Adventist Today Report 5
The Perils of Process I: Resolution on the Holy Scriptures
By Dennis Hokama
One of the first items on the agenda for the 2005 General Conference (GC) session was the passage of two routine resolutions. The first was a resolution reaffirming the centrality of the Holy Scriptures in the life of the Seventh-day Adventist church. The second was a similar resolution for the Spirit of Prophecy as manifested in the writings of Ellen G. White. Similar resolutions were proposed and passed at the beginning of General Conference 2000 session in Toronto. If any item on the agenda was routine, the Holy Scriptures resolution was it. The text of the Holy Scriptures resolution is given below:
104-05GS RESOLUTION ON THE HOLY BIBLE
(Resolution on the Holy Scriptures)
RECOMMENDED, To approve the Resolution on the Holy Bible, which reads as follows:
Resolution on the Holy Bible
As delegates to the 2005 General Conference Session in St. Louis, Missouri, we reaffirm the centrality of the Scriptures in the message and life of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In
them the beauty, love, and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ are revealed and offered to us as a gift of salvation through faith in His atoning sacrifice. Through them God reveals Himself to us, conveying an authentic expression of His character, a true conception of the nature of reality, a reliable record of His acts, a revelation of His purpose, and an expression of His loving will for us. The Scriptures constitute our supreme rule of faith and practice and the standard by which all teaching and experience is to be tested. Their divine origin invests them with an authority and a message that is relevant to and transcends all cultures and can satisfy our deepest needs.
Given the unique nature and importance of the Scriptures and the manifold benefits their systematic study brings to the church, we the delegates of the General Conference in Session appeal to all Seventh-day Adventist believers around the world to make intentional provision in their daily routine for regular, prayerful reading of the Scriptures. Moreover, because biblical truths are for the benefit of all, especially those who will come to Christ, we urge every believer to actively seek ways to share the message of the Scriptures with others in order to prepare the world for the soon coming of the Lord.
However, as soon as discussion was open, Dr. George Ortega, NAD delegate and former Asian coordinator from the Southern California Conference, moved to amend the document by inserting the world “sacred” in front of the word “Scriptures.” As justification, he cited his background as a former Catholic (which apparently made him feel as if the word Scriptures without the modifier “sacred” lacked sufficient reverence.) The amendment would have required the insertion of “sacred” four times in the document.
The six mikes were soon swarming with delegates speaking against the amendment. What follows is an approximate reconstruction of the exchange that took place:
“Was the amendment implying that there were other scriptures that were not sacred?”
“Why should we copy the Roman Catholics? I speak against the amendment.”
“The document already used the word ‘Holy’ four times to modify ‘Bible’ or ‘Scriptures,’ so why was it necessary to add ‘sacred’ four times?”
“A body of 2,000 people cannot effectively edit a document that has been carefully crafted by a subcommittee working over several years.”
“I request an explanation as to why these two resolutions are being proposed at all.”
Samuel Koranteng Pipim spoke up to request a clarification: Was the amendment implying a preference for the word “sacred” over the word “Holy”?
Finally, mercifully, someone moved the question, and the proposed amendment was overwhelmingly voted down. But thirty-some precious minutes had been run off the clock in a business session of “God’s highest authority on earth,” a body of about 2,000 delegates assembled from all over the world and convened every five years.
Given that this was probably among the safest and most innocuous of all resolutions or motions that the GC will deal with, it illustrates the perils inherent in a business session of the GC. Any document can be nitpicked from the floor to open up a can of worms or morph the document into something quite unintended.
At least this part of the process, feeble and defective though it may be, is transparent. Furthermore, it gives delegates a feeling of genuine participation. But the nominating committee that makes the major decisions regarding the appointment of the powerful members of the church’s bureaucracy holds its meetings behind closed doors. Only the presence of independent journals such as Adventist Today allows ordinary church members to get a tiny glimpse of what is actually going on.
The Perils of Process II: The 28th Fundamental Belief Hits a Pot Hole
By Dennis Hokama
The discussion and resolution of the 28th fundamental belief provided another instance of the perils of process. While there were, of course, many who rose to endorse the proposed addition to the fundamental beliefs, there was also opposition.
The presiding chairman for the discussion was Vice President Eugene Hsu.
The first delegate to raise an objection was Richard Elofer, President of the church of Israel, who objected to the use of the “cross” in the opening sentence (“By His cross Jesus triumphed over the forces of evil.”) because the cross is seen by Jews and Muslims as an object of Christian idolatry, and Muslims associate the cross with the crusades. As an alternative, he suggested “By his death . . .”
Responding for administration, Dr. Angel Rodriguez of the Bible Research Institute responded that when read in context, the cross should not be offensive. William Johnsson of the Adventist Review added that the use of the cross in this context was scriptural (citing Colossians 2:14) and therefore, if it offended others, well, too bad.
Paul Peterson, delegate from the South Pacific Division, stated that the South Pacific Division had studied the amendment and had concluded that the amendment was theologically wrong in two places and lacked a theology of prayer. Therefore, he said the South Pacific Division did not support the amendment. The specifics were as follows:
A. Line 18-19 contains the phrase, “. . . we are set free from the burden of our past deeds.”
This is wrong, said Peterson, because Jesus does not free us from the burden or consequences of our past deeds. If we destroy brain cells through drug abuse, those brain cells don’t regenerate just because that person turns their life over to Jesus. He therefore suggested that “guilt” should have been used instead of “burden.”
B. Line 24-25 includes the phrase, “…the Spirit sanctifies every moment and every task.”
This is incorrect, he said, because the Spirit sanctifies people; not time, objects, or actions, much less “every task.”
Rodriguez responded by first challenging the assertion that Peterson’s view represented the South Pacific Division’s position, claiming that he had received many positive responses from that division. With respect to the present benefits of salvation, he used words that seemed to imply he was reluctant to restrict the benefits of being “set free” to the psychological as Peterson had implied.
Regarding the objection to the sanctification of things, he invited Peterson to find texts which forbid the sanctification of places, times and things. Johnsson added that "Throughout the Old Testament, places are made holy by the presence of God…” and that the Bible specifically stated that the sanctuary was sanctified.
The business session was adjourned before the discussion was finished. On Monday morning, George Reid, retired former director of the Bible Research Institute, came to the mike to address two issues in the wording. He acknowledged the folly of trying to edit from the floor, but thought that the following points needed to be noted, nonetheless.
First, he pointed out that the word “by” in the phrase “by the cross” was an instrumental preposition, which made the cross an instrument of salvation. This line of thinking had made the cross an icon This problem could be mitigated simply by changing the preposition “by” to “at,” which deprived the cross in any instrumental merit and reduced it to a location.
Secondly, returning to the sentence that had been an issue with Peterson, (“As we give ourselves in loving service to those around us and in witnessing to His salvation, His constant presence with us through the Spirit sanctifies every moment and every task.”) he noted that the sentence began with a dependant clause. While it was not technically proper to read the last phrase (“…the Spirit sanctifies every moment and every task.”) in isolation from that dependant clause, the sentence construction unnecessarily gave rise to the question of whether the Spirit could sanctify any task, even if that task constituted “taking your wallet.” This problem could be solved, he suggested, by changing the construction of the sentence.
In response, William Johnsson repeated his argument that the present wording was scriptural. Rodriguez added that the committee had already considered the “at” versus “by” issue carefully, and that the “by” had received strong e-mail support.
Claude Richli, secretary of the church's East-Central Africa region, rose to support Elofer’s previously made point regarding the hindrance that the phrase “By the cross” might create in their efforts to convert Muslims.
In response, Rodriguez argued that the past abuse of the cross by others was not sufficient reason to abandon it because that was not the intention in this case, and that the cross signified the final victory over the forces of evil.
Nilton Amorim of the NAD moved the previous question. Vernon Parmenter was asked to pray prior to the vote. The measure passed easily, and the body moved on consider the next item (#208) on the agenda, the Publishing Ministry Department.
But the matter was not finished. A silver haired delegate came to the mike to object that someone was at the mike with a point of order issue before the question was moved, but that due to an equipment malfunction or the chairman’s oversight that presence was not recognized.
Chairman Hsu apologized for the possible mistake but went on with item 208. A few minutes later, another delegate who appeared to be Filipino, rose to make the same point regarding the oversight that resulted in the premature cutting off of discussion regarding the 28th fundamental belief.
Again, Hsu made some apologetic remarks and attempted to proceed with the next item. The same gentleman rose for a second time to make the same point. (AT attempted to find the name of this person by asking people on the floor, and calling the Secretariat, which is supposed to make a transcript. However, the Secretariat had the gentleman identified only as “unknown male.”) Hsu again made conciliatory remarks, but before moving on added that if the delegate was unsatisfied, he should take it to committee.
During the afternoon session, the chairman (Lowell Cooper) announced that an item which previously had been passed might need to be reopened. Stay tuned for further developments.
The entire text of the 28th fundamental belief, “Growing in Christ,” is provided below:
Growing in Christ
By His cross Jesus triumphed over the forces of evil. He who subjugated the demonic spirits during His earthly ministry has broken their power and made certain their ultimate doom. Jesus’ victory gives us victory over the evil forces that still seek to control us, as we walk with Him in peace, joy, and assurance of His love. Now the Holy Spirit dwells within us and empowers us. Continually committed to Jesus as our Saviour and Lord, we are set free from the burden of our past deeds. No longer do we live in the darkness, fear of evil powers, ignorance, and meaninglessness of our former way of life. In this new freedom in Jesus, we are called to grow into the likeness of His character, communing with Him daily in prayer, feeding on His Word, meditating on it and on His providence, singing His praises, gathering together for worship, and participating in the mission of the Church. As we give ourse! lves in loving service to those around us and in witnessing to His salvation, His constant presence with us through the Spirit sanctifies every moment and every task. (Ps 1:1, 2; 23:4; 77:11, 12; Col 1:13, 14; 2:6, 14, 15; Luke 10:17-20; Eph 5:19, 20; 6:12-18; 1 Thess 5:23; 2 Peter 2:9; 3:18; 2 Cor. 3:17, 18; Phil 3:7-14; 1 Thess 5:16-18; Matt 20:25-28; John 20:21; Gal 5:22-25; Rom 8:38, 39; 1 John 4:4; Heb 10:25.)
(This fundamental belief should be numbered as #11 [after #10, The Experience of Salvation and before #11, The Church].)
[Editor’s note: Spirited debate on the wording of this Resolution at the St. Louis General Conference session continues and will be reported on in future AT reports
(13215 Zeichen)
