Big Rapids Seventh-day Adventist Church issued the following announcement on November 10.
The nation-wide response to the death of George Floyd, an unarmed, Black man, who was killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during Memorial Day weekend prompted action and stirred emotions. People of many different races, ages, and faiths took to the streets to march, small businesses and large corporations and organizations, including the NAD, issued statements condemning racism and promoting equity and inclusion. Many agreed that, after the dust settled from the demonstrations, continued dialogue remains key to creating last change to combat racism and discrimination within society.
Such was the motivation to dedicate a large portion of time typically dedicated to conducting business meetings to unpacking what the Bible says on how Christians should respond to injustices carried out not only in our communities and nation, but against our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
Carolyn Forrest, associate secretary of the North American Division, and director of NAD Human Relations, Interdivision/International Service Employee Resources, and Archives and Statistics, along with Orlan Johnson, director of NAD Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, led out the session under the title of “Biblical Justice and Biblical Ethics in a World of Social Unrest.”
“We hope this lays the foundation for continued dialogue, as we listen to each other’s stories not from our heads, but from our hearts. We are one family, when one part hurts and feels pain, the whole family hurts and feels pain,” said Forrest. “We recognize for some this may not be an easy conversation. We live in a society that is constantly changing. As God’s church, we’re in the midst of it.”
Johnson acknowledged that the discomfort some may feel about the topic stems from word-choice. Terms such as “social justice,” “civil rights,” and “privilege,” may be triggering for some. That is why the conversation was designed to center around what the Bible says about addressing injustices outside the walls of the church.
“We want to have a real, open conversation. We may not be where we want to be, but by the grace of God we can end up where we should be,” said Johnson. “How can we create a safe space where we as Christian brothers and sisters have a safe conversation?”
Forrest and Johnson served as moderators for a discussion among five invited Adventist panelists — Peter Bath, vice president of missions and ministry for the Kettering Health Network; Nicholas Miller, PARL director for the Lake Union Conference, and director of the International Religious Liberty Institute of the Andrews University Theological Seminary; Leslie Pollard, president of Oakwood University; Ella Simmons, general vice president of the General Conference; and Jeffrey Rosario, Ph.D. candidate at the University of Cambridge.
The presentations were set to prepare the executive committee members for a 30-minute small group breakout session designed to discuss whether the Adventist church has been intentional in building a culture of trust among senior leaders, management, employers, and members, and to frankly examine how the church has responded to the vulnerable or “least of these.”
True Conservatism and “Recalibrated” Prophetic Message
Forrest kicked off the discussion with the first question: “How should we biblically respond to racial injustice and inequality in the communities where we work and live?”
“It starts with awareness, speaking into situations that are not only in crisis but in difficulty. How we speak and respond is that we show up, not just with words, but with action,” said Bath. “Jesus was not a pacifist when it came to things that were wrong. When people were afflicted by societal issues, he showed up. Sometimes advocacy came in the form of food or healing.”
A common justification for remaining on the sidelines of engagement when it comes to speaking out against injustice is the claim that the actions go against the conservative nature of the Adventist denomination, shared Forrest. When the subject came up, however, the panelists strongly spoke against using conservatism as a crutch.
“I can say ‘I’m a conservative,’ but that’s a cop-out. ‘Conservative’ is often couched as a sanctimonious self-righteous term. When we go to ‘God-speak,’ that takes away the reality of people dying because we have an economically oppressed system that [harms certain communities],” said Bath. “The church should biblically respond to that and to the inequalities in our community. Sadly, we’re not aware.”
Rosario added, “The main issue I see [is that] it’s difficult for the church to respond biblically when it’s unclear about the essence of its biblical role. The whole notion of conservativism is preserving something in its original state and being resistant to change. [In that sense,] a true conservative would mean to preserve what Adventism was in the past.”
“We’re a prophetic movement focused on the second coming of Jesus. Many, if not most of rank-in-file Adventist members think prophecy is exclusively about forecasting future events, not realizing its witness in Scripture dominantly speaks to the present — to now,” continued Rosario. “The mentality, ‘I’m a conservative, thereby [sic] I’m hesitant to get down and dirty with that’s happening in society today’ is actually an anti-conservative posture.”
This notion was supported when several panelists spoke about the abolitionist practices of Adventist pioneers. William Miller, for example, a forefather of Adventist theology, housed slaves using the Underground Railroad in pursuit of freedom.
Adding to the comments comparing early-Adventism to present-day practices, panelist Miller shared his desire to conduct a project with seminary students of “recalibrating” the church’s prophetic message to include the importance of ministering to the current needs of our communities.
“It’s not that it’s been wrong, it’s that it has been incomplete. What happened in the 1920s and 1930s, our prophetic message was spiritualized and made all about the past (1844), or the future (Christ’s coming and the millennium), but all of its engagement with the evils of present-day society were removed,” said Miller.
Furthermore, Miller opined that by the church placing heavy focus on the past and future, rather than the present, it inadvertently supported the engine of white supremacy in the United States.
“If you go back to our pioneers and their emphasis on the first angel’s message, which focuses on ministering to every nation, kindred tongue, and people, that is a fundamental foundation for racial and ethnic equality," said Miller. "If we’re trying to reach everyone, and we’re not opposing inequality, then what kind of gospel do we have?”
Original source here.
Alerts Sign-up