief and practice that
women may not be ordained as pastors or
others who serve in the pastoral, public office
in the Synod.
Accordingly, women are not admitted to academic
programs leading to or assuming the
ordained ministry (Master of Divinity, Master
of Sacred Theology, Doctor of Ministry).
Women may be admitted to the Master of
Arts and the Doctor of Philosophy degree
programs
“Actually, diversity in religious belief and practice seems to have been the key to the survival of the early Christian church as documented in Acts 15.”
I don’t see diversity of religious belief there. On the contrary I see it as an effort to discourage private interpretation of Scripture.
When I think about the African SDA church, apart from Ethiopia, I can’t see much beyond Rwanda, where many SDA slaughtered their brethren and used the SDA hospital compound for a killing field; where one of the leaders and his son were convicted of genocide by an international tribunal.
Nearly 8000 SDA, including pastors and church workers, were herded into the Mugonero church complex. Some recollections recall that SDA didn’t usually work their machetes on the Sabbath, but not Mugonero. Hand grenades exploded in the complex, followed by a hand to hand massacre.
I’d like our African brethren to explain that. Apparently,
Starting point to help us help you: Have you been to Africa?
No but I’ve been to the Oakland County Jail and South Central Los Angeles. I’d really like to hear what you have to say.
Hansen,
Would you please explain what Adventists in Africa who have committed atrocities have to do with “the Oakland County Jail and South Central Los Angeles”? While I’m quoting you, “I’d really like to hear what you have to say” about that.
The cultural approach to various religious faiths is exceedingly difficult, as we desire to find a connective communication of understanding from strongly sectarian beliefs that rub up against a
wall of uncomfortable tensions. For instance, direction of all beliefs (28), more or less), have been
delivered to the Africans as “thy shalts”, over the past 120 years, were in the early years accepted as authoritative, but as the African nations have become more educated in every Science and Academic
discipline, they see no reason to accept Western cultural understandings of religious ethics. As the saying “EAST is EAST and WEST is WEST, and never the twain shall meet?? Only in Christ.
” they see no reason to accept Western cultural understandings of religious ethics.”
Please explain your meaning. Do they accept biblical ethics, rooted and grounded in the Golden Rule?
What is their ethical guide if it is different from western ethics? Does academic standards change by world geography? Or, do academic standards apply world-wide?
” they see no reason to accept Western cultural understandings of religious ethics.”
Please explain how western religious ethics are different in Africa. Do they live by biblical ethics of the Golden Rule?
Your questions don’t make sense, Elaine. You can’t separate ethics and values from culture. The fact that SDAs in Africa have shared values and Biblical beliefs with SDAs in the West doesn’t negate the differences in ethical or religious understandings.
As for academic standards, I’m not sure what standards you are referring to, but they differ widely within the U.S. So I’m not sure why you imply they are the same throughout the world.
Ethical behavior is seen differently in various cultures. Tradition often appears the same as ethics, but do other cultures accept deception, claiming to have complete necessary work for receiving academic degrees? When denominational employees are transferred from an area where “cultural traditions” are not the same, should those degrees be accepted in another nation with higher standards? (Charles had been elected to the NAD, located in the U.S with difference qualifications for degrees to be conferred).
Morals require 100% honesty in all parts of the world. Should they be equated differently even if some nations will accept less than total truthfulness. Is there a contention by the principals that they did not have to be totally honest?
Elaine,
Could this be the result of not teaching the ten commandments as vital to life and meaning? The commandment about “bearing false witness” seems to have been ignored while power and position were given priority. It;s much like the Sabbath commandment when its meaning of rest from works is not taught. And the same with the idol worship commandment. What does it mean when we disobey that one? (a symbol of rejecting the real God). Christian ethics are based on the Ten; they are not subject to culture.
For too many years Sabbathkeeping was taught like one teaches a tradition or even superstition. It was filled with dos or don’ts only. Yet when its true meaning is understood as rest in Christ, we will treat it as sacred.
@ Hansen, the incident that happened in Rwanda and parts of Burundi does not represent the SDA church in Africa. These are a group of tribalist that took their tribal differences, carried their anger and bitterness towards fellow brothers & sister and brought it in the church. So in a nutshell they had not fully surrendered their lives to the Master, hense they committed these atrocities.
All men live perilously. Sin is crouching and ready to pounce on us. and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire.
Tribalism is primitive and our modern complex economies produce very sophisticated societies which displace tribalism. But nothing displaces sin except the sin-bearer, Jesus Christ.
Hansen knows he ‘ought’ to look beyond what he can see of the SDA church in Rwanda and see instead a ‘woman clothed with the sun.’ The bride of Christ. But we often can’t see what Christ loved and purchased with His blood. The Rwandan’s crucified Christ at Mugonero church.
God forgive us ALL for what happened there.
T. Mashazhu,
Thank you for that observation. I have a dear friend who is from Uganda and presently visiting relatives there who says the same thing.
Dear Brother Mashazhu, It’s hard to imagine a better answer than the one you gave. America and the rest of the world also have members and leaders like that [unsurrendered] . Hope to meet you in the kingdom!
T Mashazhu,
Yes, I understand that. People put their tribe above faith in Christ. It happens with nationalities and ideologies too, and we have wars. Perhaps that is now happening in the US with political parties–each seeing the other as an enemy and saying extreme and twisted things. It may not be murderous yet, but who knows as the Spirit is withdrawn from the world.
“Don’t count the days; make the days count.” ~ Muhammad Ali (January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016)
Drs. Alvin and Limakatso Masarira thank you for joining the Adventist Today columns. I look forward to reading your insights into a universal Adventism suitable for every kindred, tribe, tongue, and nation.
I was privileged to work with the Adventist Church in Lesotho and Zambia, 1973-1986. I never tried to be a Mosotho or a Chewa but tried to live as an alternative example to the cultures they had known, both African cultures, and Colonial cultures.
For example my wife wore skirts and not slacks in deference to local styles and customs of that time, but she did not kneel to me when she brought me my food, etc.
If watching us was a cultural disaster or simply thought provoking I don’t know. But what I learned from my exposure to African is that Adventism offered generic Africa several important countercultural thoughts. 1.) Although African atheism is hardly a force, what kind of God there is may be the Adventist church’s biggest contribution to spiritual life. 2.) Freedom from the cultural rule of dead ancestors and spirits is another contribution of Adventist doctrine of the non-immortality of the soul. 3.) Adventism required some independence from group thought (going to church on Saturday, no pork, giving up outward adornment, no alcohol, etc.) which emphasized the importance of the individual as more than a conforming member of a clan, tribe, or nation, and part of a new kind of creation. Adventists stood out often to benefit of the individual and culture…
CORRECTION: “…what I learned from my exposure to AFRICA is that Adventism….”
“I am an ordinary man who worked hard to develop the talent I was given. I believed in myself, and I believe in the goodness of others.” Muhammad Ali
We are all ordinary. Gid isn’t finished with any of us yet and there is still hope. Before we become too sanctimonious about Rwanda and the atrocities that occurred there let’s remember that Hiroshima and Nagasaki. let’s pray for all hatred to end, everywhere!
Sam G, we decry the hostile forces of violence in any form, and especially that which annihlilates
masses. However war is hell bent, destroy the enemy. Japan has been a warrior nation for thousands of years, its culture being of internecine warlord battles/ Bushido. i was AAF when Pres.
Truman gave the order to use the atomic bomb, in order to end the war. i believe Truman made the right decision. Japan , in battle, in the South Pacific islands, each time, fought to the death knowing
they were lost, and would not surrender. The next battle to be was the actual invasion of Japan, the homeland. It was estimated that this final action would result in millions of casualties. The order to use the atomic bomb was a merciful decision, as was the “human god, Hirohito’s”, in making his first ever public appearance before the Japanese people, stating, not to resist and to surrender. You’ll recall Japan (although being bullied by the USA), attacked Hawaii without warning, or declaration of war, having wreaked havoc through out the South Pacific and slaughtering millions in China. Rwanda’s sad history was a sad occurrence in the annals of our times, tribal interactions still
ongoing in parts of Africa.
Comparing Hiroshima/Nagasaki to what happened in Rwanda is quite a leap. Apples and oranges.
Good article Br Alvin may God continue using you. May I just maybe engage some of the key points you have raised. I believe the African church is being misunderstood because it doesn’t understand its DNA, this religion is western as a result we (Africans) will know how to behave within it yet be true to ourselves. African’s are struggling with context and hermeneutics because our Dr are not promoted enough. We are lazy theologically because we have leadership that doesn’t appreciate academic work acquired from Seminaries. We take things literally because we were oriented that way because most pastors back then didn’t have theological training and produced a lot of people who take the bible and SOP literally. We stay the whole day at church because most don’t want to spend time with their families, Do not do bible studies during the week and result in having studies Sabbath afternoon. We miss the rest of the Sabbath and the freedom it brings because we subscribe to culture and tradition rather than the bible and it’s interpretative tools. Our members need to be taught here in Africa how the church works and come to the understanding of scripture, that way it will be easy for us as African to bring out who we are in light of the knowledge we have about this worldwide church. My call is for Africans to understand this worldwide church and it’s hermeneutics. Our Dr’s to write more so as to equip leaders to stop taking things literally and appreciate acade
You are an open and brave student of the Word. You can be this and still true to your heritage. I am not sure staying and learning at church all day Sabbath is a bad idea. It sounds good to me in its context. Families need to enjoy church together. It is a family.
Thank you Alvin for sharing your thoughts on the Adventist church in Africa. I believe you have some good points that should help those in the West to understand a little more about their African brothers and sisters. We, in the west, are too quick to criticise and speak in derogative tones about our African members. We, generally are far too ignorant of the cultures and the context of our church family in other parts of the world. Culture has a huge influence on why and who we are and what we do. Our world views are often vastly different and this is what makes unity in the world-wide church so difficult. We need to listen to each other and you Alvin, have given us an opportunity in this article. Having lived in Africa in 3 different countries and travelled extensively in all of East and Southern Africa and into West Africa, during my 15 years of missionary endeavour and subsequent travels back and forth, I believe I have only begun to understand some of the complexities of working and living together. We must keep talking, listening and sharing together. We need to open our hearts and minds to each other and be open to the differences, accept them and love each other just as Jesus told us to do and showed us how. In the light of recent events in the SID, I believe we can learn a lot about each other – but it is imperative that we listen and learn and love. God bless Africa.
I thank both Alvin and Joy for writing such hopeful messages. I look forward to more blogs from Alvin. We are in different worlds to a degree but our basic needs–emotional and physical–are similar. We need to come together and all cultures contribute without one controlling the work of the other in presenting Jesus. Perhaps this happened too much when western ideas came to Africa. Hudson Taylor was the best missionary I have read about and a few Adventists I have known over the years.
Question to missionaries: I am unsure what missionaries teach the people they serve. Has it changed a lot since the movement began in the 1800s? Do Adventists present the Gospel of Jesus first? Do they teach the ten commandments before unique doctrines. I ask this because I have met missionaries who ignore the present culture and accept its cruelties. One told me stealing was part of the culture and didn’t try to change it; or mistreatment of women. Don’t we have the right to ask what missionaries have taken to other lands over the years?
EM, Concerned about teaching the Ten Commandments before other doctrines? How about teaching the gospel before any other doctrine? You know, the part of the Bible about Jesus being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, dying a substitutionary death, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven.
People can easily subscribe to the Decalogue as a way of life. The Jews have been doing it for millenia. Lots of churches have rules to follow.If people in nations of the East want rules, they already have Buddhism, Islam, etc, with a load of rules i.e., what to eat, what to wear, what to do about sex, like Adventism. Unfortunately, churches based on rules don’t hold up well in the face of adversity.
China under Mao, Rwanda under racism, Germany under the Nazis, large scale apostasy, Aside from Hotel Rwanda, did any of the SDA stand up for their brethren or try to help them. We know they contributed to their merciless massacre, that SDA’s in China mostly apostatized, denied their faith, compromised the Sabbath, whatever it took to survive. One of the leaders publicly denounced the GC president. The printing houses and other institutions were controlled by communist infiltrators, another “leader” compromised the Sabbath while imprisoned.
Not sure I would do any different but rules, Decalogues, vegetarianism, long dresses, 1844, don’t make people self sacrificing Christian believers.
Hansen
Apparently you did not read all of my post. I distinctly said missionaries need to start with Christ also known as the Gospel. And how do you teach what love looks like? It is by teaching the ten commandments with its love for God and love for other humans.
If I were to ask the “typical” African adventist how many adventists there are in Africa, would he try to give me statistics about the voting membership of the Seventh-day Adventist organization or/and number of Sabbath School members? OR would he talk about evidence that there are many people in Africa who believe the purpose of the second advent is to resurrect those who have died in faith and take the living saints with them to heaven?
The above question is another way of asking whether the typical member of our denomination in Africa understands the difference between the advent movement and the Seventh-day Adventist organization that was, presumably created to promote the advent movement.
Which is another way of asking whether the religion of the typical member of our denomination in Africa is institutional or personal. Is “the message” a message about an organization or is it a message about Jesus?
LdS (Mormons) promote something they call “the gospel” but it is nothing more or less than a message about the supposed authority of a religious organization. They use Christian-sounding language but their “message” isn’t about the life of Jesus on Earth or the transforming grace of God. It is a list of things to do and not do in order to be “exalted”.
Can we learn from their mistakes?
So in general the church in Africa ignores context, takes the plain reading. It seeks consensus. To get consensus leaders nudge and push. Understanding and interpreting “the Bible is a contentious in the church in Africa, and there is a lot of controversy among believers.”
“It helps to explain how Africans understand the Bible’s definition of gender roles in the family and church.”
Add to that every third SDA is from Africa and comes from this circumstance.
Does it not seem Christlike to agree to hold together on major teachings & agree to diversity in disputable matters in stead of requiring all to do everything in just the same way?
There is a lot to be said for consensus. How it is achieved is critical. Abuse of authority when applied to “influencing” a full one-third of the delegates has an affect that reaches into countries where the disputable matter forces the church in that area to choose between the GC Session vote, regarding a disputable matter and breaking the law.
Note: Before someone says to stop whining about the WO vote at the GC Session, my comment is about abuse of authority and the problem the church has with a major portion of the church not reading the Word with context considered and then being nudged or pushed, not based on Scripture, but rather based on the desire of the leader. It is problematic regardless of the outcome.
Allen Nash,
Is it Christlike to agree to hold together on major teachings and agree to diversity in disputable matters instead of requiring all to do everything in just the same way?
On the face of it, that sounds like a reasonable proposal. The next questions, of course, are 1) which are major teachings? and 2) which are disputable matters?
I spent 25 years trying to explain protestantism to the LdS (Mormons) in Utah. I believe the Lord called some people to emphasize some doctrines and other people to emphasize one or more other doctrines. There is nothing wrong with people with a similar calling to create organizations to promote the doctrines they have been called to emphasize.
It is unfortunate that such groups tend to never move beyond the special emphases that created their respective organizations in the first place but many of the doctrines those organizations were created to promote are as needed today as they ever were: justification by grace alone through faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, believer’s baptism, the second blessing, the nature of the millennial kingdom, etc.
We could spend (waste?) a lot of time trying to decide whether a supermajority of the voting members of the SdA organization agree on 28 doctrines but the more important question is whether we agree on how to prioritize them.
I am impressed there were only ten commandments. They can cover every sort of problem in relationship with God and other humans.
Allen Nash (continued),
Is there a difference between which doctrines are considered most important in the New World and which are considered most important in the Third World?
Some adventists consider who Jesus is to be the most important doctrine, followed by protestant principles. Those adventists consider doctrines like the seventh-day-ness of the sabbath, the state of the dead and the “nearness” of the return of Jesus to be important but believe they can only be properly understood in the context of more basic Christian doctrines.
Other adventists have been influenced by so-called “evangelists” whose primary goal is not to encourage faith in Jesus and his written word but to “get people to act like adventists” or to “get people to understand the Bible the way we do” (both actual quotes by people who had been paid by our denomination as “evangelists”). Or how about his quote? “The only decision we need to make is which is the right church.” (Another SdA “evangelist”.)
I’d dearly love to be able to invite my neighbors to attend SdA services but my wife and I moved more than a thousand miles to a state (U.S.) where neither of us had ever lived before and we are still looking for an adventist congregation that avoids getting the cart before the horse.
In the attempt to globalize and institutionalize Adventists world wide, have we stifled the creativity of other cultures from the unique adaptations of religious practice and prioritizing the relative importance of beliefs such as the 28 FBs?
The Roman Catholic church is the largest Christian denomination in the world, but much of their success has been in allowing and even accepting practices of the church according to their unique culture. Is the Adventist church, which has for most of its history been based on western culture and practices, willing to allow freedom in some areas for the many ways possible to be Adventists wherever believers may live? Or, is leadership so insecure that, even now, they are attempting to tighten control on thought and practice of Adventism?
This is a two-sided history. The church forced and baptized people with the sword. I suspect it was the people themselves who chose to hold on to certain superstitions many of which infiltrated the church and were not helpful. RC being a religion of superstition itself, was not bothered by this.
Perhaps EM just mistyped the sentence: RC [Roman Catholicism] being a religion of superstition itself .. .” This is obviously incorrect unless EM believes that all religious institutions are essentially religions of superstition. In which case, the sentence would read something like “We know that both RC and Adventism are religions of superstition . . .”
Ervin,
ERV
You really twisted my words! RC is a religion of superstition in many ways although one can be a true Christian within it. It is superstitious to bow before idols, to take on certain rituals and superstitions of the conquered peoples, to change Christian doctrine, to persecute others.
But, yes, not to the same extreme, but individual Adventists (like individual Catholics who follow traditions and rituals) can be following superstition. It’s often seen in their view of Sabbath keeping and thinking about end-times. But unless you know of Adventists who have Killed people to “save” them, I stick by my word that as a system the RC church has been an antiChrist in its actions. But they are not the only ones in history only in Christiandom.
Ervin, et al,
Most English-speaking people use the word, “superstition” when referring to whatever credulity about the supernatural they consider to be excessive. To someone who calls himself an atheist, all such beliefs are “superstition”. Theists use the word when they wish to disparage beliefs that differ from their own.
It is one thing to make it clear that I disagree with certain beliefs. It is another thing to show disrespect toward either those beliefs with which I disagree or the people who hold such beliefs.
Religion is a way of trying to make sense of the universe. When I say I worship “God”, or use the personal pronoun, “him”, to refer to the creator, I mean to imply that I believe the creator is a personal being. To me, it takes a certain level of credulity to believe that disorder tends to order and that, therefore, life-forms have simply “evolved”. The Golden Rule requires, however, that if I wouldn’t like people to show disrespect for my concept of the highest power of the universe, I should not show disrespect even for an “atheist’s” (what I consider to be excessive) credulity.