Today the Seventh-day Adventist Church faces a dilemma. Unlike our early beginnings, we are now a world church, operating in more than 200 countries. As we live, work, and witness in a world of varying cultures and divergent ethnic and national ethos, we become conscious of increasingly pluralistic trends. Even though unity in diversity has been the historic hallmark of Adventism, this can no longer be taken for granted. We notice differences among ourselves in theological, missiological, organizational, and cultural arenas. In the face of such a dilemma, we need to ask ourselves some sensitive questions: How are we to cope with the challenge of pluralism? Are we interacting and dialoguing with those who differ from us? Are we perhaps isolating ourselves for the sake of our own security, oblivious of the long-term detriment such a stance may have for the church?
Theological pluralism refers to a condition in which individuals may differ on theological issues but inter act with each other in such a way that they complement each other and respect each other's beliefs. They also cooperate with each other in order to broaden their own personal and corporate understanding of God's truth. In this sense Adventism may be characterized as an organization with theological, confessional, and cultural pluralism, but it is held together by its pursuit of a common goal and a unique philosophy.
Pluralism in the New Testament church?
The New Testament records several instances of differences of opinion in the early church. Early in the life of the apostolic church there arose a "murmuring" of the Grecians against the Hebrews (see Acts 6:1). Paul and James held different emphases in regard to faith. The four gospels describe the life of Jesus from different perspectives. Even in church structure, as Geldenhuys points out, we cannot speak of one church structure; we should rather see it as pluriformity of church structure. The Jewish Christians tended to have a structure centered on the elders, whereas the Corinthian church followed a more spiritual-gift model. 1
Although there were differences in their approaches, focuses, and the prominence they gave to different events, a definite unity of faith dominated the early church. This unity was attained not by uncritical like-mindedness, but by willingness to dialogue and interact with one another in regard to their differences.
But what about differences today? How do we approach pluralism? Is pluralism a blessing or a curse? How can we maintain communication and promote dialogue in the midst of pluralism? We shall now consider these issues.
Approaches to pluralism
Approaches to pluralism vary. First, there is individual relativism, allowing each one to do their own thing. Reductionalistic in nature, this approach has no concern for others and their beliefs.
Second, there is the strategy of pretense. We try to "wish away" the differences and pretend that they do not exist. We may even try to make our selves believe that the problem will solve itself. In a Sabbath school class, for example, a discussion on controversial issues is often stopped for the sake of unity or to create an impression that we are all in basic agreement. This, however, is counterproductive, because people who do not get an opportunity to air their opinions will communicate them negatively.
Third, there is polarization. In our effort to resolve conflict caused by pluralism, we often categorize view points into two opposite positions--liberal versus conservative, for example. Such an approach is one-dimensional. It aims to seize power. It is seen as bipolar, two opposite positions one winning and the other losing.2 One group considers itself as loyal church members; consequently, those who differ from them are labeled as enemies of the church. The different perspectives are reduced to two extreme viewpoints those against "new theology" and those in favor of new developments.
Modern conflict management theories are more and more against such a model. 3 Without a denial of the fact that conflict can occur, a complex society with different values and norms suggests the possibility of more than a bipolar situation, requiring differentiation of concepts and terms. Theology is no exception, even though it is necessary to affirm certain priorities essential for a confessing community.
Conflict, therefore, cannot be hastily manipulated in a simplistic manner. To do so may be risk-free and may lead to a situation in which one view point either conquers or coexists with another without engaging in real dialogue. The result is the deprivation of value and depth to the community.
Fourth, there is exclusivism. To overcome pluralism, some may establish their own society and form an exclusive organization. Any group that forms an exclusive society is first and foremost busy with its own well-being at the expense of the main body to whom it belongs. For example, until recently many White members in Southern Africa wanted their own White conferences (and unions) for a good reason--to enable them to bring the message to those of their own culture. Although this is a good motive, the well-being of God's church as a whole is of more importance because a divided church cannot proclaim the full blessings and peace of God.
Fifth, there is living with plural ism. Not just living, but creative living. Creativity assumes the possibility of discovery of fresh and exciting things, a new world out there. Such creative living is seldom a comfort able experience, but is definitely a growing and developing experience.
One way to achieve creative inter action with pluralism is to adopt a perspectivistic approach. Each of us views matters from various vantage points. Because we are nothing more than mortal human beings, with psychological, political, cultural, and theological preferences and prejudices, we should ask for grace to acknowledge that at our very best we can see only a small perspective of God's great truth.
A perspective approach does not question the existence of objective and absolute truth, but questions the possibility of humans constructing such a truth. We must recognize that theological differences could well represent distinct sociocultural responses to truth. Ronald Modras' warning deserves serious consideration: Factionalism and schism will be the result when that which is accidental is considered central and when that which is conditioned by history is considered irreformable and absolute.4
The search for truth and what is spiritually and morally genuine must inspire us to go everywhere, even to those who seem to be in opposition to our own viewpoints and to those who, from a scientific approach, seem to be contributing nothing worthwhile to our research. We need laypeople and theologians to complement our perspective. We must be careful not to think and act as if our culture, subculture, or group can exhaust the richness of God's revelation.
Pluralism: a blessing or a curse?
Can pluralism in the Adventist Church be a blessing? Some would envision a melting pot in which diverse opinions are liquefied into sameness. Such a perspective can hardly make plural ism a benefit for the church. Others who see theology and doctrine as absolute objective truths may not accept differences of interpretation. To them pluralism may constitute a threat, and they may wish to operate the church as a closed system where the focus is to comfort rather than to challenge God's church to be a new creation.
On the other hand, if we are willing to see pluralism as a mosaic in which different perspectives occupy interactive positions, thus revealing a picture that displays the full reality of God's truth, pluralism can be an enriching experience for Adventism.
The key to developing such an attitude within the church is communication.
The importance of communication
The God of the Bible is one who communicates and the Bible is God's book of communication. Genesis 3 presents God's dialogue with two people who are not only accusing one another but are hiding from God (see Gen. 3:10-12). Throughout the history of God's people in the Old Testament, we find God opening channels of communication. The New Testament emphasizes this point even more. With Pentecost, the Spirit has made communion with God and between God's people possible. The power of the gospel brings about reconciliation, and as a result real communication between people is made possible. The gospel enables us to overcome every stumbling block and creatively communicate to every nation and kindred and tongue and people a present truth relevant to their existential needs. There fore the church must be a communicating church. We cannot afford to regard those who differ from us as our enemies and start our own exclusive dialogue only with those who confirm our viewpoints.
The need for communication
Increasingly many church members (including theologians) feel that the church functions institutionally. Even its committees on cultural and theological issues operate with an institutional and pragmatic approach, deciding on what is good for the institutional church, and in the process unwilling to address serious questions that demand
practical and realistic answers. The "laity" are called upon to integrate their idealistic theories with the decisions of the church or live with unresolved tensions.
Can such a situation be acceptable? As Tarasar points out, members of a majority often delude themselves into thinking that the feelings and beliefs they express are those of the general population.5 In situations of such "peaceful coexistence," the majority is often viewed as self-righteously paternalistic. Differences of opinion are "allowed" so long as they do not disrupt the status quo. Such differences may even be adopted as an interesting plaything or objet d'art. But rarely will the majority consider the minority's beliefs or practices to be of intrinsic value to their own beliefs or practices.6 That, of course, is neither dialogue nor communication.
For example, consider the statement "He [God] also urges people to respond to His message in their own cultural ways." 7 The concept sounds simple, but its translation into practices is often complicated and almost impossible. Because it is almost impossible to distinguish form from content we cannot simply change the form without radical implications for the content of the message. Here's where communication and dialogue must step in and clarify the issues.
The nature of communication
Communication involves at least two parties: a sender and a receiver. Good communication happens when the receiver is able to "hear" the mes sage and is able to respond to it.
Communication is not manipulation of the other. Good communication gives others the opportunity to decide for themselves. There is no emotional or intellectual coercion.
Communication is not apologetics--a one-sided defense of our own convictions and prejudices. It is dialogue, and dialogue's primary concern is not defense, but search for truth. As Bandura points out, meaningful dialogue is not simply reaching an agreement through compromise or producing a situation in which one is a winner and the other a loser, but creating a learning situation for the participants.8 This presupposes that any discussion must begin with issues underlying the conflict, and proceed from there to resolving the conflict itself.
A climate for dialogue
True dialogue can take place only when appropriate climate is created. Such a climate requires the following:
Accept the integrity of others. In an effort to protect God's truth and His church, we may be tempted to see others who differ from us as critics out to harm the church. Because we are so involved in constructing our own theological model, we are convinced, more emotionally than logically, that ours is God's only truth. If we accept the integrity and sincerity of others, we will be more open to view differing arguments in a friendly and differentiated manner.
Treat others as our equals. Firet refers to "equihuman." The recognition of the other as equal implies a real encounter: we can look each other in the eye; talk with, listen to, and assist the other but never treat him or her as an object that can be taught or spoken to. 9 To treat others as equals does not imply that we all encapsulate with equal fullness the totality of God's revelation. Quite the contrary! It is to accord respect to all who are striving, to the best of their abilities, to understand and be true to God's truth.
Learn to appreciate different perspectives. Developing respect and appreciation for others and their convictions cannot be done by "book learning." We need to evaluate other people's views from their perspective. We need more than knowledge about one another's convictions. We need knowledge of those who differ from us, their experience and their perceptions. For example, although we can never truly appreciate what it means to be poor or despised, nothing should prevent us from trying to understand their feelings.
Trust others. Faith in others re fuses to accept human failure as the final verdict. With love, faith, and humility we can develop a relationship of mutual trust that leads to constructive dialogue.
Listen. The listening mode in dialogue is important, but it must be listening with a heart. By listening to others disclosing themselves, we can help them discover something unknown to themselves. Sometimes we are inclined to listen in a selective way; we listen for weak arguments to use against the one making them or to score a point. We, individually as well as corporately, as a church become poorer if we do not listen to each other. If one of our members is being ignored, we are all going to be losers in the long run. As Adventist Review editor Johnsson so aptly states: "Listening is the key. Leaders, at such a time as this, need to have their ears close to the ground, to be in touch with people not telling them what to do, but just listening to their concerns." 10
Sometimes people who make radical statements do so in order to force us to take cognizance of what they are saying. Is it possible that some ex- Seventh-day Adventists have left the church not because they disagreed doctrinally with the church but be cause no one really listened to them and attended to their needs?
Adopt a more understanding approach. According to Lee11 we cannot acquire a wholistic experience of others' standpoint by limiting dialogue to a cognitive exchange. Lee suggests that we enter into all their life situations work, outreach, fellowship, worship, service in order to appreciate them fully.
Such a step may require humility on both sides, as well as respect for each other. We must put aside all paternalism or feelings of superiority and must exercise patience and self-control, particularly in dealing with what may be perceived as wrong interpretations of faith and doctrine.
Have a repentant attitude. Those that seek for a true dialogue must admit their responsibility for misunderstandings, for distortions of truth, for ignoring or refusing to accept truth, and for seeking to claim exclusive monopoly over truth. True dialogue requires that we recognize the possibility that we may be wrong, that truth may lie else where, and that we may have to change. 12
Be open. Openness is the very basis of dialogue, and it may require risking what is near and dear to us our hopes and fears, our strengths and weaknesses, ourselves. As Tarasar says: "We cannot pretend to know and live by the truth if we are not willing to expose that truth for all to see and hear, to question and judge against 'truths' that others hold dear." 13
Have hope and love. Dialogue re quires hope, an active hope, that is willing to work for success, and not an impatient hope that gives up in the absence of results. The dialogue we are seeking is not only among participants but between God and participants. While listening to others we find our inner dialogue merging into a dialogue with God.
Such a dialogue can exist only if there is real love for God and for each other. Ellen White describes that kind of love when she speaks of its characteristics in terms of "forbearance," "beneficence," and "a freedom from envy and jealousy." "The person who cultivates the precious plant of love will be self-denying in spirit, and will not yield self-control even under provocation. He will not impute wrong motives and evil intentions to others. . . . Love for God and for our fellow men will not be revealed in acts of rashness nor lead us to be overbearing, faultfinding, or dictatorial."14
1 F. E. O'B Geldenhuys, "Eenheid, Pluralisme
en Pluriformiteit: 'n Ekumeniese Perspektief,"
Theoloqia Evangelica XVI, No. 1 (1983): 54.
2 J. Firet, "Mogenlijheden Vooreen Plurale
Kerk," Gereformeerde Teoloqisch Tijdschrift
77, No. 1 (1977): 95.
3 Ibid., p. 97.
4 Ronald Modras, in Polarization in the
Church (New York: Herder & Herder, 1973),
p. 84.
5 Constance J. Tarasar, "Educating for Identity
tity and Openness," in Norma H. Thompson,
ed., Religious Pluralism and Religious Education
(Birmingham: Religious Education Press,
1988) p. 203.
6 Ibid.
7 Gottfried Oosterwal, "Gospel, Culture,
and Mission," Ministry, October 1989, p. 22.
8 B. Bandura, Sprachbarrieren zur
Soziologie der Kommunikation (Stuttgart: Bad
Cannstatt, 1973), p. 181.
9 Jacob Firet, Dynamics in Pastoring (Grand
Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 160, 161.
10 William G. Johnsson and Myron Widmer,
"A Conversation With the Editor." Adventist
Review, June 6, 1991, p. 8.
11 James Michael Lee, "The Blessings of
Religious Pluralism," in Thompson, p. 69.
12 Ibid., p. 208.
13 ibid.
14 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church
(Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub.
Assn., 1948), vol. 5, p. 123.
