If a Seventh-day Adventist were to travel and explore the multitude of churches, conferences, divisions, and educational institutions within our Adventist organization, how much continuity of message would he find? Would the journey result in an affirmation of collective vision, purpose, and orthodoxy, or a multitude of ideologies, many rooted in post-modernism?
In spending my days of youth in a predominantly Roman Catholic country, being an SDA was a constant exercise of defining our need to exist within the persecution of non-conformity. Why did the world need another Protestant faith? And why would you choose the one so different than the others? Some simply questioned if we were even Protestant and not just simply a momentary cult.
Although my adolescent experience of being mocked as a foreigner in my home country (Italy) was odd, my father’s experience was much worse; he had to endure pain and ridicule his whole life. Upon returning home after a day of persecution from a school priest, the sympathy he expected from his father (my grandfather) was not forthcoming: “Samuele, if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.”
Some of the persecution my dad endured came at the hands of Adventists. As a teenager I struggled to understand the contemptuous vitriol within our churches and institutions. Were we not on the same side? Did Adventists grow in wisdom and purpose through the ideological battles? Are there not two distinct forces in the world? God and Satan, good and bad? One that leads to redemption the other to perdition? Surely Seventh-day Adventist leaders and educators would be careful to move by Spiritual appointment and only carefully advance Biblical precepts:
“For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).
Post-modernism ushered in a culture of “question everything and accept nothing.” To be considered an intellect, one had to embrace the ideology of progressive enlightenment. This was the time to cast aside patriarchal dogma and create a society of openness, acceptance, and tolerance. For progressives, embracing progressive ideology was a spiritual duty, the failure to do so a sin.
While a professor at Andrews University, my father was at the tip of the spear working to resist the theological infatuation with humanism. I began my Andrews University community presence at age 7, as a second grader; over the next 49 years of living at the foothills of Andrews, I witnessed a significant metamorphosis in our flagship institution.
The WO Debate
In the early 80’s, while I was in high school, the debate raged over the ordination of women as pastors. . Camps were drawn up, debates ensued, votes were taken whether Pioneer Memorial Church on the campus of Andrews University would hire and affirm females as pastors. The first vote resulted in a mandate to retain the historical role distinction for male and females. What to do next, but to vote again. The second outcome of votes was to retain the historical role distinction for male and females. What to do next, but to vote again. The third outcome of votes was to affirm females as pastors. What to do next, clearly to recognize that the will of God had presented itself with an affirming mandate.
Soon after, I was a college student at Andrews, and it was at this time that my father published his book, Women in the Church, A Biblical Study on the Role of Women in the Church, by Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph.D. In his preface, my father presented six reasons why he felt compelled to publish his research. Reason number three was: Danger of Role Interchangeability. He argued that there are theological as well as practical dangers.
“Theologically, the role interchangeability model… encourages the blurring or elimination of the creational role distinctions God assigned to men and women… Practically, the blurring or elimination of the creational role distinctions between men and women accelerates the rate of divorce, the breakdown of the family, and the acceptance of lesbianism or homosexuality as a legitimate optional life-style [emphasis added].”
This was the late 1980s, and homosexuality was still considered a sin, even among academic theologians. My father’s position on the dangers of culturally conditioning the Bible was considered extreme demagoguery, only intent on manipulating sentiment based on fear. When ideology and emotion take precedence in our thinking, logic fails to resonate.
The Seventh-day Adventist world church has affirmed the need for women’s ministry while upholding biblical headship, deeming ordained ministry a role biblically appointed to men. For church progressives, this is not an acceptable conclusion; for there to be equality, there must be role sameness and interchangeability, they argue. But this is the mindset that launched the slippery slope facing contemporary society.
Logically, a culturally conditioned period in history-based argument for reinterpreting biblical teachings would usher in additional culturally conditioned arguments. It has been the historical pattern, why would we believe differently this time? Is it because SDA human enlightenment is more pure and not subject to Satan’s influence? Because SDA’s know when and how to stop the progression of secularism into our faith? How much longer before we see the Sabbath being culturally conditioned away?
Not unlike our political system, two camps have emerged. One empowered by societal norms and identity politics, the other in direct fear of cultural isolationism. Humanism has successfully weaponized identity politics and engulfed nearly every person and corporate entity. Society now fears the anti-humanistic label more than impending doom from its tolerance. To our church and institutional leaders, history will define you, not the identity politicking label makers. If your failure to act as a leader is because you fear being labeled, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, transphobe, or any uncovered ‘phobe, ‘ist or ‘ism… then step aside. You are not a leader.
Dear friend, your identity is not cemented by a human sinner, but by your Redeemer. Calling sin by its rightful name and standing firm like a needle to the pole is your mandate. Have solace in the known outcome. The battle has already been won. Contemplate that for the humanists who substitute man’s enlightenment in lieu of God’s order, “the time for honoring yourself, will soon be at an end” (to borrow a quote).
The world needs managers, but not as leaders. A leader plays the long game, with a focus on the end of the journey. A leader will challenge you. Frustrate you. He will instill emotions of resistance, awareness, and ultimately acknowledgement of rightful path. It may take a year, or a lifetime, and it may not even occur for those that choose to bail before the end. Leaders are not deterred or guided by popularity. They don’t lead by taking surveys. They take in all the opinions and counsel, spend every spare moment on their knees, then move forward with spiritual conviction.
“When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear” (Thomas Sowell).
To leaders, everyone you encounter will think they have cornered the market on wisdom for you to act on. Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. To quote the great 20th century philosopher, Mike Tyson, “everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth.” Which I would translate as, opinions are easy, when void of reality.
“Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ …I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit… without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God” (Phi. 1: 27-28).
If the only lesson one gets out of the Bible is, whatever the populace is doing, it is probably wrong, that alone would get one 80% of the way to salvation.
The beauty of being an SDA within these end times is understanding the demonic source of humanistic ideology and its ultimate demise. Not for a rationalization of how much tolerance can we extend to spiritualism. It is either good, because it is of God, or it is evil. There are not 50 shades of biblical truth.
“… knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man…” (Rom. 1:21-23)
One could almost excuse or understand, the toleration of humanistic behavior, if it led our SDA organizations and institutions to a path of growth and material prosperity… i.e., secular societal success. It would be great if we no longer needed to support higher education with tithe money, or the constant support from federal funding and grants, requiring conformity to ever increasing humanistic policies. Where facilities were all well maintained, pastors, teachers, and staff were market compensated, and stating you worked for “the church” was not an excuse for being resource challenged. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t advocate using materiality to measure the fruits of the Spirit. Historically, material success has felled many a Christian and most biblical monarchs. But history has provided us with clarity of being blessed.
After leaving a church that was hemorrhaging membership and attendance from blurring humanistic ideology and religion, I found a home within a congregation that is outwardly focused and rooted in foundational Biblical principles. I can define some of God’s blessing within our congregation as:
Genuine demonstration of acceptance and brotherly love no matter the place of one’s spiritual journey,
Membership involvement where all ministry teams are full, with alternates and standby,
Launching a successful media ministry reaching 25,000+ individuals each week,
Working with 4 other congregations to:
o Build 130+ churches in 5 years in a foreign land,
o Planning, and building the only boarding college available in a foreign country,
Building a church on a Montana Indian reservation,
Working to renovate a building into a church in the northernmost city in Alaska,
Raising $300,000 for a church Healing & Training Center within the first week of appeals,
Seeing our membership and tithe revenue grow by 250%.
None of the aforementioned results are due to targeted church growth business models. They are from a focus on foundational Adventist principles, directing us to bring the Gospel to the world, keep the Commandments of God, and have His testimony.
Bold deliberate institutional/organizational acts should move forward with a clear understanding of who it serves–for there is no ambiguity within the Bible. It either glorifies God, or glorifies man, and if it doesn’t glorify God, who is being served? Do the math…
If you are in communion with Christ, you will place His estimate upon every human being. You will feel for others the same deep love that Christ has felt for you. Then you will be able to win, not drive, to attract, not repulse, those for whom He died.. COL 197.1
To the SDA churches and organizations that have institutionalized humanistic ideology. What do you point to as the fruits of the Spirit? Dropping attendance, membership, and enrollment, financial instability, growth of toxic cultures? I found it ironic that at one of our SDA institutions, the new faculty orientation requires the observance of conditions of micro-aggression, where each scenario is a video depicting a white male performing various acts of micro-aggression. For those that may not follow identity politics, micro-aggression is: indirect, subtle, or unintentional, discrimination. Often times it is based on stereotypes—like… only white males commit micro-aggressive acts. The second irony was during a conversation I had with one of their science professors. In discussion regarding their once nationally recognized science program, he was perplexed with the school’s inability to attract white males. For humanists this irony is quite subtle, some may have to read the paragraph a few times to get it.
If our organizational and institutional focus was service to God, in preparing a world for our soon coming Savior, why would God allow an SDA flagship institution to financially struggle or to attract white males? We serve the God of the universe. All power and glory and resources are at His disposal, let alone mere finances based on Federal Reserve promissory notes. If they can print money out of thin air, I’m quite sure God can meet all our needs even more appropriately.
Because of sin and the fall of humanity, we daily behave in ways that serve Satan; it is our human nature, and only dying to self each and every day, can we stay on our spiritual journeys.
Adventists seeking to meet the call of preparing the world for Jesus’ return must recognize that though we are wretched sinners and fail continually—and only by Christ’s atoning blood is salvation attainable—our choices are binary.
Our actions and efforts either serve God or Satan.
****
Daniel Bacchiocchi is an architect and builder. Today he operates an architectural and construction business in Michigan as well as a non-profit building mission organization, Master’s Builders, Inc., supporting SDA efforts in financially depressed communities around the world.
