Making an impact for the long run

Dwight K. Nelson announced that he is retiring next year. A few reflections on a person who for me has been a symbol of stability.

We all want to make a difference.

Most of us at least manage to impact the lives of our close circle of family and friends – most of the time positively, I hope.

Sometimes we’re lucky to make a positive mark on a larger group of people, for instance if we do something impactful at work or in our community.

But only a few people make it to a stage where they impact large groups of people again and again, not just for days or weeks, but for years and decades.

One of those is Dwight K. Nelson, who just recently announced his intention to retire next year.

Dwight has been a fixture in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church for decades, being the senior pastor at Pioneer Memorial Church, the campus church at Andrews University. He also made his fame through televised church services globally, but first and foremost he is the local pastor of a church counting thousands of members.

Thousands of current and future pastors and many others have passed through that community since he started his impressive tenure in the early 1980’s.

That includes my own family. This is my childhood church from the late 1980’s. And as my parents returned to Michigan on several occasions in the following decades, the connection remained strong.

My vague memories

I wouldn’t claim to know Dwight personally. But I do remember his impact.

I probably didn’t listen to everything, but I remember his children’s stories, and even as a kid, his sermons were something we talked about. There was the one where he played “Don’t’ worry, Be happy” on the church’s sound system causing quite a stir in this fairly traditional setting. Or the time he made a quip about a quail in a bush (this was in the election year of 1988, where Bush/Quale were the Republican contenders for the presidency).

Revisiting briefly as a teenager in the late 1990’s, I was somehow comforted to experience that Dwight was still there, as was the rest of the church I grew up in with it’s traditions.

And finally, when my parents moved back in the 2010’s, I was once again reminded during my visits that this man was still a powerful and thought-provoking preacher.

Dwight Nelson stands to me as a voice of reason in a church which can at times be consumed by fractions and extreme views, or by complacency and mediocrity.

A symbol of stability

But more than that, he is a symbol of stability.

So was Alex Trebek, the host of Jeopardy! For 37 years, who unfortunately passed away last year.

Although working in totally unrelated fields, Trebek and Nelson always occupied a similar space in my mind. Public figures in my small world in the 1980’s, smart and witty, and maybe they looked a bit similar too.

Maybe it’s a sign that the older I get, the more I get to experience the beginning as well as the end of things that last decades. And that stability takes longer to establish than when you’re younger.

As time goes on, the baton is passed to other figures who will get to make their mark in new ways.

But to Dwight and Alex: You made an impression – not just once, but over the course of decades. That’s no small feat.

Why I’m a seventh-day adventist. Lowercase.

Towards a more thorough understanding of identity.

Recent events in the Seventh-day Adventist Church have left me and many others question their relationship with the organization.

But my faith is about more than just the organization, which led me to think about a way to explain the different aspects involved, and how the sum of these dimensions makes up our identity.

For this purpose, I will split religious identity into four dimensions:

• Theological: The faith, the credo, what you believe.
• Liturgical: The practices and traditions involved in corporate worship.
• Ecclesiastical: The church structure and organization.
• Socio-cultural: The habits, traditions, and common memories which define a subculture.

There may be ways to measure these in a scientific manner. For now, however, I will stick to a gut feeling. And this chart illustrates where I currently stand on each of these, on a five-point scale:

A higher number denotes a higher level of fidelity to official or mainstream Adventism. Let me explain my reasons for each.

Theological

I believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and I share the Apostolic Creed with my fellow Christians in every other church.

Furthermore, I identify strongly with the two themes implied in the name “seventh-day adventist”: the blessing of a weekly day of rest on Saturday, and a belief in the physical return of Jesus to earth to restore humanity to a glorious future.

I also share the traditional Adventist core of the four S’s: the Sabbath, the Second coming, the Sanctuary, and the State of the dead. So far so good.

As for the 28 fundamental beliefs, I may have issues with a few, hence the score 4 and not 5. But my faith is strongly rooted in the traditions of Adventist theology, and will continue to be so.

Liturgical

My upbringing and my heritage has been shaped by the worship traditions of Adventist churches in Denmark and the US. This worship style is well-known to me, and for the most part I like going to church.

But worship style is also in upheaval. I have seen – and helped – the spread of praise worship, which is different from my childhood experiences. On the other hand, I have come to appreciate the liturgy in the Danish Lutheran Church through many years of playing and singing.

So I am not fixated on one style, hence a 3.

Ecclesiastical

This is really the pain point right now. And as I’ve stated previously, the actions of the current General Conference leadership go against their protestant roots and traditional Adventist theology on the role of the church.

If the church as an institution has a special, sacred, prophetic place, then that church is Rome. But Reformation thinking rejects that claim. There is indeed a sacred place for church – but church as in people meeting together, with every person a minister.

One strain of thought in Adventism holds that the Adventist Church has a unique position as a “remnant” of the few righteous. I do not share this thinking, and strongly reject that salvation is unique to one particular version of Christianity.

This also means that I feel no obligation to the Seventh-day Adventist Church as an institution: it is no more sacred than its actions. In the current climate, this is a 1.

Socio-economic

I know people who cling to the subculture of Adventism and eagerly support many of its activities, but only half-heartedly participate in actual worship activities, and never profess their faith publicly.

I’m probably more the opposite.

I have a lot of memories and shared experiences with people in the church subculture. But my life has moved on. I don’t talk about Vejlefjord (academy) all the time. I don’t particularly love church properties, except for their function and occasional slight nostalgia. And my close friends are not necessarily centered around the church, as they might have been previously.

I do celebrate and appreciate the Sabbath, but to me that’s not subcultural but theological, and an essential part of my faith.

So as the subculture has come to mean less for me, this is a 2.

Conclusion

This explains why, as stated in the title, I identify as a seventh-day adventist (lowercase), but not so much as a Seventh-day Adventist (uppercase).

The adventist faith and theology is important to me. But the things around it, all the man-made structures, are less important, and in times like these they are dispensable.

Where do you stand on the four dimensions?

The Legacy of Luther and Adventist Authority

Calling out power abuse is just as relevant today as 500 years ago.

Anniversaries always come short of the actual event. How do you do justice to the magnitude of the Reformation, which began 500 years on this day? Answer: you don’t. Not in a single blog post, at least. Others have celebrated and commented throughout the year, for the legacy of the event is pervasive and has many threads.

The impact of the Reformation on Western thinking is indisputable, and not just in the field of religion. Max Weber’s thesis on the spirit of capitalism, while disputed, remains seminal in understanding the world we live in, for instance.

Dealing with Adventist dissent

In this post, however, I will comment more specifically on the issue of religious power. It is ironic and sad that in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which I am a member of, this issue should become one of full-blown conflict this year.

Adventists proudly see their movement as a continuation of Protestant ideals, continuing to question the status quo and search for ideas and theologies truer to the original Biblical intent and free of centuries of human degeneration.

Ellen G. White, the thought leader of the movement in the 19^th century, described Luther’s adversaries with descriptions like this: “Crafty ecclesiastics, interrupted in their work of sanctioning crime, and seeing their gains endangered, were enraged, and rallied to uphold their pretensions.” And on his banishment from the Church, she penned: “Not a trace of Christian principle, or even of common justice, is to be seen in the whole document.” (GC, pp. 130, 134)

This is not far from the words of former church president Jan Paulsen, who recently stated: “I do not see the hand of God in this.”

His words came during a recent debate on how the world church deals with ‘dissent’. The apparent issue is the ordination of women, but that issue has become almost secondary to how the global leadership chooses to approach the discussion.

Matthew Quartey summarized it bluntly in the independent magazine Spectrum: “Our president’s seven-year leadership has been a continuous tugging at the seams of our togetherness.  He has prioritized his antipathy toward women in ministry over the church’s higher goal of mission. He has spent more time and resources engaged in this private campaign than focusing the church on what truly binds us.”

Open or closed leadership?

While women’s ordination is the battle ground, the overarching point here is authority. Any organization needs leadership, sure. But you can choose to lead like a dictator or like an apostle.

The sitting president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is an American, brought up in the system, and his actions convey an overarching goal of not rocking the boat. He pursues unity at any cost, ignoring the paradox that forcing unity destroys openness, which in turn damages commitment and encourages more dissent.

Even more alarming is the apparent ignorance of any limitations to his power. You will find this tendency anywhere, but perhaps it is especially American: If you are given any position of power, you believe you have the right and mandate to do and decide anything.

Donald Trump also acts like this, neither understanding nor accepting the democratic ideal of checks and balances. If you claim to listen to the people, then you need to do it properly; otherwise call a spade a spade and eliminate the illusion of democracy altogether.

The Adventist Church has prided itself in its ‘democratic’ institutions, but there are many limits to how much the people actually decide. And these years even those institutions are under attack from a leadership who wants to centralize, dictate, and enforce.

The Lutheran Church in Denmark, for all its shortcomings, may have chosen a better path. It has a collective of bishops, but no central leadership. Its political leader has no say in matters of theology. While the church is defined as keeping to the Apostolic Creed and Luther’s writings, nobody is able to speak on behalf of the church.

I can see the Biblical and Reformation merit in this approach. Power to the people – a priesthood of all believers – nobody is exalted above others.

Pope or no pope?

George Knight, a well-known figure in the church and arguably a ‘prophet’ for our times, has given a thorough analysis of the situation in a recent paper. He describes the predicament of the church president thus:

“Obviously, what is needed is a new policy that allows the General Conference president to initiate actions against anybody deemed deserving of such attention. Such a policy, of course, would be a major step toward papalism and unrestricted kingly power. […] The October 2017 meetings may help the worldwide Adventist Church decide whether it wants to move more toward an Adventist Ecclesiology or toward a more Roman Catholic variety.”

I am no expert on the theology of the Papacy, but seen from the outside, it makes sense as a coherent system. Putting the authority of the Church over, or alongside, that of the Bible is a valid belief, and if you hold that belief you also accept that authority.

Protestants, however, have no such luxury: putting the Bible unequivocally as the highest authority does not allow for an authoritarian system. Rome claims a legitimate authority over all believers. Protestant denominations may very well represent the body of Christ, but with sola scriptura any attempts towards papal authority in these institutions are theologically void, and must be called out as human power-grabs.

I don’t really want a pope. But if I had to pick one, I would choose the one in Rome, not the one in Silver Spring, MD.

Finding a Church, Part II

A year ago to this date, I wrote the entry Finding a Church, voicing my frustration about the too difficult task of finding a new church family. So what has happened since?

In short: too little. We put paper behind our actions and moved our membership to the Café Church in Copenhagen, after realising that this was the church we were primarily attending, and we got tired of treading water. Being a member hasn’t changed everything, though. Sure, some things have grown to the better, but it’s still not a perfect match. I can still have doubts as to whether this is the right church for me. I still don’t feel fully a part of the fellowship. I still find myself unmoved way too often. And I still have a hard time figuring out what the church is and wants.

So what is wrong? It seems fair to start by blaming myself.

For one, my own personal spiritual life has been somewhat lagging. I know this may be a chicken-and-egg issue, but it certainly plays a part. For this reason or others I have never been fully enthusiastic, and I have maintained a degree of dissociation – just in case. I could probably also have done more on my own part to integrate myself. And I have definitely been too focused on what others should do, and what the church should do, instead of what I could do.

I have tried my hand at some involvement, though. Playing the piano has been one thing that I have helped out with a bit. And more recently, I have taken the initiative to raise the level of fellowship dinners. This project had its debut two weeks ago, and is a great success so far. More than anything else it was started because I see a need for closer integration between church members. Eating together could help.

My own failures may be the greatest. However, there are also points where I have not been impressed with the church. Some may be a matter of match – things that work out fine for others. If so, then by all means carry on. I don’t believe in one-size-fits-all churches. But here are my observations.

It has been surprisingly difficult to break into the social side of being church, i.e., making friends. Especially surprising since I knew a lot of people beforehand. There are one or two exceptions, but most of our meaningful relationships are with people we know from elsewhere and happen to meet at church. There are a lot of cliques in the Café Church, and most people seem content to be with their own.

I have grown increasingly indifferent to the worship. Some of this may be personal taste or lack of spiritual engagement on my part. But it’s very rare that I’m actually moved by anything that goes on in church. Which is kind of sad.

Finally, for all its merits and entrepreneurial achievements, this church still doesn’t have a clue what it wants. Sure, some individuals, even within the leadership, may have ideas and visions. But there’s no common goal. No shared vision. No long-term planning. Why does the church exist? To some it seems like the raison d’être of the Café Church is the fact that it’s different. It may be less explicit than previously, but there is still somehow a prevalent sense of “we’re better than the others because we’re different”. Wake-up call: you’re not all that different. At least not to merit this kind of separation. So what’s the point? Why are you here?

Frankly, I’m tired of having to choose between Café Church and traditional church. At least in the Copenhagen area the options are divided to a degree that doesn’t make sense. I feel at home in both settings, but would like to see someone aiming for the middle ground. Who will lead into a Third Way?

DUCH Session – Once Again

Exactly three years have now passed. Once more it’s time for the Seventh-day Adventist Church to meet in session. This means electing (or re-electing) officials, hearing reports, voting on various business items, and of course gauging and debating the state of the church.

As many readers may remember, the session three years was somewhat turbulent, but ended on a positive note. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the new administration has set a new tone. There have been unforeseen challenges, especially financially, and unfortunately my own position has been cut away, and I now find myself in search of new job by the end of summer.

But the current leadership has, in fact, managed to draw us closer together and refocus many churches on doing what churches should be doing: good for other people. Like many others, I am hoping for a reelection of the current leadership.

Previously mentioned on this blog, the great controversy this year will be the inclusion of new churches as full members of the union fellowship. Café Church in Copenhagen is the most well-known of these. My prediction is that the vote will pass, but not without some painful outbursts from concerned brethren and others. While the conservative wing is still active, there is now a much broader consensus that new initiatives and expressions are not evil, but should be accepted and even encouraged. Or so I hope.

Currently I’m still employed by the church. And my job at the session is keeping the world updated. I’m in charge of writing press releases, news item, tweets, and more, hopefully satisfying those at home wanting to follow the news, and others who might gain knowledge of the church from my work. You can follow all this in Danish at www.adventist.dk/gf (here, you’ll with links to Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, and live streaming of the meetings).

Thus, my blog will remain dormant during the session. But I’ll probably post some thoughts afterwords, so stay tuned. Good night, and good luck.