When Ted Wilson delivered his inaugural sermon twelve years ago, after his election as president of the General Conference a few days earlier, I sat in the Georgia Dome in Atlanta listening to him with growing uneasiness. It was a through-and-through conservative speech in which he left no room for opinions that differed even slightly from his own. The title of his sermon was “Go Forward.” For many, however, it was the beginning of a trajectory of “going backward.” The sermon was a key moment in the polarization process that has increasingly held the church in its grip ever since.

Since then, Wilson’s sermons at the last GC in 2015 and at the annual councils of the GC executive committee consistently had the same focus: preserving the past and warning against change. The sermon at the last Autumn Council in October 2021 focused on the doctrinal dangers that, according to Wilson, threaten the Adventist church. The sermon of a few days ago was very similar. This time there was a list of 25 points—a catalogue of all the things we must hold on to and not let slip away. The sermon was based on 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Test all things, hold fast what is good.” What followed was not a careful exegesis of this Bible passage. The text was used as a hook to hang everything on that, in Wilson’s opinion, we should hold on to. It was no surprise, by the way, that in doing so Wilson quoted more often from books by Ellen White than from the Bible.

Some church members want to jettison all traditional views. Others do not want to abolish or revise anything. Both extremes are deplorable. According to the text on which Wilson based his sermon, we must keep what is good after first thoroughly examining everything. Certainly, among the 25 points Wilson listed there are things we should preserve, because they are good. However, the tenor of the sermon is that everything that has become part of our Adventist tradition is “good.” Seventh-day Adventists are the only ones who have the full truth. They know how the Bible should be interpreted and they have a prophetess who keeps them on track in that regard. And if “testing” is needed at all, it is by employing the method laid down from on high, to which everyone in the church must adhere.

I was not in the audience when Wilson preached his sermon but read its text on the internet. I did not experience the content as a blessing. On the contrary, reading it made me depressed. Once again, the leader of the church did not try to foster reconciliation between the different segments of the church. Rather, it seems that he has no qualms about increasing the polarization in the church and promoting the “shaking” that he believes must inevitably come.

Does he then not worry about the large numbers of (younger, as well as older) Adventists who are dropping out because they want the space to “test” the theology and practice of their church, so they can examine “everything” and then keep what is “good”? It pains me greatly to see this, and it has bothered me quite a bit over the past few days. How can I keep my enthusiasm for a faith community in which I am increasingly told in great detail what to believe and how to read the Bible, in order to be a “good” Adventist? It’s a question I hear from many sides in the church. My answer is: I want to, once again, put this temporary depression behind me, realizing that many local congregations do provide the space that is denied to us from on high. I remain hopeful for changes in the future and, with the little influence I have, I will continue to work for them.

From a distance I followed the business meetings of the General Conference in St. Louis. The summaries via Twitter of what was happening helped me to stay informed about what was going on at any given time. The coverage through unofficial channels, such as Spectrum and Adventist Today, also provided a helpful perspective. I can’t say I missed not being physically present in St Louis. Except that I would have liked to have chatted with friends and people I met during my career in the church.

By now I have recovered a bit from my disappointment that Ted Wilson was re-elected as the president of our highest governing body. It was, however, no great surprise. And if the presidency had not gone to him, Erton Köhler would probably have become president. He is the recently elected (and now re-elected) general secretary of the General Conference, already waiting in the wings to take over from Wilson. This Köhler, who is from South America, is in many ways a copy of Wilson. We can expect Köhler to be the main candidate for the highest church post in the next round of elections. But I would not at all be surprised if Wilson finds a reason to resign shortly before the expiration of his new term, and then puts Köhler forward via an election process at an Autumn Council. This has now become a tried and tested method of ensuring the continuity of a particular vision for the church.

What is particularly striking in the election of the hundred-plus GC-positions is the huge percentage of re-elections of incumbent leaders. Is it really so difficult to find new leaders whose creativity and fresh ideas can revitalize the church? Or do we simply see an attempt to obstruct all innovation and to leave everything as it is? It was to be expected that the only woman on the presidential team (Ella Simmons who is retiring) would be replaced by another woman (Audrey Anderson). Incidentally, of course, it remains extremely strange that a woman who is elected as one of the vice-presidents of the world church does not have to be an ordained minister, while she cannot become the president of a local conference, because the (once again tightened) rules do not allow for this. Anyone who understands this should try explaining it to me . . .

My interest was, of course, mainly in the election of the new leadership team in the Trans-European Division, to which the church in the Netherlands also belongs. That there was going to be a new president did not surprise me. I am curious to hear in the coming weeks from insiders about the considerations that played a role in this. The choice of Dr. Daniel Duda is reassuring. He is someone in the theological middle, and I know him as someone who does not hide his personal, often progressive, opinions. Moreover, he is an inspiring speaker. But whether it is wise to choose all three division top executives from the countries of Eastern and Central Europe is a question for me. Although, as I write these words, I immediately realize that in the past, administrators with a Western- or Northern European origin were always over-represented!

The agenda of the 61st General Conference was extremely boring. Unfortunately, there were all kinds of signs that the current conservative course must be safeguarded. The ill-fated idea of having someone appointed in local congregations to promote Ellen White will only reinforce the current polarization around her person. It will be interesting to see how many local congregations will comply . . . The Damsteegts’ attempts to reverse what little has been accomplished in recent years in terms of the recognition of women in the church have, thankfully, remained unsuccesful.

That most of the comments from Spectrum and Adventist Today sympathizers have been negative should surprise no one. The newly elected leaders of the church can simply ignore them, because, after all, they come from a relatively small percentage of church members who are already on the margins of the church. That reaction, however, would be as wrong as it is short-sighted. For these negative comments reflect the opinion of an ever-growing number of Adventists who are in the process of dropping out, because they no longer feel connected with what is happening at the higher church echelons. The leaders who are now beginning a new term are facing an ever-growing segment of the church that no longer cares about what they do and say. That should worry them. If they are determined to continue the policies of recent years, they will find that they are becoming increasingly irrelevant to large numbers of fellow-believers.

I was somewhat hesitant to start on this blog, because my laptop is not behaving as it should. From time to time there are days or weeks when the letter “r” does not appear on the screen. The only way I can write something during such a period is to copy the letter “r” and then keep pasting it where it is needed. It’s tremendously annoying. By the way, it seems that Apple knows about the problem and is fixing this flaw for free for part of their MacBook Air production. My device is eligible for it, but then I’ll be without my computer for a week. That has kept me from availing me of this service until now. However, just when I am about ready to throw my laptop out of the window, the problem suddenly stops, only to reappear a few weeks later. And that’s the situation right now . . . I think it is really time to go to an Apple-store and trade in my computer. Especially since the quality of the battery has also seriously deteriorated

However, life is not all doom and gloom. Earlier than I expected, the Dutch version of my book on the Second Coming of Christ appeared last week. In a few days it will be available through the webshop of the Dutch Adventist Church: https://www.servicecentrum-adventist.nl. I hope it will get a good reception and that many readers may find answers to questions they have about this subject. The original English version was published last year by Stanborough Press, the Adventist publishing house in the United Kingdom. It is available through their webshop: https://lifesourcebookshop.co.uk/about/.

Unfortunately, the books of Stanborough Press are not available through Amazon and other online stores. Normally, Pacific Press in the United States distributes, through the Adventist Book Center network, the books published by Stanborough Press. However, I am getting the impression that, somewhere, someone is blocking the promotion of my book in the US. Too bad. The good news is that there are a number of Adventist publishers in other countries who want to translate the book and release an edition.

Anyone who writes books knows the feeling of euphoria when you finally have the ready-made product in your hands. And even though this is by no means my first book–the total now stands at about thirty–that feeling of satisfaction does not diminish! But satisfaction is also still there when I see an article appear on a popular website. This week Spectrum posted on their website my review of Michael Campbell’s latest book: 1922–the Rise of Adventist Fundamentalism. I hope we will see many more books from his hand. Campbell is developing into a new George Knight, who led the way in Adventist historiography in recent decades.

But, as we stand at the eve of the 61st World Congress of the Church, which will be held in St. Louis (USA) starting June 6, there are omens that are not at all positive. A few days ago an article appeared in the Review, the official journal of the Church, in which Laurel Damsteegt defends the principle of “male headship” as biblical. Laurel is the wife of Gerard Damsteegt, a theologian hails from the Netherlands, who recently retired and is one of the most ardent opponents of ordaining women to the ministry. His wife fully agrees with him. Why this article appears so shortly before the start of the General Conference sessions raises many questions. Is it a regrettable decision on the part of the editor-in-chief? Or has he been pushed by higher powers to publish this article just now?

Something else that raised my eyebrows–to put it carefully–was the announcement that staffers traveling to St. Louis are being called upon to hand out, led by Ted Wilson, 90,000 copies of The Great Controversy to the public in St., Louis just before they begin their work. Well, . . . the members of the nominating committee, and then the delegates, must decide whether they want this kind of activity to continue . . .

In 1966, I attended a World Congress (a so-called “General Conference”) of our church for the first time. I was a student at Andrews University (Michigan, USA) and drove the 200 miles to Detroit in my rickety Pontiac Tempest on Sabbath to attend a massive meeting of delegates and guests. In 1975, the Dutch Adventist Church arranged for me to attend the General Conference as a guest in Vienna. After that I was, because of my job in the church, five times an official delegate to a world congress: New Orleans (1985); Indianapolis (1990); Utrecht (1995); Toronto (2000) and St. Louis (2005). And in 2010 I was in Atlanta at the invitation of our church journal Review and Herald, to assist in the daily reporting of the proceedings. It was always a pleasure to be part of our quinquennial international celebration.

Two weeks from now, the 61st World Congress, postponed by Covid for two years, will take place in St. Louis, in the American state of Missouri–albeit in a slimmed-down form. I won’t be there, and actually I don’t mind at all. To be honest, I don’t expect much from this General Conference session. And communicating about it with friends and others in my network, I get the feeling that my lack of enthusiasm is shared by many. Why? I think mainly of the following two reasons.

In our postmodern society (which has also greatly impacted on Adventist church life), interest in the church as an institution has gradually significantly declined. This is especially true of the role of the higher echelons of the church’s administration. Especially in the Western world, a large proportion of church members increasingly feel that the church is primarily about the local congregation, and perhaps also somewhat about elements in the church’s organization that have a direct influence on what happens lovally (“conferences” and-sometimes-”unions”). But “divisions” and the “general conference” are a “far from my bed”-show. This tendency, I believe, was clearly reinforced during the Corona period. Therefore, the upcoming World Congress “lives” much less among “ordinary” church members than previous congresses did.

But there is, I think, also another reason why interest in what is about to happen in St. Louis is very limited. Of course, the election of leaders in the church headquarters in Silver Spring and in the regional offices (divisions) is an important item. But, quite generally, there is an expectation (or concern?) that there will be no major personnel shifts, and that therefore the direction of the church will remain largely the same over the next few years. (I hope I am a poor prophet on this point and that we will be faced with pleasant surprises, but I am not very optimistic on that point.)

Other than the elections, the agenda (which has been publicly released) is extremely boring. No major new initiatives are announced, as far as I can see. Perhaps that is, however, a reason to be grateful. I’m glad I don’t find a separate item on the agenda about the ill-fated idea of distributing hundreds of millions of copies of the Great Controversy worldwide, although I do wonder what is hidden under the cryptic agenda item no. 123: Three Angels’ Messages Report.

Unfortunately, there are also hints in the agenda document that the current church leaders do want to give us another push in the orthodox direction Traditionally, delegates are asked to express their confidence in the Bible and in the “spirit of prophecy.” Why this has to be done every five years is beyond me, but aside from that, it is interesting to see how the accompanying documents sometimes undergo changes.

In 2015, the Bible was described as a “reliable record of God’s acts in history from creation to re-creation,” but now the wording is being tightened considerably: “The Bible is reliable in what it affirms. Its record of creation in six literal days, the fall of human beings, a global flood to destroy wickedness and preserve a remnant, Christ’s earthly life, death, and resurrection, as well as God’s numerous interventions in history for the salvation of human beings are trustworthy reports of God’s acts in history (Luke 24:27; Heb 1:1,17 2; 2 Pet 1:21). Prophetically, the fulfillment of predicted events in accordance with prophetic time periods establishes confidence in the Bible as a unique witness to divine truth unlike any other religious book (Isa 46:9, 10; Dan 2, 7, 8; Luke 24:44; 2 Pet 1:19, 20).” (Italics added by me).

Apparently, it is found necessary to make clear at every opportunity exactly what we are to believe regarding the inspiration of the Bible, and which interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis is “truth.”

The statement about the value of the “spirit of prophecy” (read: of the writings of Ellen White) is very disappointing. Not a word is said about the problems surrounding the person and work of Ellen White that have been raised by researchers over the last few decades. When is the church going to get serious about responding to these?

Of course, I will be following the deliberations in St. Louis. For I hope and pray, in spite of everything, that I will see signs of a new momentum in my church and of efforts to make what the church says and does more relevant to the world of today and also to my everyday life.

This week I am intensely engaged with the book of Revelation. The Adventist Church in Utrecht has organized a series of seminars on the theme: Finding Jesus in the Book of Revelation. The speaker is Dr. Steve Case, the leader of an independent Adventist organization in the United States that focuses primarily on youth activities. But Steve is versatile. He also teaches in the DMin program at Andrews University (Berrien Springs, USA), and, in addition, he conducts at least 3 or 4 times a year a seminar of 8 to 10 lectures on the last book of the Bible. This week such a lecture series takes place in Utrecht. People can attend the lectures physically in the Adventist church building in Utrecht, but the lectures are also streamed and they can be seen afterwards on YouTube. I have translated the material that Steve Case uses into Dutch, and have also been asked to translate the speaker simultaneously during all the sessions. A tough job, I can assure the reader of this blog, because the speaker keeps up a good pace, and each lecture takes at least an hour and a half.

Programs on the book of Revelation are a regular part of the church menu in the Adventist denomination. But Steve Case’s approach differs significantly from what you’ll hear in a typical “Revelation seminar.” This is immediately apparent from the title. The goal is to learn more about Jesus Christ through a study of Revelation. Usually, Revelation seminars focus on explaining how the prophecies of this last book of the Bible have been fulfilled over 20 centuries of history–since the first coming of Christ–and on what the period shortly before Christ’s return will be like. But Steve Case chooses a different angle. He maintains one should first try to understand what Revelation meant to Christians in the first century, when John, under inspiration, wrote down the message he had received from God and sent it to seven Christian congregations in Asia Minor. From that starting point, one must then try to discover what this message might mean for us personally, and for the community of faith of which we are members in the 21st century. Those who come to listen to Case, expecting to hear mostly about the significance of the scary beasts that are portrayed in Revelation, and who want to know more about spectacular predictions for the time of the end, may be disappointed. The next few days will not be about the misdeeds and theological errors of the Roman Catholic Church, nor about America’s role in the end times. Case keeps pointing out that the title of the book of Revelation indicates very clearly what its core is: The last book of the Bible, according to the first verse of the first chapter, is the “revelation of Jesus Christ.” Thereby the word “of” can indicate both that this Revelation comes from Christ, but very definitely also that it is a Revelation about Christ. Hence, the title of this week’s series of lectures is: FINDING JESUS IN THE BOOK OF OPENBARING.

Does Steve Case thereby deviate from the traditional Adventist interpretation of the book of Revelation? Yes, definitely! But he does not do so by shooting at that traditional interpretation. He simply looks at the text. What did it mean to the people at the end of the first century AD and how do those words have meaning for us? It is not primarily about knowing more about history or being able to construct a detailed timeline for the end times, but about whether we may gain a closer relationship with Christ.

I feel very comfortable with this approach. In the course of my working life in the Adventist Church, I have shifted quite a bit with respect to the interpretation of the books of Daniel and Revelation. This is true of many Adventist ministers, both in the Netherlands and elsewhere. In order not to cause too much of a stir, many prefer to remain silent rather than continue to defend all kinds of aspects of the traditional explanation that they have since left behind.

A number of years ago I took an extensive look at the developments in Adventism with regard to the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation . This resulted in a lecture at a meeting of the European Association of Adventist Theologians in Rumania in April 2011, which I edited into an article for the theological journal SPES CHRISTIANA last year (vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 5-24). I concluded that there is certainly a shift in the interpretation of the two books of the Bible, which from the beginning had such a special place in Adventist thinking and the Church’s proclamation of the faith. While it is true that the official church continues to insist on the so-called historical explanation, and that this approach can still be found in recent church publications, most authors have become much more cautious in their direct applications to historical persons and organizations. (Unfortunately, this is not true of several speakers and organizations on the fringes of the church. Their publications and the power points of their lectures can be immediately recognized by depictions of papal tiaras and hideous many-headed monsters.)

Steve Case has taken an approach with which I wholeheartedly agree. No doubt, however, some will raise an eyebrow. Was everything we said about the book of Revelation in the past wrong? Isn’t there more to say about Revelation than we will hear in the lectures being held this week in Utrecht? Perhaps there is. But finding Jesus in the book of Revelation is the most important thing of all. I hope that many participants this week will discover things in Revelation that will enrich them spiritually. To that goal I am happy to contribute.