Monthly Archives: December 2017

The mystery of Alabama

The fascinating race for the senate seat of the American state Alabama finished on December 12 with the Democrat Doug Jones as the winner. He beat the Republican Roy Moore with a tiny difference. Alabama had long been a Republican bulwark, but Roy Moore had gotten himself into so much trouble, because of the accusations of sexual misconduct, that he lost the election. Jones received massive support from the black population, and especially from the black women! However, remarkably enough, Moore got the votes of no less than 80 (eighty!) percent of the evangelicals.

How in the world can it be explained that four out of every five people in Alabama who call themselves ‘born-again Christians’ continued to support Moore? (And, of course, there also remains the enigma why Donald Trump still has so much sympathy with the evangelicals.) A few days ago I read an article on the website of the Harvard University Divinity School, which addressed this same question.[1] The article was written by a certain Dudley Rose, whose name I had never heard before: an academic and a minister in the United Church of Christ.

Rose points to recent trends among the Southern Baptists, the largest Baptist denomination in the United States and very numerous in Alabama. In many countries, as for instance in the Netherlands, the Baptists are only a very small minority. Many Dutch people would be amazed to learn that this denomination has over 15  million members in the southern states of the US. Rose argues that towards the end of the last century many Southern Baptist church leaders became more and more concerned about what they perceived as the growing liberalism in their church. They were determined to take counter measures. The result of their reaction became evident in the new statement of their faith that appeared in 2000. In the past the faith and life of the Southern Baptists was emphatically anchored in the teachings and the example of Christ, but now the emphasis shifted to the authority of the Bible, combined with an explicit condemnation of some specific sins.

As a result of this trend we now see that many evangelicals stress the importance of condemning certain sins (in particular abortion!) and a strict adherence to the doctrines of the church, while the question whether one actually lives as a true follower of Christ has been relegated to second place. This may explain why most evangelicals in Alabama are willing to still favor a man as Moore, with his inflexible standpoint on abortion, and to turn a blind eye to his sexual escapades. Undoubtedly, other factors also come into play, but I found this short article quite illuminating.

Could it be that a somewhat similar trend is present in the Adventist Church? Is there a trend to emphasize orthodox doctrine in order to combat the liberalism that some (or many?) church leaders fear is on the rise, and that Christ, and the example He gave, are more and more in the shadow of a rigid ‘plain’ reading of the Scriptures, which is mostly interested in defining what is (in their view) correct and orthodox, rather than focusing first of all on what is good and merciful?


Christmas in Kuwait

One of my last official assignments as the executive secretary of the Trans-European Division of the Adventist Church was a trip to Kuwait. At the time (2001) the office in Britain, where I worked, had the oversight not only over  church organization in parts of Europe and Pakistan, but also in Kuwait and a series of other countries of the Middle East. Kuwait is, of course, an Islamic state, but the authorities have a much more relaxed attitude towards Christians than most other nations in the region. When I went to Kuwait, our church had a few hundred members in the country. There was a pastors but he had no official status and had entered the country as an employee of an Adventist businessman who owned a factory in Kuwait. This was an undesirable situation and my task was to meet with the authorities in an effort to regularize the situation.

When meeting with representatives of the  Ministry of Justice, I was told that a few Christian communities did indeed have official permission to invite pastors or priests. This was a ‘historic’ arrangement, and it would be difficult to also get that privilege for the Kuwaiti Adventist Church. But, I was told, if I could come to some understanding with another Christian group, there was no objection to bringing a pastor to Kuwait under their umbrella.

I made an appointment with the leader of a community of evangelical Christians that had the benefit of the ‘historical arrangement.’ It was a very pleasant visit. However, the leader of this church could not help us. His members would not be amused if they discovered that he had assisted the Adventists. I asked him why his members would object. ‘Well,’ he said to me, ‘your members tell my people all the time that they are part of Babylon, and that does not endear the Adventists to them.’  It made me extremely sad to hear this.

As I pursued my assignment, I met with other Christian leaders. The Roman-Catholic bishop of Kuwait not only invited me for a very good meal, but also indicated his willingness to help me. After careful consideration I declined his help, since I feared that it might create more problems in our church than it would solve. In the end an arrangement could be made with another Christian church.

What I remember most vividly, however, of this visit to the Adventist church in Kuwait was the church service on Friday evening. Realizing that these members only very infrequently saw a church official from their union or division, I decided to be very brief in my worship talk, and to give them the opportunity to ask questions–about any topic they wanted to address. To my great surprise, during the hour that followed most questions were about Christmas. Should Adventists celebrate Christmas? Is it ok to have a Christmas tree?

Just imagine:  here is a group of some 200 members. They belong to the very small minority of Christians in this Islamic country. Rather than seeing other Christians as their allies–as their brothers and sisters–in their attempts to bear their witness in this non-Christian environment, they see the other Christians as their enemies (‘Babylon’) and rather than worrying about ways to present the Christian faith in the most attractive way to their Muslim neighbors, they have heated debates about the Christmas tree.

I realize that most Kuwaiti Seventh-day Adventists are families of migrant workers who have imbibed a kind of Adventism that is rather inflexible. But still . . .

Just a few more days and large parts of the world celebrate Christmas.  I hope that my fellow-Adventist believers, who are surrounded by adherents of non-Christian religions and by a secular majority, will find ways to join hands with other Christians to emphasize the Lordship of Christ in their Christmas. And as we approach a new year my wish is that Adventist Christians will not major in minors, but live their faith in such a way that it will attract people who are dissatisfied with their secular–and often empty–life.

Where do you fit?

Most denominations have various streams or ‘modalities’.  In most cases there is a segment of the membership ‘in the middle’, with a more ‘orthodox’ stream and a more ‘liberal’ stream on the ‘right’ and on the ‘left’ respectively In some denominations this causes no real problems, but in other faith communities it gives rise to considerable controversy.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is no exception. And perhaps its diversity is even more pronounced (troublesome to many), since the worldwide Adventist Church consists of people from a myriad of cultures, while insisting on unity and a major degree of uniformity. It cannot be denied that there are different streams in Adventism. Different authors have suggested definitions and descriptions of these streams.  I wrote about this in my recent book FACING DOUBT: A Book for Adventist Believers ‘on the Margins’ (pp. 83, 84). Very recently I was given a copy of a short editorial article that was written by Pastor Don Livesay, the president of the Lake Union (Lake Union Herald, January 2017, p. 3).

Don Livesay states that he has observed ‘five general faces of Adventism’, which he labels as follows:

  1. Radical conservative
  2. Faithful and traditional
  3. Loyal, active, gracious
  4. Relaxed Adventists
  5. Radical liberals.

Livesay realizes that there are no sharp dividing lines between these categories and that a person may feel that he belongs in some respect to one category, while in other respects feeling more at home in (an)other category(-ies).

Seeing such a list, the question presents itself: Where do I fit?  I see myself mostly in categories 3 and 4.  Let me briefly quote from Livesay’s description of these two groups:

3. Loyal, active, gracious: ‘. . . an important backbone of the church . . . a bit less traditional in styles of worship . . . wanting all that happens to be Christ-centered, and to track with both the beliefs and mission of the church. They have something good to share and are often able to reach various segments of society.’

4. Relaxed Adventists: ‘these folks tend to love the church, see themselves as progressive and are often less concerned with how carefully standards and practices are followed. Some seem to be a bit soft on some church doctrine and open to debate and challenging . . .’

To some extent I recognize myself in these descriptions, but I also feel comfortable with aspects of stream number 2 and 5. There is nothing that attracts me to number 1, the group of ‘fundamentalists who tend to interpret Scripture more by word than by core principles . . .’.

It is good to be frank about the issues that cause debate (and even controversy) in the church, and nothing is gained by covering up and denying these differences. And yet, I remain convinced that we must also continue to look at the other side. Very few people fit for 100 percent in a particular category. And, when all is said and done, all groups share in a number of important values and ideas of Adventism. That makes all of us, on whatever category we are, real Adventists.

May we, as the Christmas season draws near, and as we celebrate the coming of the Prince of Peace, decide to also celebrate the fact that all of us have much in common, and can (in spite of our differences) together worship the One who came to save all of us.



A few days ago I returned from a five-day trip to the United States. I had been invited by the Michiana chapter of Adventist Forum to speak at their meeting last Saturday afternoon in one of the buildings at Andrews University. In addition, I had a few other speaking appointments on the university campus. It was a great opportunity to once again spend some time at my Alma Mater, where I obtained my masters degree in theology in 1966, and where I worked in the Mission Institute (connected with the university) from 1991 to 1994. It was a special pleasure to meet with old friends.

The meeting with the Adventist Forum members centered on my recent book FACING DOUBT. It was interesting to see the many blue covers of the book in the hands of the people all over the audience. This and the other appointments during the weekend once again underlined for me how many people in the Adventists Church are concerned about certain trends in their church and how many also have serious doubts about aspects of the Adventist faith.  It is extremely gratifying to hear over and over again from people who have read the book that they found it meaningful for them at the stage where they are in their spiritual journey. And some also tell me that it has helped them to reconnect with the church.

I had the pleasure of staying in the home of one of the Adventist Forum leaders and his wife. I could not have wished for a more comfortable place to stay, and for more inspiring discussion partners. The last evening of my stay in their home was particularly memorable. For the last ten years, I was told, they have been meeting once every two weeks with four other couples. They call their ‘small group’ meeting their soup club–this in reference to the main part of the meal they share together . They are all professional people. Among the group are a medical doctor, a physical therapist, a lawyer, a biologist, an anthropologist, a mathematician, and a psychologist.  They serve as a spiritual support group for each other. They are people who have more questions than answers, and who are at various points in their spiritual odyssey. They all see themselves as Adventists, but ‘on the margins’ of their church. Their soup club functions in many ways as their church. It is a place where they feel absolutely safe, where they can share their thoughts, express their doubts, voice their questions, express their hopes and seek together for answers. It made a deep impression on me.  We need many more of this kind of soup clubs!

One of the members of the soup club described himself as a Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath keeping, tithe paying, agnostic. What this means is that he has many doubts about even primary elements of his faith, but nonetheless continues to feel an extremely strong bond with his church. He enjoys being part of the Adventist subculture that has shaped him into what he is. We talked together about cultural Adventism. He argued that there is nothing wrong with being a ‘cultural Adventist.’ The people who are seen as ‘just’ cultural Adventists, or who identify themselves as such, also belong to the Adventists family and enrich the fabric of what Adventism is!  I will have to think this through a little further and may come back to it in some future blog. For me this description of being an Adventist would be too meager. But if all cultural Adventists are such pleasant, balanced and positive people as this self-proclaimed Adventist agnostic whom I met in the soup club, I would warmly welcome them to my local church.


Pierre Teilhard de Jardin (and Desmond Ford)



The Pontifical Council of Culture recently announced that it plans to request Pope Francis to rehabilitate Pierre Teilhard de Jardin. This is remarkable, since his ideas (and, in particular, his books in which these ideas were explained) were considered as dangerous reading for Catholics. Gradually this situation is changing. The previous pope quoted from Teilhard in a vesper service in 2004, and the current pope referred to him in a positive way in his recent encyclical Laudato si (Be praised: on the care of our common home, 2015). A request for rehabilitation would certainly have a chance of success.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) was a Jesuit priest and well-known philosopher, but his special areas of expertise were paleontology and geology. A dictionary definition of paleontology is: “A paleontologist is someone who studies fossil remains and traces of organisms, with a view to reconstructing the nature and the evolution of life on earth in the geological past.” In other words: Teilhard de Jardin was active in the study of evolution. His acceptance of the evolutionary origin of all forms of life was at odds with the official teachings of his church, and, as a result, the church condemned his work. Teilhard wrote one of his most important books The Phenomenon of Man already in 1930, but it was not published until shortly after his death in 1955. I must still have the book somewhere. I bought it more than fifty years ago, when it was published in a then popular Dutch Aula paperback series. I do remember that at the time I did not understand much of what I read, and I gave up after a few dozen pages.

The fact that the Roman-Catholic Church had revised its view of the evolution theory, and that at long last Teilhard de Jardin may be rehabilitated, is rather remarkable. Churches are not very good in changing their doctrinal views. That is also true for protestant churches. They do change, and some long-time cherished ideas may gradually move into the background and be almost forgotten, but it remains quite difficult for most denominations to openly admit that it no longer supports some of the things that were said and written in the past. Often those men and women who pioneered those developments received a very negative press, or could no longer function in their church because of their ideas.

I do not think that in the foreseeable future the Adventist Church will give more space to scholars who have convictions about the creation-evolution dilemma that differ from what the church expects them to believe and teach. And many Adventist theologians and biologists (and geologists, paleontologists, etc.) will remain at odds with their church about many aspects. Let us, however, hope that they will not have to wait sixty years before they receive more space and will be rehabilitated.

PS.  And thinking about rehabilitation for people who in the past were sidelined by the church, because they had some alternative ideas about particular theological issues, I cannot help but remembering the name of Desmond Ford. Has the time not come to rehabilitate him (even when one does not agree with all his views)?