Yearly Archives: 2018


Recently a painting of David Hockney fetched the unbelievable amount of ninety million dollar. It was the highest amount (so far) ever paid for a work of a living artist. I must admit that I liked the painting and would not mind having it on one of the walls of our living room, but for the life of me I cannot understand what gives a work of art this kind of value. I do not know what the first owner paid for it, but it must have been just a very tiny percentage of this multi-million amount. When Hockney produced his painting “Pool with Two Figures” it may have taken him a few days or weeks of his time and no more than perhaps one hundred dollar in material (canvas, paint, etc.) And I remember reading that he made a trip to a specific location where he wanted to photograph the person who was to be portrayed on the edge of the swimming pool. That may have cost him a few thousand dollar at most. So, what brought the immense added value?

Several factors play a role. By now Hockney’s reputation as a renowned artist would add some zero’s to the price of anything he has made. And art dealers know how to get their share of what a buyer will ultimately pay. The buyer was rich enough to outbid all other interested parties. Was he/she motivated by an obsession to acquire this painting? Or was it to be an investment that could bring some extra tens of millions at some future date?

Clearly, many objects soon lose most, or not all, of their value, while some things never ldrop in value because of their intrinsic worth (being made of precious metal or containing precious stones, etc.), and some things only continue to increase in value. However, the kind of value we are referring to is conditioned by the human desire to possess something and on the human expertise of making an assessment that takes into account such aspects as fashion, culture, and rarity. In spite of all the experience of the experts the value of something may be either highly overrated or estimated far too low.

It becomes infinitely more difficult to put a value on human beings. We often reckon in terms of net worth. That means that people like Bill Gates and Soros would fall in the highest category. But would men like Einstein and Mozart, or contemporary equivalents, be of even more or of lower value? Is a well-educated person, with a good job, who lives in the Western world, of more value than a jobless person living in an African shanty-town? And is an octogenarian with a serious physical condition of enough value to warrant the prescription of a medicine with an annual price tag of some thirty thousand dollar?

Let’s take it one step further. What value do we as Christians attach to other people? Are all our “brothers” and “sisters” of the same value for us? Or do we have the tendency to somehow place more value on some groups or individuals than on others? And are fellow human beings, near and far, of enough value for us that we will do our utmost to assist them materially and spiritually? And are peopleof more valueto us than things? Is a fellow-church member of more value than even than a painting of Hockney?

This week I am reminded of the fact that in life some things are of far more real value than a healthy bank account. As I have flown to Canada to visit my two sisters who live there, and who are in dire straits health-wise, I realize perhaps more acutely than “normally”, that such things as health, family and love are the kind of values that truly count.

Moreover, when considering the concept of value, we must constantly remind ourselves of the fact that for God every human being is of equal worth. He does not only look after those who fit his mold of likable people. He gave us all the same status, “just a little lower than the angels.” Human beings are valuable enough in God’s sight that he was willing to risk everything—even the death of his Son—in order to make sure that we would retain our God-given value. Let’s never forget: The value of each of us human beings is determined by the price God was willing to pay for us.


More important than winning

In a previous blog I referred to a recently held study conference of Belgian and Dutch pastors about the theme of “Violence and Non-Violence”. In this blog I want to return to this event. One of the lectures—by a Belgian colleague—focused on Dr. Martin Luther King, one of the great pioneers of non-violent resistance. King, he said, was no saint and also had his less attractive characteristiscs, but he will remain famous as a prominent fighter for the rights of the Blacks in the United States. He  was murdered in 1968.

As part of his lecture the speaker put a slide on the screen of the “Ten Commandmands of Non-Violence”, which had been drawn up by King. Since I am, to some extent at least, someone who follows technological progress, I quickly took a picture of the slide, so that I would later be able to better remember the exact words. As commandment number two King mentioned: “Remember always that the nonviolent movement (in Birmingham) seeks justice and reconciliation—not victory.”

For me this point stood out in the lecture: When we get embroiled in a conflict we are eager to emerge as the winner. When we take someone to court we want to win the case. When we are attacked by someone we will not rest until the other party had admitted he/she was in the wrong. When countries go to war, they, of course, want the other country to lose. The victory may come at enormous costs. A few days ago we were reminded of this when the world remembered the end of the First World War, now one hundred years ago. This terrible war was about victory, whatever the cost, while reconciliation and justice were regrettable often forgotten.

The words of Martin Luther King were most appropriate. How can we end conflicts by emphasizing justice and reconciliation, rather than focusing on gaining the victory? Could it also in a conflict in the church, (such as the controversy about the ordination of women), be possible to no longer focus on who will gain the victory? This particular conflict threatens to escalate to the point that it might cause the world-wide church to split. Could we not somehow use all available means to strive for reconciliation and for a form of justice that all parties would find acceptable? Is there any hope that the top leadership of the church would begin to seek for reconciliation rather than risk further escalation in the “compliance” process? Even if that would mean that none of the parties would be able to claim a complete victory?

The words of Martin Luther King certainly also find their application is local congregations where two or more parties are at loggerheads with one another. Unfortunately, there are such cases in the Dutch church. And I fear this is also a tragic reality in many other places in the world. I call on all parties in such conflicts to remember the words of Dr. King that underline how it is not of the highest importance to be able to claim a victory, but that our concern must always be justice and reconciliation. For, if push comes to shove, this is the way of Christ.

Rescinding a decision?

During this past week the Belgian-Luxembourg Conference held a two-day pastoral meeting in the Netherlands. They also invited Dutch pastors to attend. I was glad I was able to be there. Ever since a few years ago I interrupted my retirement to serve for some 18 months as the interim-president of that conference, I enjoy meeting with my Belgian colleagues. The theme for the study-conference was “Violence and Non-violence”. A number of presentations focused on biblical issues, some on historical aspects, and the last lecture dealt with how to handle non-verbal and verbal abuse in our churches. I had been ask to give a historical overview of the position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, throughout its history, with regard to participation in the military and, in particular, regarding the long tradition of non-combatancy.

I had spent considerable time researching this topic, as this was an area of which I did not know all that much. The church was organized (in 1863) in the midst of the American Civil War, and the small denomination of just a few thousand members had to decide how to react to this situation. Although the standpoint of the leaders was not immediately crystal clear, it is fair to say that from the beginning of the Adventist movement there was a strong sense that Christians should serve their country and be loyal citizens but should first of all obey God’s law, which would not allow them to “work” on the Sabbath and to go against the sixth commandment that tells us not to kill any other human being. In many parts of the world, and especially in the United States, there has over time been a significant shift in this regard, and today a military career is a viable option for many young Seventh-day Adventists. I feel sad that in the process a significant aspect of our heritage is being lost.

As I was preparing my lecture, I was struck by two interesting facts that (I think) have a direct bearing on current issues the Adventist Church is struggling with. First of all, there is the question whether decisions that are taken by a General Conference in session must always be adhered to or may, at some later stage, be rescinded or disregarded by the church’s administration, if there is a strong conviction that the decision was not good for the church. The 1954 General Conference in session in the city of San Francisco decided that the principle of non-combatancy was of such importance that it should be included among our principal beliefs in the Church Manual. This, however, did not happen. Apparently, the editors of the Church Manual dragged their feet, and a few years later it was decided by the administration of the church that it would be unwise to put this in the Church Manual, as this would cause considerable problems for our members in different places in the world.  How interesting!  It seems that a vote by a GC session was not always sacrosanct. There is at least this precedent where such a vote was later disregarded. And the argument used is also of major significance. The consequences  for some regions of the world of that vote were thought to be serious enough to go against a decision of the world body. Could this precedent perhaps help us to see the San Antonio decision about the ordination of female pastors in a different light?  And could it also help the GC leaders to respond positively to the North American request to rescind the “compliance-document” that was approved during the recent Autumn Council?

And then, secondly, it occurred to me that the shift in our attitude towards serving in the military and towards bearing arms happened without any formal decisions during a General Conference session or Autumn Council. It simply was a gradual development that took place over time. The point is not whether or not I applaud this development. The point is that the church does not always define and re-define its positions by a process of formal world-wide debate and GC session votes. Some things just develop and change over time—not always everywhere in the same way and with the same speed. Would it not be much better to also allow the issue of the ordination of women to simply run its course and accept that changes will happen in different ways in the various regions of the world and at different speeds? Similar developments have happened in other areas without jeopardizing the world-wide unity in the church.

The recent Autumn Council paid a lot of attention to our denominational history (in some aspects in a rather bizarre way). But is would seem that this attention to the Adventist past was in many ways quite selective. I would urge the church’s administrators to also look at our past in order to find some inspiration for ways that would get us out of the present quick mire in which our church is at risk to sink ever deeper and deeper.



As I returned from a preaching appointment last Sabbath I listened to the radio in my car and happened to hear a lengthy interview with the author of a recently published book about the long-term effects of hunger. Mrs. Tessa Rosenboom was interviewed about the project on which she reported in this book that she co-authored with mr. Ronald van de Knol and was published by Atlas/Contact. The title of their work—translated from the original Dutch—is: Baby’s of the Hunger-winter: the unexpected heritage of malnutrition.

The winter of 1944-1945 in the Netherlands was uncommonly severe. This created enormous hardships during the last phase of World War II, when normal food supplies were dramatically reduced. Especially in the Western part of the country people had to scramble for food and were often reduced to eating tulip bulbs or animal feed. Mrs. Rosenboom and her team embarked on a major, twenty year long, study to investigate whether the circumstances of this dreadful winter had any negative long-term impact on the children that were conceived and born during that period.  It was found that, in particular, pre-natal conditions played an important role. Unborn children of mothers who did not receive enough good nutrition during their pregnancy tended to have many more health problems later in their lives when compared to the population in general. They tended to have more heart- and blood-vessel problems, fell more easily victim to depression and stress and, perhaps surprisingly, also often had a smaller brain. The study involved a few hundred persons whose birth details were still available in the Amsterdam hospital where they were born. (I must count myself lucky that, though I experienced this terrible winter as a small child, I was conceived and born two years earlier!)

In the interview it was stressed that this study is not just important as a historical document, but also is a stern warning that hunger does not only produce temporary physical setbacks but also has very negative long-term results. At this very moment around the world there are great numbers of pregnant women who do not get adequate nutrition and there are millions of small children who are chronically malnourished. Just think of the war-torn country of Yemen, where food supplies remain stuck in the ports and simply do not reach the millions who are in dire need. What does that mean for the future of millions of people and for the future of that country. (I continue to read reports about Yemen with extra interest since I had, now almost twenty years ago, the opportunity to visit there during a ten-day inspection trip of ADRA-projects.)

Now, it could easily be argued that most food shortages and large-scale occurrences of malnutrition in the world are man-made disasters. But even though those of us who live in other parts of the world had no part in causing these catastrophes we are usually asked by various NGO’s for our financial contributions. I expect, before too long, to see a national television campaign on my television screen to address the hunger situation in Yemen. For many it begs the question: Should we always stand ready to help when people become the victim of circumstances that are caused by competing parties within these countries? From time to time we are confronted with an understandable degree of donor fatigue.

And yet, we must accept our responsibility when, for whatever reason, people are hungry. Usually those who cause (and do) the fighting have enough food but innocent citizen, and especially children, are the victims. And, nearer home—even in our prosperous Western societies—people may go hungry and need our help. Whatever else we think and say about the causes of this, Christ made clear that He comes to us in the hungry people of this world and whatever we do to alleviate the plight of hungry people, we actually do to Him.

I may not be good enough, but God is!

Lately I have spent considerable time studying the topic of the so-called Last Generation Theology. According to the supporters of this theory there will be only a small group of Adventist believers ready for Christ’ s coming. And this “last generation” must be perfect. In my recent book IN ALL HUMILITY: Saying “No” to Last Generation Theology, I explain why this view is not just wrong but also very dangerous.

The thought that ultimately just a very small minority of the people (also of those who confess to believe in Christ) is a persistent idea which makes many Adventists believers unsure or even desperate. How much hope can they have in the light of the statement by Ellen G. White that only one in twenty will be saved? Many keep asking themselves the question: “Will I belong to that “remnant” (see Rev. 12:17) that will be acceptable to the Lord? Will I ever be good enough to one day receive eternal life?

I have become ever more convinced of the fact that we must present the gospel as “good news”. There is salvation for whoever believes (Rom. 10:9). It is God’s greatest desire that all would enter his kingdom (1 Tim. 2:3, 4). This had led some to believe  that a God of love will not allow anyone to be lost. I find this view, that is known as universalism, very attractive. It seems to fit a lot better with a God of love than the idea that there will be an eternally burning hell fire. Fortunately, soon after their origin Adventists understood that there is no biblical ground for the idea that the “wicked” will suffer never-ending torture. However, it is clear that there have always been (and still are) people who consciously refuse the accept the offer of eternal life.

The Bible texts that speak of a “remnant” that will be saved should not blind us to the many Bible words which proclaim the good news that God’s house has many “mansions” (John. 14:2). However, living in one of these many “mansions” requires a personal decision. The statements about the “remnant” assure us that there have always been (and there will always be) people who make this good choice. Even though it may seem that in this world  faith is on its way out, we have the good news that God’s enterprise is not a lost cause. On the contrary. There will eventually be a multitude that no one can count (Rev. 7:9) and a enormous crowd from “all tribes and peoples, and from every tongue and nation” (Rev. 5:9) that will enter God’s new world.

This enormous multitude is als described in Rev. 7:4-8 in terms of the 144.000. This is a symbolic label for God’s people in all its completeness. The number is based on units of 12 and 10. Twelve is the number of God’s people and ten is the number of completeness! In other words: No one—absolutely no one—of those whom God counts as His, will go missing. This makes me think of the words of that beautiful English hymn: “There is a wideness in God’s mercy like the wideness of the sea.” Many Adventist have not yet fully understood this. When push comes to shove, it does not depend on whether I am good enough, but on the certainty that God is good enough!