Monthly Archives: October 2019

Too few pastors, too many administrators

One of the important agenda items for the 2019 Annual Council of the Adventist Church was the report of the director of the Office of Archives and Statistics. Dr. David Trim, the current director, presented a report that gave ample food for thought. Let me just mention a few of the key statistics he mentioned.

Per June 30 2019 the Seventh-day Adventist Church has 21.3 million members. Between mid-2018 and mid-2019 almost 1.4 million new members entered the church, but in that same period over 600,000 names were taken off the books.

An interesting statistic is the number of congregations per ordained minister. In the Trans-European Divisions (to which the church in the Netherlands belongs) this stand at 4.34. In the other European Division it is slightly higher, at 5.28. In North-America each pastor looks, on average, after 2.15 congregations. In most divisions in the developing world this number is much higher. In the southern part of Africa the number of congregations per pastor is almost 30!

In the Trans-European Division each pastor is responsible for, on the average, 160 members. In the Netherlands this is considerably higher and stands at around 300.

But perhaps the most interesting (and disturbing) statistic Dr Trim reported concerns the ratio between the pastors who serve in local churches and those who hold administrative posts. Looking at the entire Trans-European Division, we see 0.9 administrator for every church pastor. In other words, there are almost as many church administrators as there are pastors ‘in the field’. I am happy to be able to say that the situation is rather better in the Netherlands Union, where the ratio is about 1:3.
This statistic causes even more concern when it is noted that since 1988 the number of pastors worldwide has increased by 85%, while the number of church administrators at all levels has risen with an alarming 300 percent.

So, what is the problem? It would seem that we have too many administrators and too few pastors. Let me say a few things about the growth of our administrative work force. We must realize that in many parts of the world the church has grown exponentially and this had led to the formation of new administrative entities (unions, conferences, institutions) which employ ordained pastors. And we must also recognize that many processes are becoming more and more complicated and, in spite of all computers, may need more staff.

At the same time, it is also a fact of Adventist life that, when there is a need to economize, the administrators seldom feel they can eliminate their own budget, and when some administrative downsizing has actually taking place, it usually does not take long before the administrative work force is back at its previous level.

It has often been suggested that our church shoud undergo a major organizational overhaul. Do we need the General Conference and the Divisions with their present size and structure? Can we perhaps eliminate one administrative level (unions or conferences)?

Part of the equation may also be that administrative jobs are attractive. The work in church administration often causes severe headaches, but perhaps not as many as the work in the local church does. In most places in the world being part of the administration not only gives status, but also some financial benefits and opportunities for travel. (Before I sound too sanctimonious, I must admit that by and large I have enjoyed my work in church administration!)

But it may well be that the main problem is not that we have too many administrators, but that there are too few people who feel called to be a pastor in a local church. In many places around the world many pastors do not feel happy in their ministerial role. Often pastors no longer get the kind of appreciation they used to receive in the past. It is increasingly difficult to function in a more and more polarized spiritual climate—in the church at large and in the congregations that have been assigned to the pastor. Moreover, in many areas in the world the remuneration of the pastor leaves much to be desired. In addition, many pastors feel they must be very careful in expressing their own theological convictions and their questions, lest they are viciously attacked by church members or leaders at higher echelons. And, the ongoing debate about the ordination of women pastors has been catastrophic. It has deterred many men and women from a career in the ministry. It must be a priority to ensure that becoming a pastor, once again, becomes an attractive option for young men and women.

Will the General Conference of 2020 be a turning point? Will it give the church the kind of leaders who understand that God does not accept gender discrimination and calls both men and women to serve him? Allow me to make a suggestion for the new leaders when they formulate goals and projects for a new quinquennium: Aim for at least a reduction of ten percent in the number of administrators and for at the very least a twenty percent increase in the number of local pastors—with at least half of them women!

I refuse to give up dreaming and hoping!


My most-read blog ever was my comment of July 12, 2015 on the women’s ordination vote during the General Conference session in San Antonio. It seems that my blog of last week has become one-but-most read blog. Apparently—-at least for most of the faithful readers of my musings—-giving equal rights to men and women in the Adventist Church continues to be a hot issue. Most of the reactions I received were from people who agree with me on the topic of women’s ordination. But I also had some e-mails and other reactions from a few readers who agree with the principle of full gender equality but at the same time believe that we should all abide by decisions of a General Conference session. An argument that keeps coming back is: Prior to the decisions in San Antonio intense prayer was offered. The delegates prayed for divine guidance and we must therefore believe that the vote that was taken represents God’s will.

Well, if only things were so simple. We must not forget that also in those unions which, according to the top leadership of the church, are non-compliant, a lot of praying took place before a decision was taken that deviated from the line that was set out by the General Conference. Did those prayers have less value? Did God listen to the prayers that reached him from San Antonio and not to the prayers of the church leaders in Norway and of the representatives of the church in the Pacific Union?

I have often thought about this conundrum. How does God determine which prayers he will answer and which prayers he will ignore? We are confronted with this question in a very down-to-earth way when people pray for a certain kind of weather. The tourist may pray for dry weather and a pleasant temperature, while the farmer in that same region pleads with God for rain. How does God handle this? How does he decide what prayer to answer? It becomes more serious when in a war both parties earnestly pray for God’s help and his blessing. And an awkward situation arises when in a faith community different groups plead with the Lord to let their viewpoint win the day, because their view accords with the ‘truth’.

Could it be that prayer is at times misused? Would it be God’s intention that we ask him to send us a particular kind of weather? Of course, an Almighty God might, in very special circumstances, intervene in weather patterns. But the kind of weather we get is normally a matter of processes that follow natural laws and that may also (according to many experts) be influenced by human conduct. At the very least, I think, we should be reticent in praying for a particular kind of weather. And it is certainly very questionable to pray God’s blessing over weaponry that will be used to kill other people. In that case our praying becomes cursing (‘taking God’s name in vain’), as we connect God’s holy name with something God should never be associated with.

What might be the role of prayer in ecclesial decision making? Unfortunately, we see all too often how prayer is used in a manipulative manner, for instance when immediately before a crucial vote is to be taken, someone is asked to offer a prayer and that person clearly alludes in his prayer to what would be the best decision.

May we ask God to be in our midst with his Spirit and to inspire us in our discussions and decisions? Certainly, but there are a few caveats. Whether or not God’s Spirit is with is and directs us does not primarily depend on God. He is always with us, but whether he can effectively touch and guide in a meeting depends mostly on the people who are assembled in that meeting. Praying for the guidance of God’s Spirit does not free us from the responsibility to make a thorough study of the subjects that are being discussed, to be theologically well-informed and to learn about the cultural backgrounds of the other participants. It presupposes that we are ready to listen to each other’s viewpoints and that we, when a vote is taken, try to overcome our prejudices and biases, and do not let ourselves by steered by political motives or external pressures. Only when such conditions are met, can the Spirit of God become operative. If not, then our prayers for God’s presence and guidance are meaningless or perhaps even a case of cursing—taking God’s name in vain. (Could it be that we saw an example of this during the recent Annual Council of the GC Executive Committee?)

You are being warned!

I asked myself: Do I want to write something about the tragedy that took place this past Tuesday in the main auditorium of the headquarters building of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Silver Spring? Has not enough been said already on the various social media? Perhaps everything that can be said has already been said. And yet, this is such a sad event, that distresses me so much, that I cannot remain totally silent. My naturally optimistic and hopeful self gave way to a sense of despair. Where is my church going? Where will it end? And how many will decide that enough is enough, and that they must find another spiritual home.

Some have said that the outcome could have been much worse. The system of non-compliance committees, that was pushed through last year’s Autumn Council, has so far remained a dead letter. The GC president complained that, unfortunately, many around the world have misrepresented the intention of these committees. On Tuesday he did his best to downplay the importance of these committees. They were supposed to be only advisory! But, the top leadership of the church (although it is not clear how many at the church’s headquarters actually agree with the president’s strategy) did not want to let the matter of non-compliance with regard to the ordination of women rest. Something had to be done to shame and discipline the leaders in the six unions in the USA and Europe, who were held responsible for the fact that their unions are supposedly non-compliant. And so, a majority of the members of the GC executive committee voted to issue an official warning to the presidents of the Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and North-German unions as well as to the presidents of the Pacific Union and the Columbia Union.

What does it mean that these men have received a warning? Not all that much. In fact, the General Conference leadership cannot do very much to make these men (yes, they are all men!) tow the line. Only their constituencies can remove them from their office. And that is not going to happen any time soon. They are all highly respected leaders in their areas of the world. They will bear the distinction of being warned as a badge of honor.

As I think about the events of last Tuesday, I have a number of questions:
1. Why did so very few GC leaders and division officers come to the microphones and protest against what was happening? I know from personal contacts with quite a few of them that there is a lot of “in-house” resentment against the persistent anti-women-ordination strategy. Why did they not have the courage to step forward. Do some perhaps fear for their job?
2. Why was the president of the union where I have long worked and where my membership is, not among the group that was warned? The Netherlands Union started on the path of implementing full gender equality, but then got cold feet. Is it not time to once again let principle rule over polity?
3. Could this be the time for some other unions in the USA, Europe, Australia and elsewhere to do what they have long wanted to do: do justice to their women pastors and treat them as Fundamental Belief no. 14 (about the full equality of all human beings) prescribes?

As I was watching the live stream of the proceedings of Tuesday afternoon, I regretted that I am retired and can no longer participate in the decision making process of the church and make myself heard in this committee. Looking back I wonder whether Jan Paulsen, our previous church president, could not have pushed a little harder to get the ordination of women accepted. And I also wonder whether I was courageous enough in those days, when I was a church administrator in the Trans-European Division and subsequently in the Netherlands Union, and could not have done more to advance the cause of gender equality in my part of the world. Well, it is too late to do anything about this. The only thing I can (and will) do is encourage those leaders who have been ‘warned’ and plead with others to be courageous and to accept the risk being ‘warned.’

We are not expected to understand God, but to worship Him

In recent times the opposition within the Seventh-day Adventist Church against the doctrine of the Trinity has been increasing. It took a relatively long time before the doctrine of the Triune God was fully endorsed by most Adventist theologians and church leaders. But the influential book Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (1957) left the reader in no doubt that Adventists had come to agree with most of historic Christianity on this important theological Issue: God is One in three Persons.

Why is there increasing unease with regard to this crucial doctrine that is also clearly underlined in the Fundamental Beliefs of the Adventist Church? There are, as I see it, a number of factors: (1) The method of ‘plain reading’ of the Bible, which has been strongly promoted in recent years, is not very sensitive to underlying theological issues. (2) There is a strong sense on the part of many members that the Adventist Church has departed from many of the principles of the ‘pioneers’. Several of the important men (!) in incipient Adventism were opposed to the Trinity-doctrine. That is, they say, a good enough reason to look at this teaching with great skepticism. (3) It is also argued that the Trinity is a Roman-Catholic invention, and that in itself is for some the definitive reason why it must be wrong. (There was, however, a consensus about the Trinity doctrine long before the Roman-Catholic Church as such existed!).

Early on in my graduate theological studies I was required to read what the famous theologian Karl Barth had written about the Trinity. Reading Barth is quite a challenge and I remember progressing at the rate of about two pages an hour. It was, however, worthwhile and it has ever since given me a clear direction for my thinking about this complicated topic. But already at that time I concluded that the word ‘Trinity’ is a term which we humans use in trying to say something that is, because of its very nature, indefinable in human language. Somehow, God the Father (also a very human term) and God the Son (another human term) and the Spirit (again a human term) share in infinite divine power, and though they are distinct, they are One in their essence. All discussions about God must end with the conclusion that everything we say about God remains no more than a human attempt to explain something that human beings can never fathom. Therefore, in the end we must bow before the divine mystery. We are not called to understand who and what God is, but to worship the One who made us, sustains us and saves us.

This sense, that every human analysis of who and what God is must ultimately fail, was reinforced this past week as I was reading the book: The Doctrine of GOD: Introducing the Big Questions, written by John C. Peckham, one of the prominent theologians at Andrews University (T&T Clark, 2020). It is a very informative book that I warmly recommend to all who are interested in theology. For those without theological training it may at times be heavy going, but it is worth the effort. Peckham does not only deal with questions pertaining to the Trinity Doctrine, but also addresses a range of other issues. If God is unchangeable, as most theologians have traditionally argued, does that mean that God cannot interact with us and that he cannot show emotions? For do responses to humans not imply at least some change in God? Another major problem is God’s relationship with time. If God is eternal, can he experience the flow of time and does he therefore have a past and a future? Does God know everything? If so, does this not conflict with the concept of a free will? If God knows everything, it seems to suggest that everything I do is already pre-determined. And, if God allows evil, does this not somehow make him co-responsible for the existence and continuation of evil?

These and many other questions are worth pondering. In our study of these questions we must conclude that the Christian views about God have been profoundly influenced by Greek philosophy and have often resulted in views that conflict with that of the biblical God. But reading Peckham’s book reinforces my belief that my analysis of God will always remain a poor human attempt to reach the Unreachable. Perhaps the best definition of God, so far, was given by the eleventh century theologian Anselm of Canterbury, who said: ‘God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.’

Therefore, I repeat: We are not called to understand who and what God is, but to worship the One who made us, sustains us and saves us.

Are most people OK?

Many (especially older) people in the Netherlands with a religious background studied the doctrines of the church from the age-old Heidelberger Catechism. During 52 Sundays the young people were instructed, through a format of questions and answers, about the main teachings in the Calvinist version of the Protestant faith. In question eight (Sunday three) the reader is told that from his birth, by nature, man is utterly ‘corrupt’ and that he is ‘totally unable to do any good’ and is ‘inclined toward all evil’. Sure enough, the catechism also points to the possibility of being saved from one’s sins, but the student of this venerable document is presented with a rather dark view of humanity.

A totally different perspective is offered in the title of a recent book by Rutger Bregman (1998), a young Dutch historian and opinion maker, who had part of his education in the United States. The title of the book (De meeste mensen deugen) is a bit difficult to translate but expresses the idea that most people around us are basically OK. It is currently number one on the Dutch bestseller list under the category of non-fiction. Based on the newest insights from psychology, economy, biology and archeology, Bregman concludes that most people on our globe are not ‘corrupt’ and are not ‘unable to do any good”, but are ‘basically OK’. I have not yet read the book, but did order it this morning from the Dutch equivalent of Amazon ( I am very curious to find out what arguments Bregman puts forward.

Which of the two approaches has the best credentials? Those who value the Bible cannot ignore the phenomenon of ‘sin’ and must accept that that we all fall terribly short if we measure our lives along the divine measuring rod. However, the picture that is painted by the Heidelberger Catechism, and is still underlined in some ultra-orthodox denominations, is one-sided (to say the least). In spite of all our shortcomings we are the bearers of ‘the image of God’ and are given the privilege of calling ourselves ‘children of God’ (1 John 3:1).

Yet, at the same time I feel rather attracted to the ‘statement’ by Rutger Bregman that most people are basically OK. At times, I feel rather awkward when I am meet and talk with certain church members and I get goosebumps when I hear some of the theories that are doing the rounds. Unfortunately, meeting such people happens all too often. However, after giving it some thought, I usually come to the conclusion that most people in the church are OK. Or, to put it differently: There are plenty of unpleasant people in the church whom one would like to avoid, but most people are nice and are ‘OK’. Perhaps the well-known Pareto-principle does also apply here. This principle was discovered by the Italian mathematician and economist Pareto. He noticed that 20 % of the Italians possess 80$ of all riches. And the 20’80 rule appears to be valid in many areas. For most companies 20% of their articles are responsible for 80% of their total turnover, while 20% percent of the customers bring 80% of all complaints. It has been found that 80% of all smart-phone owners use only about 20% of the possibilities of their phone and that 20% of the You-tune films are seen by 80% of all visitors. Examples of other instances where the 20/80 rule applies is plentiful.

Pastors and chaplains know that the Pareto-principle also applies to their work. A relatively small percentage of the church members are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of all problems and complaints that come their way. And perhaps I also meet the Pareto-principle in my contacts with those church members whom I find it difficult to relate to. My thoughts are sometimes so much focused on this group, that it can at times be easy for me to forget that ‘most’ (at least 80%) of my fellow-church members are definitely ‘OK”.