The Pacific Union President's Arithmatic

0+0+0+0=0

This is the title of Tom Mostert's most recent editorial in the Pacific Union Recorder. It represents how he feels about what passes for sanctification (that theological word that describes a believer's growth in the Christian life) in the church.

But what does Mostert really mean by sanctification? Can you give us an example of the death of sanctification in the church?

His first example of the demise of sanctification is...well, the demise of sanctification. He describes this as a general desire to "become more like [Jesus] in thought and lifestyle, but any worry about specifics simply destroys their peace of mind."

Secondly, he sites Adventists who have become lax in following our health standards. In particular he is worried that Adventists are having a glass of wine (siting the health benefits, of course) and a cup of coffee.

Thirdly, he claims that Adventist aren't interested in evangelism anymore. You know, that Biblical practice of "witnessing" or talking to complete strangers about your faith. Instead they prefer the more fashionable way of allowing God to bring people into their life - people who have "a direct religious question. That leaves it to God to bring me the person, and spares me the time and energy necessary for an unpleasant activity."

Fourth, prophecy. We don't like to talk about Ellen White anymore. We find reasons to ignore her teachings on so many topics.

So this is the arithmatic:
Specific issues of sanctification = 0
Health message = 0
Evangelism = 0
Prophecy = 0
GRAND TOTAL OF CHURCH'S SANCTIFICATION = 0

Am I to understand that these are the issues that top the Union President's list of what it means to be a sanctified follower of the Lord Jesus? At the end he does throw in a few other issues to round out his top four: belief in absolutes, unique Adventist mission (which he doesn't define), faithfulness in tithing. All these are also ZERO in Mostert's estimation (caps in original).

Is it any wonder that our church has stagnated in North America. When the sum total of what it means to be a Christ-follower is avoiding wine and coffee, reading Ellen White and paying your tithe. I'm not saying that these are bad things to do, but it certainly doesn't capture the essence of radical discipleship.

Where, in this list, is love for the poor? What about seeking justice, loving mercy, walking humbly? Where, in the President's list, would you fit the fruit of the Spirit? Or is the fruit of the Spirit the milk of the gospel, the soft stuff, the easy part?

A pastor friend of mind recently made the observation that there seems to be an inverse correlation between length of tenure in the church and growth in Christ-likeness. In general, I agree with him. It seems that those members with the most experience in Christian life turn out to be the most unforgiving, harsh, judgmental and joyless. So, I share the President's concern that sanctification, or what I would call discipleship, is on hard times. But I think his measuring stick is a major part of the problem.

To be fair, Mostert isn't saying that these are the hallmarks of Christianity. His closing paragraph focuses on his real concern:

A church whose distinctive truths have been zeroed out is left with nothing different from the community church down the street. The unique Seventh-day Adventist message and mission is reduced to ZERO.

So these are the Adventist distinctives. How troubling. With this short editorial he makes my job 10 times harder. Meanwhile, I'm trying to tell my members that what is special about Adventism is our appreciation for the Hebrew Sabbath, a wholistic understanding of human life (which interestingly, includes a focus on people's health, but far more broadly than Mostert's sacred cows) and a faithful critique of empire (which has a whole host of ramifications for how people life their day-to-day lives).

The bottom line is that we, the church leadership (clergy & lay, if you must), have created the church we have today. So, if we don't like what we see, we only need to look in the mirror. Perhaps, by focusing on coffee and confrontational evangelism we have actually created the problem our president so loathes.

Comments

[Vera]

I recently heard a pastor preach on Michah 6:8. His definition of doing justice? Doing the right thing, which in his case meant not working on the Sabbath.

I guess I shouldn't have been so surprised.

And I'm glad that there are people like you who see that there's a problem with that kind of thinking.

[Nathan Brown]

Well said. Ryan, your summary of Adventism works so much better than the other. I think it also makes so much more sense in the wider world. It is the kind of thing people can believe in and begin to live. And that really is what sanctification is about.

[Sirojs Sorajjakool]

I really like your perspective on sanctification. Growing up in the church and in fact working as a pastor for a couple of years, I went through the same experience. We tend to be so eschatological and defined compassion from this lens that we miss the actual and the presence. For many of us, Christ lives in the future or the only way Christ is for us here is so that we could truly live in the future.

[David]

Ryan, are you saying drinking coffee is OK!?! Just kidding brother. In all seriousness it is interesting that Adventism has become what it is. I like what you pointed out about looking in the mirror to see what it has become. I think that what our current Adventist church must embrace more than anything is that we are a "resurrection community" after all the tomb is empty, isn't it? I have yet to see us truly be "that" community. If we could be this community maybe our Adventism(which still sounds so exclusive) would be something powerful, meaningful, effective, Authentic... Perhaps we wouldn't have to focus on some the distinctives we choose to focus on when we think of sanctification.

[Andrew]

Although I'm surprised to see it in print, I'm not surprised by the thoughts in the editorial. Sadly its all pervasive and is one of the reasons that I’m no longer in pastoral ministry- I just felt that the model of ministry expected by both the administration and a large percentage of the members was not one I felt comfortable delivering.

I’m thankful that there are people like you who manage to “break the rules” and demonstrate a different way, and a leadership that lets you do this.

This is just to let you know that not everyone out there agrees with the presidents maths, some of us count the same way as you, and we also pray for those who are “out there” trying to keep honest to their calling- keep the faith and thanks for standing up for a “different gospel”!

[Ryan Bell]

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I don't like pointing out these things, but when I read this, I just couldn't let it pass. What I'm really more interested in is the bit about imagining a new future for Adventism. And contrary to what Mostert fears, I think this can be "authentically Adventist." We're just not going to capture the imagination of today's 20-40 year olds by talking about what we should drink, etc.

Andrew, it's great to see you're still around the blogosphere. I would love to hang out with you sometime. Hope you're better soon! Peace!

[kirsten]

when i see writings of that sort, i just have to ask, "and the point is????" i read and think, this person is so removed from real life and the gospel and who jesus is and what's important. i get angry. so, sadly, i don't even read thru the entire article. i read my "Recorder," see something like this, throw it back on the coffee table with a "phft!" and moved on. stuff like this drains me to the core and i just want to run back to LIFE!

[Devo Kritzinger]

Good thoughts, Ryan! I know we have had a lively discussion at our staff meeting about his article. Your last sentence is spot on and I think captures the essence of the struggle for a new generation who want to be committed to the church, but just can't get past the fact that the measuring stick being used by "the church" (official church) is outdated and wanting theologically. It does not give us much confidence in the present leadership and it creates a situation where "congregationalism" becomes the better alternative, perhaps. Decentralize and have a "conference of churches" in the real sense of the word - not a central governing body, but a community gathering of various churches to encourage, uplift, listen and support one another. Anyways, it's good to read reviews like yours - there isn't only one voice.

[Ryan Bell]

Wow, this post got everyone's attention. Thank you for your comments. I also just wanted to point out that on the website of the Pacific Union Recorder, which I link to at the very beginning of my post (0+0+0+0=0), you can leave comments on the President's Editoral. Anyone courageous enough to leave some comments there?

[Ansku]

As a fellow pastor I whole heartedly agree with you. Thank you for an excellent post.

[Don Molander]

Blah! Blah! Blah!

Pastor Bell:

You, and some of your fine members seem to be dripping with sarcasm in reference to our fine president's recent article in the Recorder. What is your problem? Could it be that maybe he is right. I used to attend your church, and despite the best efforts of the former leadership to do things as differently as possible, all that resulted was division, confusion and a large number of people leaving and moving on to other churches. I don't ever recall hearing any of the unique truths that our church holds being preached from the pulpit. Ellen White? Who is she? Standards? What are they? Anything went at the Hollywood SDA Church. Pastor Bell, you are the one that doesen't seem to get it. The pastor prior to you tried so hard to make the church as much like the world as he possibly could. He wanted it to be comfortable. It was ok for the band members to smoke in the parking lot after leading worship. After all, we didn't want to offend them. That is just one example of many that I could cite how the Hollywood SDA Church lowered the church standards. I think that it is good that we still have people like Doug Batchelor around that aren't ashamed to stand up for what we believe. Ryan, why don't you hook up with Greg (The Former Pastor) and start your own church. Maybe you could call it the 7th Day Church Of Anything Goes!!

Don

[Scott McCoon]

I am extremely encouraged by Pastor Bells comments. A Pastor who truly cares for people and has a real grasp on the priorities that can really make a difference to people. A pastor who cares deeply for the adventist message as well as people. Keep up the good work Pastor Bell and thanks for the thought provoking commentary.

[Daneen]

Wow--I don't know where I've been, but I just discovered your blog. Thank you! I just read this post outloud to my husband and we kept stopping to say, "Right on! I love this guy!" Thanks for a great post--you made our day.

[Monte]

Ryan, I know from our personal conversations that you would agree with the concern for consumer religion that seems to be (putting the best face on it) at least part of Mostert's concern. The tragedy is that he really doesn't have any answer beyond a kind of retro-sectarian version of Adventist faith. Many of the tension-points in Adventism (jewelry, alcohol, etc.) had a valid point once upon a time, but too many leaders in the Adventist movement have forgotten those original points and now articulate a truncated rationale that seems to make sectarianism a virtue in and of itself. It is their obscurantism and spiritual vacuity that is the real culprit for what they now complain about. Maybe that's one of the reasons he's come to the point of retiring.

[Lorelei]

Pastor Bell, people like you and Stuart Tyner are such an encouragement to me - and give me hope that there can be a positive future for our church. Thank you for your insightful critique. If you're interested, please read my response (which I did submit on the Recorder's web site) entitled "The way to Hell is littered with Starbucks cups" at www.cresschronicle.blogspot.com. God bless you and your ministry!

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

I've been debating if I should comment on this post.

I would like to come to Mosterts defense by asking what his intended message was. I do have the feeling that we all hear according to our vantage point. Obviously a pastor is in a totally different place than Mostert.

I do feel you are characterizing his message incorrectly. Or, perhaps your articulation of Adventist distinctives are different than his.

Sanctification is an interesting belief. Fellow holiness denominations like the Church of the Nazarene are currently struggling with their own beliefs in entire sanctification.

What if Mostert had picked the Sabbath instead of Sanctification? Or is Sabbath a belief we all agree on while sanctification is one we part ways on?

Obviously that is the case. Obviously Mostert isn't addressing the totality of Adventism as he sees it but rather the specific role he feels sanctification, as he understands it, plays in our denominational identity. Like the Nazarenes, it is one of our hot topics.

The question: In that respect, either Mostert failed miserably in qualifying his remarks to express his view on the role that this particular belief plays in our denominations identity OR he, as you say, has a narrow vision of what Adventist is.

Mostert, it should be said, is one of the best union presidents we've had. He has turned around a huge bureaucracy which used 100% plus of its tithe ingress within itself to an organization which returns 2/3rd's of the money it receives back to regional conferences. It is a bold vision which he put in place which affirms his belief in the central place local work, like yours, has in our work as a church body.

My answer to my own question is to give Elder Mostert the benefit of doubt befitting his long years of service marked by his strengthening local work. My opinion is that he's more broad minded than some on this discussion have given him credit for.

Thanks!
johnny

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

ps.

Mosterts article was about more than sanctification, just like you listed more than Sabbath in the distinctives you wanted at the forefront. I used those two as contrasting examples.

If our union president articulated a vision aligned with ours/ yours/ theirs would they/ you/ I react similarly?

Of course! Ryan Bell and Tom Mostert each have their own "pet beliefs" they emphasize at the apparent expense of others.

Or, does Ryan Bell believe in Sabbath over Sanctification, critique of empire over evangelism, holistic health over teetotaling etc? I would say no. Right?

I don't know Tom Mostert beyond his reputation and accomplishments. I do know Ryan Bell personally. He is my friend, former employer and pastor and mentor.

I would not say that the increased relevance belief xyz has for either of you in your local context necessarily translates into a rejection of belief abc.

In a way both Mostert and Bell strongly argue in stark language for an Adventism that is marked by the distinctives favored by themselves and/or their context.

I am lead to give Mostert benefit of doubt commensurate with the confidence I have in Ryan Bell, whom I do know, as I am aware that people like Don, who commented above, have a difficulty understanding that ministry in Hollywood may look different than ministry in Loma Linda.

The scathing critique Mostert wrote is echoed in Ryans rebuke and Dons rebuke. If I expect for Ryan Bell, imperfect as he is, to be entrusted with ministering to his flock, imperfect as they are, then should we not give a distinguished retiring administrator kind treatment equal to the one we'd want for ourselves and ours?

I "own" the Hollywood church as it is. Proudly. The members there are as much my brothers and sisters as Tom Mostert.

My concern is quite simple- to extend to Mostert the consideration I would want myself or my friend Ryan Bell to receive. I'm not perfect and neither is he, and neither is his church. Or yours, Don.
Thanks again!

[Alexander]

Johnny, it's not really clear to me what you're defending. . .that Mostert should get a break because we're all flawed and he saved the church some money.

That kind of give 'em slack reasoning leads to lots of wasted church time and money over the long haul, plus it does not directly address the fine point that Ryan makes.

It's clear from Mostert's essay that he has little clue about sanctification in the 21st century (Monte puts it nicely: a retro-sectarian view) that in fact Adventists are dying for leadership on this issue.

Instead of whining about the state of his sheep, he needs to realize that they are looking (and paying) for someone to give them an update for their sense of mission, inspiring in them the realization that the health message means fighting the tobacco/corporate farming/junk food industry and supporting single-payer health care, that evangelism means the church showing up at rallies and voting booths and the media to express its ethics, that prophecy means following in the tradition of the OT prophets and calling people away from their mindless consumptive habits (the world) toward a more socially-conscious relationship with God.

The Adventist church does NOT need more leaders who complain, it needs men and women who know how to inspire.

And Mostert may, along with most other Unions, know how to save money, but any visit to any Adventist campus reveals thousands of Adventist kids sick of the zero sum rhetoric of Mostert et al, a generation that's already past his numbers obsession and instead working to realize a future Adventism contingent an active, ethical sanctifying faith.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

No, my objection was to style. Not substance. If the Adventist church needs more leaders that do more than complain, maybe we could also do with more pastors that do the same. I do think that Mosterts article was quite awful/ harsh/ unbalanced. I don't agree with his math. I don't agree with his style. I don't agree with his substance.

That Don would come here and post that rude comment is but a continuation of the tone Mostert set, and Ryan followed.

I think we can, in the way we talk about things which divide us, greatly improve on Mostert. This post was not an improvement- Ryan Bell- I agree with his substance. I may even share his preferences for particular beliefs he outlined. But I don't agree with the tenor of this post which, to me, echoed Mosterts article in its veracity.

Thanks.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Apologies, virulency not veracity.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Just to make myself clear. We need to move beyond the substance in Mosterts article. It's wrong. This post by Ryan rejects Mosterts math. That is good.

Mostert also had awful tact. We should move beyond his style of discourse.

Don is really harsh with Hollywood. That's wrong. Maybe the lesson from Mostert and Don is that to uplift the community of Adventism, we should change how we talk not just what we talk about.

[Alexander]

Well style is on the screen of the beholder. . .as far as substance goes, Ryan makes great points. Instead of complaining and calling back to some golden age of Adventist sanctification -- I had one prof point out that for some, the truth was always yesterday -- Ryan looks local, forward and optimistic.

While people like Don and Mostert complain and/or slap Doug on the back for ministering to them and their sanctification needs, a new generation of Adventists, under the radar and out there in the world are bringing health care to people in East LA or Bangladesh, speaking as pastors to their state legislators to fight the tobacco/insurance/and oil industries that market and fight the consumerism that's at the core of the spiritual emptiness that Mostert and Don feel. Cheer up, fellas, the Lord has thousands that you don't even know about yet.