On Tuesday mornings I can usually be found in the basement of the office of the Netherlands Union of Seventh-day Adventists. I am one of a small number of volunteers who are steadily working on building and optimizing the denominational archive in our country. Documents from the past are sorted, categorized, described, and stored in folders and document boxes. When we have finalize a particular period the boxes goes to the Provincial Archives in Utrecht, where the storage conditions are optimal and where interested parties can consult it.
Recently I worked my way through a thick stack of documents that in one way or another were related to the activities of the Dutch Union Office at the time when the World Congress of the Church was held in Utrecht in the Netherlands in 1995. Much of it could be discarded, such as, for example, the correspondence of delegates from around the world, who sought the assistance of our church office in securing a visa for entry into the Netherlands. But there are also minutes of meetings and significant letters that must be preserved. After all, this was the most important Adventist meeting that ever took place in the Netherlands, and the church organization in the Netherlands was very much involved.

Working in the archive we come across items that may not be of real historical importance, but still shed light on certain aspects of who and what Adventists are. For example, I found a letter that had been faxed to the Dutch Union, with copies to a sizable group of individuals and church entities. Among those who received a copy I also saw my own name. In 1995, prior to the GC session, I was working in the church’s regional office for much of Europe (the so-called Trans-European Division), as the person responsible for, among other things, communications.What was the letter about? It had come to the attention of the General Conference that pastor C.E. van der Ploeg, the person responsible in the Dutch church for the communications department, had put a warning in a bulletin for the Dutch church members, which stated that, if they visited the conference in Utrecht, they would have to do without their cup of coffee or tea. He warned the Dutch Adventists that the organizers of the session had made sure that there would be no coffee on sale in the congress building. Upon finding out about this, the GC people decided that they needed to send a complaint to the division office in England. They were clearly very upset about this statement in the bulletin. After all, the Dutch union was supposed to be positive about the church’s attempts to keep such toxic substances as coffee and tea away from the saints at the session. The president of the division (Dr. Jan Paulsen) was supposed to do something but did not want to see this matter escalating into something big. He sent a letter to the Dutch Union (which will be preserved for posterity) to convey the complaint from the GC. He regretted that van der Ploeg had written about this topic, as this would only generate ill feelings. He added that the message to the Dutch church members was completely unnecessary, because he was in no doubt that Dutch Adventists would need no advice where, if they need their national drink, they can find a place to satisfy that need.

Unfortunately, I cannot remind my friend van der Ploeg of this incident, for he is no longer with us. I don’t know whether pastor Paulsen remembers it, but I treasure it as a small but striking example of his gift for de-escalating problems. A small injection of humor was usually part of that process. I am convinced that this combination of (1) an ability to de-escalating smaller and larger conflicts and (2) humor, are crucial qualities of a good leader. I have, in my own way, always tried to operate in this way.

Unfortunately, at present in many of our leaders—at various levels in our denomination—are sadly missing the willingness, and perhaps also the capability—to de-escalate conflict situations. In recent years we have experienced how several issues have continued to escalate without any solution in sight. I am not referring to activities of some of the so-called independent ministries at the conservative fringe of the church—even though some of these seem to consider it part of their mission to foster the polarization in our church. But a number of conflicts have escalated, due to the determination of the church’s top leadership to promote one particular view and condemn variant opinions.

The issues concerning women’s ordination and the status of LGBTQ+ members come to mind as prime examples in which escalation resulted from the pressures from the higher echelons of our denominational bureaucracy to stay with the status quo, and from the publication of several uncompromising statements. In many cases these statements had a fundamentalist odor, and failed to take note of the findings of contemporary science and of the breadth of theological expertise in the Adventist Church. The conflict about the role and status of female pastors escalated to the point that a special “compliance” committee was established. This committee was set up to discipline conferences and unions that were unwilling to submit to the dictates of the GC with regard to the women in their organization who felt called—and had given ample proof of their calling—to the gospel ministry. A special task force has recently been established in an attempt to halt the growing willingness of many congregations to accept LGBTQ+ people as fully part of their church community. A few weeks ago a new website has been launched to convince those want their church to be truly inclusive to change their “liberal” minds. But even if I try to look at these things from a “conservative” perspective, it seems to me that these measures only heighten the conflicts and will have very little, if any success, in creating solutions.

Lately there has been an intensified emphasis from “on high” on the importance of assent to every detail of the Twenty-eight Fundamental Beliefs. I am willing to believe that this concern is based on a genuine conviction that the church is at risk of losing its identity, if the growing theological diversity cannot be reversed and greater doctrinal uniformity cannot be achieved. However, the controversies around this issue have regrettably further escalated as the result of repeated assertions that all pastors and teachers who do not subscribe to all doctrines of the church (as they are formulated by the GC and are interpreted by conservative opinion leaders), had better turn in their credentials. Recent events, such as the withdrawal of teaching credentials from a theology professor at our Italian university, and the pressure on the German church to cancel the ministerial credentials of a pastor who informed his church that he has a bisexual orientation, have all the seeds in them to escalate into major conflicts.

One may well ask why church leaders have not tried harder to decrease polarization and de-escalate tensions in the church. There have been possibilities to do so. There was the option to allow different regions in the world to deal with the matter of women’s ordination at their own speed, while taking cultural factors into account. And: the church has succeeded in dealing with the issue of divorce by focusing on pastoral rather than theological aspects. Could that not serve as a model for approaching various aspects of the LGBTQ+ dilemma?

Some will argue that Truth must be defended—at whatever cost. We are told that when principles are involved, one cannot compromise! We must accept that things may easily escalate if biblical truth is being attacked or ignored. This may cause controversy, and people may decide to turn their back on the church. If that happens, it is the expected end-time “shaking”. It is inevitable if we want to ensure that there will be a faithful remnant ready to welcome the Lord when He returns.

I agree that Truth is important and that principles cannot simply be pushed aside when they do not suit us. But we must remember that what we call Truth is actually our interpretation of the truths that we have distilled from the Scriptures. We must acknowledge that this side of the Second Coming all our knowing is in part (1 Cor. 13:9) and what may appear crystal-clear to some of us is actually always “a reflection in a mirror” (1 Cor. 13:12). That should make our leaders far more modest in claiming that their perspective is absolutely and totally correct. Moreover, we must realize that compromise is not by definition a dirty word in the Christian vocabulary. Love—consideration for others—must guide us to put our principles into practice in a way that builds our faith community.

When all is said and done, the principle of love must prevail, as Paul emphasized in his magistral description of agape-love in 1 Corinthians 13. At the beginning of a new year I hope and pray that all those in our church who are in leadership roles—at all levels—will do everything possible to break down the barriers that exist in their realm of influence; that they will decide to reach out rather than condemn, and can step over their own shadow; in one word: that their goal will be to de-escalate. Let the year 2024 be the year of pulling together. Of showing that, in all our diversity of opinion and action, we belong together. De-escalation must be our constant aim, and love and peace must take precedence over everything else, including our limited understanding of truth.

About two months ago (September 15, 2023 to be precise), Dr. Joo-hee Park, the president of the (Adventist) Sahmyook Health University in Korea, introduced ADAM. The participants in the conference of the Asian chapter of the Global Adventist Internet Network (GAIN-Asia) were informed about a unique project: Park and his team are developing a robot which can serve as an assistant-Bible-instructor. The robot is being trained in knowledge of the Bible and in the details of the 28 Fundamental Adventist Beliefs. Park gave the assurance that the ‘training’ of the robot will be extremely thorough, to ensure that ‘he’ will not spread any misinformation! In other words: Adam comes with an anti-heresy warranty. The GC will be pleased that the robot is apparently masculine! However, I am not so sure that the Adventist community is really waiting for this new ADAM——even if the robot will be fully conversant with official Adventist teaching.

A key slogan in the GAIN-meeting was: ‘Technology for Mission.’ The Adventist Church has been a pioneer among religious organizations in utilizing new technology in its mission outreach. They were early adopters in the sphere of publishing and printing. From the very first, Adventists emphasized the importance of the printed page, and established printing facilities wherever a new mission field was opened up. Later on, they were pioneers in radio ministry and, subsequently, in using television and satellite technology for evangelistic purposes.
So far, so good.
Few, if any, will deny that using new technology to further the church’s mission is a positive thing. Therefore, in this age of Artificial Intelligence and robotization many will perhaps applaud dr. Park for creating ADAM. However, we must keep in mind that technology, important though it is, is no more than a tool. Technology gives us instruments for the delivery of a message, but is not to be confused with the message itself.

Content comes first
Implementing new technology is actually the easy part. It requires some people with technical know-how and adequate funding. The church has always been quite good in buying, installing, and operating technologically advanced equipment. But all too often, that is where our front-line position ended.
In the 1980s I worked a number of years in the publishing branch of the church on the African continent. At the time we were operating in this part of the world seven publishing houses with printing facilities. The quality of the printing was in most cases superior to that of commercial printing firms. Together these institutions had between 400 and 500 technical employees– typesetters, printers, bindery workers, etc.. But the total number of authors, editors, designers and photographers in denominational employ on the African continent was less than a dozen! It was an unnerving example of how technology received priority over creativity. The technical production chain rather than the message held first place. This state of affairs has been typical for much of the Adventist media scene in the past and still defines much of the church’s missiological methodology.

I hope that the church at all levels will continue to use the latest available technology. Since the Corona pandemic such services as Skype, Zoom, Team and other platforms, and the streaming of worship services, have developed in ways we could not have imagined even a few years ago. Computer technology is everywhere. When out preaching somewhere, I enjoy seeing young people contributing to the smooth running of the church service by operating the beamer(s), the lighting and the sound system. But, could it be that we are in danger of forgetting that the content of what we seek to communicate—in whatever technologically advanced ways—must be our first concern?

Do the sermons that we, pastors (I am one of them), preach sufficiently relate to the real questions of the church members who sit in the pew or in front of their computer screen? Do we use language they can understand? Do we use images and cite examples that touch their heart as well as their brain? The sound system may be perfect, but do we truly communicate ‘present, i.e. contemporary relevant, truth’?
Does the church nurture established and new authors, who can write books that make people think and bring spiritual refreshment? Does the church look for (and support) women and men who can write articles and books that challenge readers with new ideas, help them to make Christ-like decisions, and enable them to grapple with the issues of every-day life? Does the church stimulate authors and designers to create books and journals that bring new theological insights and point to courageous ethical solutions for today’s issues.
The world is full of print shops that can produce our books, and today’s printing-on-demand-technology has made book production easier than ever before, but what we need, more than anything else, is creative authors and graphic artists who can present the Adventist version of the Christian faith in an authentic, new, credible and convincing way.
Do our media ministries produce programs that trigger the imagination of the viewers and incite their curiosity? Or do they mainly cater to the taste of the more conservative (and often elderly) segment of the church that is eager to see traditional views rehashed and confirmed? [That, it seems to me, is certainly true for such independent organizations as 3ABN, but also for some other television ministries.] What really matters is: Do the church’s media departments create the kind of programs that will make younger persons, or those who is only vaguely interested in religion, when they happen to flip through to the channels, stay with an Adventist program for more than just a few seconds? The crucial question is: Does the church attract and value the kind of creative talent that succeeds in re-telling the Adventist message in such a way that it can ‘land’ in twenty-first century minds? New technology only serves us well if we have the right sort of content to offer.

One thing is sure: technology—whether it is a Korean robot or some other high-tech innovation—will in itself not enable us to reach the minds and hearts of the people around us. Content comes first: a message that is loyal to the Christian-Adventist core, but is not obscured by jargon that only insiders understand and focuses on issues of yesteryear rather than on the concerns of today. Having said all this, I gladly acknowledge that there are committed, talented and highly creative persons, who try to do what I pleaded for in the paragraphs above. But I hope and pray that their tribe may exponentially increase.

Adventist leaders might benefit from a study of Dutch church history. The Netherlands have become a very secular country, but its spiritual roots continue to shape at least part of its national identity. Through the centuries religion and church were crucial pillars of Dutch society, and its theologians were respected far beyond its borders. Moreover, Dutch ecclesial life was diverse, to say the least. A striking maxim underscored this: One Dutchman, and you have a theologian; two Dutchmen makes a church; three Dutchmen and there is a schism.

The two southernmost provinces of the Netherlands remained largely untouched by the sixteenth century Reformation and stayed predominantly Roman Catholic until a few decades ago. Most of the country, however, converted to Calvinism. Why the Dutch preferred Calvinism over Lutheranism is a fascinating story, but I am happy they did, for by so doing they provided me with inspiration for this blog.

A parting of the way
Since the middle of the nineteenth century, until some recent reconfiguration, Dutch Calvinism consisted of two major blocs: (a) the Dutch Reformed Church and (b) a wide array of Christian Reformed denominations. The Dutch Reformed Church (Nederlands Hervormde Kerk) aspired to be a spiritual home for the entire population. It aimed at providing a religious habitat for a broad range of theological persuasions—all rooted in Calvinism but extending from quite conservative to exceedingly liberal, and everything in between. The Christian Reformed branch (the Gereformeerden), which separated from the main Dutch Reformed Church in 1834, soon suffered numerous further splits, as theology professors and church pastors convinced groups of believers that they happened to be the sole custodians of unadulterated Bible truth. For example: In 1926 a bitter controversy erupted about the question whether the story of the speaking serpent in paradise had to be taken literally! Opinions collided and, once again, a new denomination was born.

Two types of denominational bodies
The Dutch ecclesiastical scene mirrors a general phenomenon in the Christian world. We see two different categories of church bodies: (a) global religious movements that emphasize unity, but allow for a considerable diversity within their ranks, rather than pushing for strict uniformity; and (b) denominations that define themselves very narrowly, both theologically and ethically. Prominent examples among global religious movements that want to keep all theological streams and traditions under one large umbrella are the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans. Compare these with such movements as the Baptists and the Lutherans. The Baptist World Alliance has 253 member bodies—independent entities that call themselves Baptist, spread over 130 countries—all with their own theological distinctiveness. In addition, there are other Baptist groups that have not joined this world alliance. Or take the Lutherans. The Lutheran World Federation is the umbrella for 149 Lutheran denominations. They share their Lutheran roots, but manifest a broad gamut of theological convictions, from quite “liberal” to defiantly “fundamentalist.”

Admittedly, we, Adventists, have also experienced some splits, but they were comparatively few and relatively minor. The most significant was the emergence of the Reform Adventist Movement, which still survives as an independent international denomination with about 40.000 members. Adventists have stayed together to a much larger degree than most other denominational families. But for how long will the Adventist Church succeed in preserving this organizational unity?

I believe the Seventh-day Adventist Church faces a painful dilemma. Thus far the church has been unwilling to choose between the two patterns mentioned above. It has tended to define its theological boundaries ever more narrowly, while at the same time hanging on to the ambition of being and remaining a unified global movement. The leaders demand that all believers, worldwide, share in the same approach to the Scriptures, and expect the full adherence of every Adventist to a comprehensive doctrinal package. They insist on the importance of remaining a global movement, with the General Conference leaders (backed by the quinquennial sessions which they dominate), as the ultimate arbiters of what is truth, and of the policies by which the denomination must be administered. However, church history shows that, in the long run, you cannot have it both ways! You cannot expect that 22-plus million Adventists will interpret the Bible, and will define the church’s teachings, in exactly the same way!

An inevitable choice
I hope my church will—sooner rather than later—realize that staying together as one body (and not being fragmented into numerous denominations, each with its own brand of the “truth”) demands that there be space for different brands of Adventism. Based on a number of key convictions, each of these brands must be developed and expressed in a particular geographical environment, in a contextualized way that is informed by history, culture, and spiritual milieu. The church must encourage a honing of the Adventist version of Christianity to the cultures of the various regions (divisions) of the world, just as unions and conferences must accommodate cultural, ethnic and theological diversity. And local congregations must be intentional about nurturing an openness to differences among their members that will make a local church a real spiritual (and inclusive) community, where people can come, and feel safe, as they are.

Does that mean that anything goes and that anyone can call himself/herself a Seventh-day Adventist? No. Unfortunately, there are extremes on the ‘right’ and on the ‘left’ that have made a caricature of the Adventist rendering of the Christian faith. This unpleasant reality will be with us as long as Adventism stays alive and attracts all sorts of people. It is something we will have to live with, while we help those around us not to be drawn towards the edges.

Increasingly, Adventism is pulled in two directions. A strong, traditional segment insists that we must all believe in the same way and must all obediently submit to the directives of our denominational hierarchy. On the other hand there is an, often anonymous, part of the Adventist community that pleads for breathing space and for freedom to live his/her Adventist faith in an authentic way, in tune with one’s own conscience.

I see just one option if we want to have a church that is, and will remain, a living (and growing) faith community rather than a museum, where the dust gathers until the last visitor turns off the light. It requires staying together around a common theological core, rooted in our Christian past and in our specific tradition. At the same time it demands that we value diversity, also in our theology, and most certainly in the way we practice our faith in the specific corner of the world in which we happen to live.

And, when it comes to the 28 Fundamental Beliefs . . . Let us always remember that we are not saved by agreeing on a mass of doctrinal fine print, but by gratefully embracing God’s grace. After all, we have the certainty of salvation not because we are locked into a solid ecclesial system, but because we belong, now and in the future, to our Lord Jesus Christ.

In his sermon during the recent Annual Council, our General Conference president commented on the ‘shaking’. In our Adventist jargon this term refers to a specific phase during the climax of end-time events, just before the ‘close of probation.’ Large numbers of believers will give up on the ‘truth’, turn their back on the ‘remnant’ church—and as a result will be eternally lost.

The concept of the ‘remnant’, and the conviction that ‘probation’ will close, as well as the expectation of an imminent ‘shaking’, raise all sorts of questions. Specifically: When I look at all Bible passages in which the word ‘shaking’ (or a synonym) occurs, I do not find biblical support for the notion of an end-time sifting process in which the body of believers will be starkly reduced. Even many of the traditional Adventist books about the time of the end say very little, if anything, about a shaking. To mention just two examples: in his very detailed 500-page book about the Adventist end-time scenario, Professor Norman Gulley, does not once mention the term ‘shaking’. Neither could I find it in the Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology.
The shaking fits seamlessly in ‘last-generation theology,’ but it can only be defended through a combination of some Ellen G. White statements. The popular (and conservative) author Marvin Moore wrote proliferously about the last days. In his book The Crisis of the End Time he devoted an entire chapter to the shaking. It has just one or two indirect references to the Scriptures and relies almost totally on a series of quotations from Ellen White. For Ted Wilson this is hardly a problem, as he is an uncritical promotor of the writings of Ellen White and takes everything she wrote as just as fully inspired as the Bible, and totally applicable to our life today.
It would, however, seem that Wilson has overlooked some statements of Ellen White regarding the time of the ‘shaking’. In his sermon he was adamant that the ‘shaking’ is currently taking place. And he seems determined to do all he can to help this shaking process further along. He urges leaders at all administrative levels of the church, who do not agree with his theological views, to resign from their positions. And all who have doubts about any of the Fundamental Beliefs and/or do not accept the authority of the denominational structure, are no longer welcome in the Adventist Church. They are currently being shaken from their spiritual home. Wilson should, however, review some of the statements of Ellen White about the time of the shaking. In 1882 she wrote that the time for the shaking (or sifting) is ‘not far distant.’ In 1895 she said: ‘We are in the shaking time, the time that everything that can be shaken will be shaken.’

Wilson’s statement about the shaking is—to say the least—biased and opinionated. As I listened to Wilson’s long diatribe, my memory went back to a much shorter sermon I heard a few years ago. Dr. Laurence Turner, emeritus-professor of Newbold College, spoke at a conference of theology teachers. The conference had been negatively impacted by the judgmental attitude of some who strongly disagreed with a colleague about a particular aspect of his sanctuary theology. Some openly wondered: How could this man remain part of the Adventist community when he no longer subscribed to the traditional view? At the close of the conference, during the Sabbath service, Turner preached a great sermon about Matthew 13:47-50—the passage about the parable of the net. His sermon sublimely fitted the occasion.
Christ, we were told, compared his kingdom with the kind of dragnet that catches all kinds of fish: good and bad. The fishermen would pull the net on the shore and then separate the good fish from all that was unfit for human consumption. When comparing the dragnet to the kingdom, Christ emphasized that the kingdom-net inevitably contains all sorts of people, and must therefore be sorted. But that sorting would not happen until ‘the end of the age.’ Then the angels will come to separate those who will enter the kingdom from those who will not!

Wilson may not be happy with all those who have been caught in the Adventist dragnet, and he appears eager to keep some and to get rid of others. To be honest, I at times share in that same kind of feeling. There are many nice people in our church, but there are also men and women I sometimes wished were not there. There are legalistic, extremist, fundamentalist persons who often spoil the community spirit and bring discord, or worse. Sometimes I am glad when some members decide to transfer their membership to another congregation. But I must constantly remind myself that I am not called to do the sorting. That job is reserved for the angels at the end of time.

I have serious doubts that the traditional concept of the shaking is biblically defensible. I am totally sure that, if there is something like a shaking, none of us—Wilson included—is responsible for it. The parable of the net makes this abundantly clear. Earlier in chapter 13 of Matthew the parable of the good seed and the weeds underlines the same principle: There will, inevitably, be a mix of ‘good seed’ and ‘weeds’ (vs. 24-30). Not until the harvest time will the weeds be separated from the good harvest. Actually, most of us would make serious mistakes if we tried to do this. While the plants are still growing, we would often have a hard time to distinguish the good from the bad.
I can understand that, given his rigid ideas and considering the way he reads his Bible and adulates Ellen White, Wilson sees those who differ from him as a serious threat to the church. He must, however, come to realize that even his ‘plain reading’ of the words of Jesus forbids him to push for the separation (the ‘shaking’) of those who are welcome to remain in the church from those who should leave. That is simply not the work of him and his colleagues. God has assigned that task, when the time has come, to the heavenly angels and not to the General Conference!

Lectori Salutem. These Latin words sound like a somewhat solemn invocation–and there’s a reason for it. After much hesitation, I have come to a decision. This will be my last weekly blog. I don’t know exactly how many pieces I have written since I started, but I estimate the number to be well over 800. I began this project shortly after I became the president of the Dutch Adventist Church, in late 2002. Every week I posted a blog on the website of the Netherlands Union. It proved to be an excellent means of communicating with the church membership. After I retired at the end of 2007, I switched to my own site to put my (almost) weekly blog online. Since then, I have indeed managed to produce something almost every week–at first only in Dutch, but since 2012 also in English.

As my faithful readers know, most of my blogs were about church-related matters. Even when my active role as a church administrator ended, in many ways the church remained the center of my world. Thus far I have been blessed with fairly good health, and most of my time is still spent on activities directly or indirectly related to theology and church. My 2023 calendar is already beginning to fill up, with deadlines for articles and with appointments in the Netherlands and elsewhere for sermons, presentations and teaching. I also hope to begin work on a new book very soon. But as I recently reviewed my future activities, I felt it was time to wind down a few things. Therefore, this will be my last blog.

In my blogs I have always tried to be open and transparent with regard to my opinion on current issues and developments in the church. This was appreciated by most readers of my blogs, but inevitably some questioned my orthodoxy and sometimes my integrity. The latter group was often quite vocal, but fortunately relatively small, as the hostile critics of my blog usually faded away fairly quickly. All in all, the number of positive responses exceeded the number of cranky or downright nasty ones by at least a factor of ten.

Perhaps some of the approximately four thousand regular readers will be disappointed that I am ending what became a weekly tradition. But at some point everything comes to an end. And I must honestly admit that I sometimes lack sufficient inspiration and struggle to find a new topic. And it does at times cause a bit of stress, when after a week I still don’t know exactly what my next piece will be about.

For now, I’ll just leave the blogs on my site. [And maybe I will add another piece, now and then, when I can't resist the urge to respond to something.]

Many thanks to all my faithful readers.
And, of course, I wish all of you a blessed Christmas season and a happy, healthy and creative 2023.

Reinder Bruinsma
Zeewolde, December 14, 2022