Seventh-day Adventist Church in crisis

PASTOR OMAR Oliphant’s letter to the editor, published in The Gleaner last Thursday, is an excellent example of a desperate attempt to wriggle out of a tight situation. The headline is a plea for redemption: ‘Song reference not intended to incite violence’.

The pastor makes this profession of faith: “In one of the Week of Prayer exercises at the Eastern Regional Campus of Northern Caribbean University (NCU) recently, I made reference to a song, done by Buju Banton, which gave the impression that I, along with the institution and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, hate persons of same-sex orientation. We do not. Further, neither myself, NCU, nor the Seventh-day Adventist Church supports violence against anyone or any group.”

Oddly enough, the goodly pastor does not clarify exactly what he had in mind. Only what he did not: “The aim of the message and the intent in making any reference was never to incite hate or violence. In the circumstances, I withdraw my reference to the song.” This makes no sense. What was the pastor’s intent? And how/why has it changed?

DECEPTIVE DENIAL

Contrary to Pastor Oliphant’s somewhat deceptive denial, homosexuality is one of the pressing issues that are now causing a great controversy in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is true that the church does not advocate hatred of, or violence against, LGBTQI members. It is the sin that is violently hated, not the sinner. This distinction is no comfort to LGBTQI Adventists who claim the right to full membership in the church.

They actively protest against the church’s official policy, which is outlined in a 2014 document produced by the Biblical Research Institute: “Homosexuality is a manifestation of the disturbance and brokenness in human inclinations and relations caused by the entrance of sin into the world.” This is precisely why Pastor Oliphant called Buju Banton’s name: to endorse the artiste’s condemnation of homosexuality – if not his violent rhetoric!

Pastor Oliphant would probably not sanction the advocacy work of Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International. Their mission is to “provide a safe spiritual and social community to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex current and former Seventh-day Adventists, their families, and those who support them”.

As the Kinship website asserts, “Most of the anguish imposed upon God’s children who grow up gay or lesbian has its roots in a misunderstanding of what the Bible says.” Sceptical pastors like Pastor Oliphant would probably say that the anguish is not imposed. It’s the result of a choice made by LGBTQI Adventists. They willingly give in to sinful desires instead of resisting evil.

It’s not only issues of sexual identity that are testing the faith/fate of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The ordination of women is another contentious matter. The Biblical Research Institute’s declaration on ordination seems to establish a remarkable parallel between LGBTQI individuals and women as a group: “The church does not ordain openly LGBTQ persons nor offer them membership. In July 2015, the General Conference voted to deny women’s ordination. Despite the ban, several US conferences of Seventh-day Adventists have ordained women in recent years.”

Indeed, the hostility towards the ordination of women, like the condemnation of LGBTQI church members, is rooted in the very same literal interpretation of the Bible. 1 Timothy 2:12 states, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Silent women do not make good preachers.

MAKING ADVENTISM GREAT AGAIN

Last month, the annual council of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists was held in Battle Creek, Michigan. Church leaders, dressed in costumes from the 19th century, seemed to be desperately trying to return to a great and glorious past when there was unity among the brethren (and sistren). But the playacting didn’t go over very well with some Adventists who felt marginalised. They would not have been among the homogeneously white membership of the early church.

Furthermore, the origins of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were never all that great. The founders were disciples of William Miller, a Baptist preacher, who announced that the second coming of Jesus would occur sometime between March 1843 and March 1844. The date was finally pinned down to October 22, 1844.

But like Alexander Bedward’s followers who did not fly to Heaven at the appointed time, the Millerites were devastated by Jesus’ failure to appear. About 100,000 believers waited in vain all day and night for the second coming. The disaster became known as The Great Disappointment. It was out of this trauma that the Seventh-day Adventist Church emerged.

Almost two centuries later, the church is facing another great disappointment. Despite, or because of, the global reach of Adventism, the church is not united. There is a huge gap in the Seventh-day Adventist Church between liberals in the US, where the church started, and hard-core conservatives in the Global South who interpret the Bible very literally. The radical North American Division is likely to break away, severing the constricting ties that now bind progressives to indefensible traditions. Kinship does have its limits. Just ask Pastor Oliphant!

I Carolyn Cooper, PhD, is a specialist on culture and development. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and karokupa@gmail.com.