Adventist and Muslim Activists Promote Faith-based Engagement

Geoffrey Nelson-Blake (an Adventist minister and the director of interfaith Community Organizing Residency at Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice) and Sarah Jawaid (a Muslim community organizer) recently co-authored a Huffington Post article on the role of faith in social action--"Faith in Our Streets." The authors note what they believe are deficiencies in the Pew Research Center's recent report on America's diminishing religiosity. They report routinely encountering people "experiencing their faith outside the walls of a church, synagogue, or mosque. It's harder to quantify the role faith plays for people expressing their values through fighting for justice, but it's an important piece of the current puzzle of faith in America that we won't find in the Pew study."

To back up their claims, Geoff and Sarah present stories of social action.

Last fall, faith leaders joined ranks with peaceful protesters in Ferguson to demand justice for black lives and capture the stories of heartbreak and hope lost in the news. This past Hanukkah, Jews and Muslims demonstrated together in New York City to decry police brutality. An interfaith rally led by Pastor Jamal Bryant united the Baltimore faith community in hopes of healing after the death of Freddie Grey in police custody. These voices made an impact and the other week, President Obama announced banning military-grade weapons at local police departments.

The authors conclude by pointing out two expressions of faith-based activism--one that divides and one that unites. They share:

Too many people associate faith activism with those who abuse faith language to promote exclusionary and regressive policies. We saw that recently in the language used to promote Indiana's so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which promoted discrimination against the LGBT community. People in power often abuse faith to divide and keep communities separate from one another. However, as the American landscape of faith becomes more diverse -- racially, ethnically, and religiously -- we can expect to see more diversity in how faith is expressed and the impact it has -- personally, communally, and in our streets.

The entire article can be read here: "Faith in Our Streets" (Nelson-Blake and Jawaid, Huffington Post, June 2, 2015).

Featured Image Credit: By Fibonacci Blue from Minnesota, USA [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

Anaheim Congregation to Mark Adventist Peace Sabbath

The Adventist Peace Fellowship has designated May 23, 2015 as the first annual Adventist Peace Sabbath. On a weekend when our nation remembers those who have lost their lives in war, this Sabbath will be an opportunity to be inspired again by Jesus’ vision of peace for the world. Dr. Jeff Gang, DMin., Pastor for the Anaheim SDA Church will be giving a presentation on F.M. Wilcox’s seminal book Seventh-day Adventists in Time of War (R&H: 1936) at 9:30 AM. Dr. Zane Yi, PhD., Assistant Professor in the School of Religion at Loma Linda University, will be preaching the sermon in the main worship service at 11:00 AM. A special “Litany for Peace” is also planned for the service. For more information please visit http://anaheimadventist.org.

APF Sabbath Brochure (PDF)

APF Endorses Call for Nuclear Abolition

On May 1, 2015, religious leaders presented a statement against nuclear weapons to the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, reported Religion News Service. The Adventist Peace Fellowship has signed on to the statement. Faith Communities Concerned about the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons, which is made up by 50 religious groups, delivered the following message:

Since August 1945, when the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were subjected to atomic attack, the continued existence of nuclear weapons has forced humankind to live in the shadow of apocalyptic destruction. Their use would not only destroy the past fruits of human civilization, it would disfigure the present and consign future generations to a grim fate.

Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the values upheld by our respective faith traditions—the right of people to live in security and dignity; the commands of conscience and justice; the duty to protect the vulnerable and to exercise the stewardship that will safeguard the planet for future generations. Nuclear weapons manifest a total disregard for all these values and commitments. There is no countervailing imperative—whether of national security, stability in international power relations, or the difficulty of overcoming political inertia—that justifies their continued existence, much less their use.

We raise our voices in the name of sanity and the shared values of humanity. We reject the immorality of holding whole populations hostage, threatened with a cruel and miserable death. We urge the world’s political leaders to muster the courage needed to break the deepening spirals of mistrust that undermine the viability of human societies and threaten our shared future.

For decades, the obligation and responsibility of all states to eliminate these weapons of mass destruction has been embodied in Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Progress toward the fulfillment of this repeatedly affirmed commitment has been too slow; today it is almost imperceptible. Instead, ongoing modernization programs divert vast resources from limited government budgets when public finances are hard-pressed to meet the needs of human security. This situation is unacceptable and cannot be permitted to continue.

Therefore as people of faith, we pledge to:

1. Communicate within our respective faith communities the inhumane and immoral nature of nuclear weapons and the unacceptable risks they pose, working within and among our respective faith traditions to raise awareness of the moral imperative to abolish nuclear weapons;

2. Continue to support international efforts to ban nuclear weapons on humanitarian grounds and call for the early commencement of negotiations by states on a new legal instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons in a forum open to all states and blockable by none.

As people of faith, we call on the world’s governments to:

3. Heed the voices of the world’s hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors) urging the abolition of nuclear weapons, whose suffering must never be visited on any other individual, family or society;

4. Take to heart the realities clarified by successive international conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons; take concrete action leading to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, consistent with existing obligations under the NPT.

5. Associate themselves with the Pledge delivered by Austria at the Vienna Conference and pursue effective measures to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.

The statement is available online as a PDF-- http://www.peoplesdecade.org/pdf/faithcommunities/joint_statement.pdf.

Featured Image Credit: "Castle Romeo" by United States Department of Energy - This image is available from the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office Photo Library under number XX-33. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Castle_Romeo.jpg#/media/File:Castle_Romeo.jpg

Adventists and Muslims Resolve Land Dispute in Ghana

A Seventh-day Adventist congregation in Ghana has had an on-going land dispute with neighboring Muslims, reports Adventist Today (link). The conflict became violent in mid-February when 12 Muslim youth apparently incited a group of more than 1,000 Muslims to destroy the Adventist property. Excerpt from Adventist Today:

The initial investigation revealed that twelve Muslim youth “spearheaded the misunderstanding between the two religious groups,” reported GNA. The Daily Guide described the destruction of property on February 13, reporting that a crowd of more than 1,000 Muslim young people “stormed the SDA church premises near the Atebubu Government Hospital on Friday afternoon after the mid-day prayers with guns and offensive weapons.” The crowd then “set the newly built mission house ablaze and further brought down the walls around the church and demolished the temple.”

The destroyed mission house “accommodated close to 20 teacher trainees who are doing their teaching practice in the school. They lost valuable items such as laptops, cellular phones, books and certificates, among others,” reported Ghana Nation. (link)

After a regional security council mediation, both sides have signed a peace pact. Adventist leaders forgave the youth and gave the disputed land to the Muslims. In return, the Muslim leaders said they will build a new mission house for the Adventists elsewhere.

SOURCES

• Muslims and Christians at Atebubu smoke peace-pipe (Ghana News Agency, 23 Feb 2015)
• Security Council orders arrest of 12 suspects at Atebubu (Ghana News Agency, 23 Feb 2015)
• Muslim Youth Burn Church At Atebubu (Daily Guide, 14 Feb 2015)
• SDA abandons church after Muslim youth attack (Ghana Nation, 16 Feb 2015)

Featured blog image credit: "Flag of Ghana". Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Ghana.svg#mediaviewer/File:Flag_of_Ghana.svg.

Andrews University holds panel on social justice with Mark Finley

On Thursday, January 29, a panel discussion including Mark Finley, Nicholas Miller, and Sherine Brown-Fraser, was held in the lobby of the Howard Performing Arts Center at Andrews University. The panel answered questions centered on the topic: “The Role of Seventh-day Adventists in Social Justice.” Questions included: What social justice issues should the SDA church be or not be involved in? Are ethnically separate conferences a social justice issue? What social justice issues do you (directed at the panel) find pressing? Brown-Fraser, being the Chair of the Department of Public Health, Nutrition and Wellness, stressed food disparity. Miller, a professor of church history, noted that Adventists were once vocal on topics such as abolition and temperance, but lost their social gospel message and became silent on issues such as Civil Rights. Now, Miller mentioned, Adventists say little on race, torture, immigration, and sex trafficking. Finley, Assistant to the General Conference President with regard to global evangelism, pointed to creation as the basis for social justice. Finley pointed out organizations such as ADRA that do such works as digging wells. When a woman who walks three miles a day to get water sees a well gushing in her own village, “that’s social justice,” Finley said. Education seemed to be the preferred method of fixing social injustice, but the overall appeal of the panel to the Andrews University campus was that each person would find the issue that “gets their heart beating” and work towards justice.

By Łukasz Krzywon, AU APF student leader

Bates Versus Byington: Words Versus Actions

Which is more important, actions to change the world or words to herald Jesus' return? I hope we see this as a false choice, but let's consider the question in the context of an early Adventist debate.

Joseph Bates was active in the U.S. anti-slavery movement before he believed in Jesus' soon return. Although after his conversion he continued to oppose slavery, his new theology or eschatology significantly changed his approach to abolitionism. He wrote:

Some of my good friends that were engaged in the temperance and abolition cause, came to know why I could not attend their stated meetings as formerly, and argued that my belief in the coming of the Saviour should make me more ardent in endeavoring to suppress these growing evils. My reply was, that in embracing the doctrine of the second coming of the Saviour, I found enough to engage my whole time in getting ready for such an event, and aiding others to do the same, and that all who embraced this doctrine would and must necessarily be advocates of temperance and the abolition of slavery; and those who opposed the doctrine of the second advent could not be very effective laborers in moral reform. And further, I could not see duty in leaving such a great work to labor single-handed as we had done, when so much more could be accomplished in working at the fountain-head, making us every way right as we should be for the coming of the Lord.[1]

Bates believed he was moving from working with one hand to working with two and moving from peripheral branches to the root or fountain-head. Rather than merely get right about slavery and alcohol, bates wanted to be “every way right.” Adventist historian Douglas Morgan states that Bates believed issue-oriented activism “would never be widespread enough to transform human society before Christ's return” (Adventism and the American Republic, p. 27). That is, Bates felt that even his best efforts toward abolition would inevitably fail to end slavery, whereas if he labored for Jesus' return, he could (a) turn more people against slavery as they converted to true Christianity and (b) actually speed the release of slaves (which would only happen at the second coming).

Bates and others believed from their study of Revelation that there would be people in bondage and slavery right down to the end of time (Rev. 6:15; 13:16). Jesus' return was the only cure; slavery in the U.S. could not be stopped short of this apocalyptic event.

I can sympathize with this viewpoint. When studying peace and social justice in graduate school, it seemed I prayed more fervently for Jesus' return with each new issue covered—war, hunger and malnutrition, genocide, human trafficking, violence against women, insufficient healthcare, environmental deterioration, etc. Each topic felt too big, too impossible to solve or even minimize. “God you have to come end this because we can't. It's too big. Each individual problem is too big.” If I were Bates, I would probably have also thought slavery in the U.S. could never be abolished.

Not every Adventist shared Bates' viewpoint. Morgan highlights the counter-voice of Anson Byington, brother of the first Adventist president, John Byington.

Anson Byington grew disenchanted with the Review by 1859 because of its passivity on the issue of slavery and wrote announcing that he would not be renewing his subscription. He declared, “I dare not tell the slave that he can afford to be contented in his bondage until the Savior comes however near we may believe his coming. Surely the editor of the Review could not afford to go without his breakfast till then. If it was our duty to remember those in bonds as bound with them eighteen hundred years ago, it must be our duty still” (Morgan, p. 28).

Byington held both convictions—for social action and for evangelism pointing to Jesus' return. “Expectation of Jesus' soon return combined with accountability to his way taught in the gospels, and for Byington the love of neighbor there enjoined implied public responsibility” (Morgan. p. 28).

The results of the Civil War would prove Bates' view to be too limited. Change was in fact possible. Slavery in the U.S. was abolished in his lifetime. Bates was wrong; Byington was right.

But here we are today, one hundred fifty years later, and slavery is greater today around the world than it was at the height of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.[2] Bates was wrong about the inability to stop legal slavery in the U.S., but he was actually right on a larger scale. The demon of slavery has grown bolder and stronger, despite the efforts of governments[3] and organizations like International Justice Mission or Tiny Hands International (the Christian nonprofit I work for).

Bates and Byington each have something to say to Adventists today. On the one hand, Byington tells us that change is possible, that Christians can make a difference to reduce the suffering of God's children, that we should combine social action with Christian preaching. On the other hand, Bates tells us that our compassionate actions will not lead to the ultimate good we wish for the world, for God's pure and complete will to be done on Earth as in Heaven. We can facilitate change—the gates of hell will not prevail—but the change will be limited in scope. This ultimate desire for righteousness/justice will only be realized after Jesus returns and demolishes this world's empires (Dan. 2).

Bates' point is important because it reminds us that we're in for the long haul. That is, we shouldn't get discouraged when our efforts lead to much smaller changes than we hope for. Instead, we should act as we're able, knowing that God can bless our loaves and fishes but that perfecting the world is not in our grasp, that rescuing the world is on Jesus' shoulders, not ours. This shouldn't discourage us from doing what we can; rather it should let us know we need to play the long-game and not give up when things fail to improve as substantially or as quickly as we wish.

In his book The World Is Not Ours To Save, Tyler Wigg-Stevenson paints a daunting picture of the world today, lamenting the inadequacy of our remedies. He writes:

In response to the litany of human woes filling the pages above, some may be saying, “Okay, okay, I get it—the world is terrible! So, what's the secret? What's the plan? What's the solution?

There is no secret. No plan. No solution—until the kingdom of God comes—to the dilemma of living in a fallen world. That's the point. The answer is not a course of action, a recipe, a hidden formula. But the absence of evident solutions does not absolve us from the pain of loving the world as Christ loves it.

Confronted with this tension, the only response is resolute commitment. We can realize that there is no solution and simultaneously refuse to be defeated or paralyzed by that fact. (p. 60)

Wigg-Stevenson's purpose in describing this reality as he sees it relates to the two lessons we can learn from Bates and Byington—we need to do what we can, but we shouldn't be discouraged by a world beyond complete repair. He warns, “A generation of Christians that thinks it is called to save the world is a generation firing on the fuel of false hopes. It is signing up for exhaustion and disillusioned burnout. I can already see its signs in the audiences I speak to and the people I meet. It is imminent. And, for the love of God, we can't afford to let it happen” (p. 60).

I hope the Adventist community can increasingly embrace these lessons so activists will also be concerned about Jesus' return and evangelists will also care about social issues affecting people today. To be only an activist or only an evangelist is to miss the importance of the other element, like trying to make chocolate milk with only milk or only chocolate. While Jesus' healing and preaching can be studied separately, the intertwining of these actions reveals the synergy that can result from approaching them in a more unified way—social action that speaks to God's good future, and preaching that calls for us to embody God's traits of compassion, justice and love.

“Thus says the LORD, 'Preserve justice and do righteousness, For My salvation is about to come And my righteousness to be revealed.'” Isaiah 56:1

“True sympathy between man and his fellow man is to be the true sign distinguishing those who love and fear God from those who are unmindful of His law.” Ellen White (Welfare Ministry, p. 36)

“It is only by an unselfish interest in those in need of help that we can give a practical demonstration of the truths of the gospel.... Much more than mere sermonizing is included in preaching the gospel.... The union of Christlike work for the body and Christlike work for the soul is the true interpretation of the gospel.” Ellen White (Welfare Ministry, p. 32-33)

- - -

[1] Autobiography of Joseph Bates, 1792-1872, Chapter 23. Accessed online on November 20, 2014, http://www.earlysda.com/bates/joseph-bates23-end.html.

[2] Andrew Cockburn, “21st Century Slaves,” National Geographic. Accessed online on November 20, 2014, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/.

[3] “35.8 Million People Held in Modern Slavery,” al Jazzera. Accessed online on November 20, 2014, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/18/modern-slavery-millionstrappedtoday.html.

Featured Image Credit: "Chain (PSF)" by Pearson Scott Foresman - Pearson Scott Foresman, donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chain_(PSF).jpg#mediaviewer/File:Chain_(PSF).jpg

Flanders Field: Reflections on War by Reinder Bruinsma

Reinder Bruinsma originally posted this essay on his blog (30 October 2014, link). Dr. Bruinsma was one of the presenters at the WWI symposium APF reported about this summer (link), and he is contributing two chapters to a book on Adventist mission and social ethics that will be published by the Andrews University Press in 2015. See his full (translated) bio below.

Flanders Field

It was some twenty years ago that I first realized how terrible the First World War had been. In far away Australia I visited the War Memorial—a museum that pays a lot of attention to the Australian contribution to the Allied cause in the Great War (as WW I is referred to in many countries). During that visit I understood better than ever before that nations from all over the world were involved in this world-wide dispute. A few years ago I was, quite unexpectedly, also confronted with this same fact, as I was travelling with a group in Turkey. Our guide told us that near the Dardanelles more than one million soldiers lost their lives in Word War I.

There are, however, few places that are so moving, as far as the Great War is concerned, as Ieper in Belgium. In a part of southwestern Belgium and the North-West of France one finds dozens of war cemeteries, where hundreds of thousands of men and women from dozens of different nations have found their last resting place. The remains of the trenches in which the opposing armies were involved in an inhuman process of cruelty and senseless violence, still tell their macabre story. But it is, in particular, the Flanders Field Museum in Ieper that is unforgettable in its sadness. It is truly a fitting monument for the millions who lost their lives between 1914 and 1918. And, why and for what, in fact, did they die? Its subject matter would make the visitor even more downhearted, were it not for the magnificent medieval building, the famous Lakenhal, in which this museum is housed.

I have always loathed everything that has to do with war. As a boy I never liked books about war and I did not go to war movies. I was fortunate enough that I could escape the obligatory military service, since I studied theology—which at the time in the Netherlands provided a possibility to stay out of the army. But, had I been conscripted, I would have refused to bear arms. It always made me proud to belong to a church that was opposed to war and that advocated a non-combatant position.

To my deep regret, in many countries this Adventist tradition of non-violence has been watered down, or even changed into the opposite. This is especially true for Adventists in the United States, where so-called patriotic feelings have ‘inspired’ ever more men and women to serve their country by opting for a career in the military. A visit to Flanders Fields should be required for all fellow-believers who consider joining the army!

Yes, I know there are weighty arguments against radical pacifism. I must admit that I am happy that people are currently fighting the IS, and I would not want to live in a place where there is no police. But there are at least as solid arguments for resurrecting the Adventist tradition of non-violence. After all, in our world there are plenty of men and women who are prepared to take up arms. But there are always too few people who want to do everything to promote and model peace. Remember: Blessed are the peace makers. Real happiness is for those who pursue reconciliation and peace. They will be called children of God (Matthew 5:9). My visit to the Flanders Field Museum reinforced in me that long-held conviction.

- - -

Reinder Bruinsma Bio (partially translated by Google Translate; original): "I live with my wife Aafje in Zeewolde (Flevopolder, Netherlands). I have over forty years of experience working within the Seventh-day Adventist Church in various capacities and in various countries. I have written twenty books and hundreds of articles in both Dutch and English. Writing is now one of my main activities. Since September 2011, I also temporarily held the position of president of the denomination in Belgium and Luxembourg. Fortunately, there still remains some time for travel and other fun things.

Featured Image Credit--Flanders Field: By King, W. L. (William Lester) (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2007663169/) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Making Peace (Brown, Adventist World)

Nathan Brown originally wrote this essay for Adventist World (8 November 2014, link).

Making Peace

November 11 is known in various parts of the world as Armstice Day, Remembrance Day, or Veterans Day. It marks the anniversary of the end of World War I, ironically tagged as “The War to End Wars.”

Sadly, almost 100 years later, we still live in a violent, war-ravaged, and divided world. Violent conflict is a significant cause of injustice, poverty, and suffering. Included in the costs of war are the direct victims and shattered lives, the attention and resources devoted to military machinery that would be better diverted to alleviating other human needs, and the continuing suffering of war survivors and veterans, even among the “victors.”

There is something about making war that messes with our humanity. The ongoing struggles experienced by veterans of the Vietnam War are perhaps the most notorious example of this. Australians were involved in the Vietnam War between 1962 and 1973, during which time 521 Australian personnel died in active service. In the three following decades, 421 “surviving” veterans are known to have committed suicide, with the suicide rate increasing decade by decade.

The figures are even more disturbing when we look at the much larger veteran population in the United States. Reports vary across the many studies that have been conducted, but as early as 1979 a report from the University of Denver’s School of Professional Psychology concluded that “more Vietnam veterans have died since the war by their own hand than were actually killed in Vietnam.”

And the suicide statistics are simply the most extreme count of larger problems, often grouped under the generic designation of post-traumatic stress disorder. Suicide is an expression of the mental, emotional, and spiritual scarring that also contributes to mental illness, homelessness, alcoholism and other drug dependencies, family breakdown, and continuing physical ill-health.

Both in practice and in aftermath, there is a stark difference between being prepared to die for one’s beliefs, family, or nation—“Greater love hath no man than this . . .” (see John 15:13)—and killing for one’s beliefs, family, or nation. That is why the people of God are called to a different way of living, even amid the violence, warmongering, and other conflicts of our world. The kingdom of God, as inaugurated by Jesus, is never advanced by violence.

At the heart of the gospel of Jesus is God’s gracious and grand act of peacemaking, reconciling sinful human beings with their Creator. This is another way of understanding the plan of salvation, and one that we can readily appreciate from our experiences of human relationships. And the reconciliation we receive becomes the pattern for us to be “ambassadors” for this reconciliation (see 2 Cor. 5:18–21).

Even in the Old Testament, the concept of peace is closely linked with salvation and the gospel: “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news of peace and salvation” (Isa. 52:7, NLT*).

This gospel of peace also becomes the motivation, pattern, and resource for working for peace in our violent world: “The heart that is in harmony with God is a partaker of the peace of heaven and will diffuse its blessed influence on all around. The spirit of peace will rest like dew upon hearts weary and troubled with worldly strife” (Ellen White, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, p. 28).

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called the children of God” (Matt. 5:9, NLT). Taking this further, not only did He affirm the commandment against killing, precluding Christian support of war, He said we should not be angry or hold a grudge (see Matt. 5:21-26), and that we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute (see Matt. 5:43-48), meaning that we should take active steps to seek their good.

There are many inspiring stories of people who have devoted their lives to peacemaking in world trouble spots, bringing glimpses of reconciliation and healing, and often alleviating much of the injustice and suffering these conflicts have brought. Whether working for peace between nations or between two bitter family members, Jesus said that those who do such work will be rightly described as “children of God.”

---

*Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Featured Image Description & Credit: "Box with graves of deceased internees of several conflicts at the Bremgarten cemetery in Berne; Berne, Switzerland. In the foreground polish in the background french and belgium soldiers (1914–18, 1939–45), in centre the stele for the deceased internees of the armée de l'est (1871), WWI and WWII." © Chriusha (Хрюша) / CC-BY-SA-3.0 / (optional) Wikimedia Commons.

Islamic Professor Addresses Peace at Oakwood University

"Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub, professor of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut and emeritus professor of Islamic Studies and Comparative Religions at Temple University," recently spoke at Oakwood University, a historically black Seventh-day Adventist university in Huntsville, Alabama. Ayoub's presentation ("Islamic Visions of Peace") was for the 2014 'Ahl al-Kitab Lectureship, which was sponsored by Oakwood's Center for Adventist-Muslim Relations and the Huntsville Islamic Center, according to Kay Campbell of AL.com.

Ayoub shared that "'Salaam' as the Qu'ran describes it, is more than the absence of war." Rather, it "is doing something positive--building up the Earth to make it a holy, safe place to make it the abode of God."

Ayoub also spoke about jihad and helping people.

The only armed struggle, or "jihad," authorized by the Qu'ran, said Ayoub...is an armed struggle on behalf of the oppressed.

"This is the ethics of war, according to the Qu'ran," said Ayoub, who is blind and speaks in a still, quiet voice. "War is always a last choice - and if the enemy inclines toward peace, then you should, too."

"Muhammad taught the middle way," Ayoub said. "The goal is to help people who are in need. The world will never be perfect, but it can be a great deal better than it is today. What is the problem? Human greed, and people making idols of a nation or of wealth or even a religion."

This report is based on two articles by Kay Campbell at AL.com:

• What is the Islamic vision of peace? Internationally respected Islamic scholar to lecture in Huntsville (23 Oct 2014)
• Muhammad taught 'middle way;' peace is theme of Quran, says Islamic prof at Oakwood University (23 Oct 2014)

AR: 14 Soldiers in God’s Army

The Adventist Review continues the recent focus on the anniversary of World War I with the story, "14 Soldiers in God’s Army" (Victor Hulbert, 28 Oct 2014).

The article begins with a brief description of the abuse the Adventists experienced:

Fourteen Adventist soldiers laid down their tools at 4:00 p.m. on Friday to prepare for Sabbath. But the sergeants were ready, armed with sticks, revolvers, and boots. Severe beatings followed. The bruised British conscripts then were roughly thrust into prison cells, irons tightly clamped on their wrists, digging into their flesh, their hands behind their backs.

After relating the staggering statistics relating to WWI, Hulbert shares,

Adventist soldiers found a different kind of horror. Determined to keep the Sabbath and not carry weapons, they were beaten, starved, forced to clean toilets to a shine without equipment, and punished with the dreaded “crucifixion,” which saw soldiers shackled in irons and painfully strapped to a gun wheel or some other object for hours in the hot sun.

Hulbert describes the difference between the ways leaders in Great Britain and Germany responded to the war. Adventists in Germany predominantly supported fighting for the nation, though some did resist, which led to the Reform Movement.

Adventists in Britain took a different stance. They followed the Adventist example of noncombatance adopted during the American Civil War in 1861 to 1865. This was not an easy choice, and British Adventists were widely scorned as belonging to an odd, working-class church exported from the U.S.

Things went smoothly, more-or-less, for the first 18 months for the Adventists who were conscripted.

But a new young officer took charge in November 1917, and he declared that Sabbath duty was mandatory. When the Adventists refused to work, they were placed under court martial and sentenced to six months of hard labor at Military Prison No. 3 in Le Havre.

The lengthy article addresses how the Adventists were treated in prison and the steps to their eventual release. Special focus is given to their first Sabbath in prison.

The complete article can be read here.

Additional APF stories about WWI:

• WWI and the Adventist Church (30 Sept 2014)
• Viewpoints #15: Dr. Idel Suarez Jr, Reform Movement President (5 Sept 2014)
• Love Your Enemy? (27 Aug 2014)
• Symposium on the Impact of WWI on Adventism (2 June 2014)

Do Justice: Our Call to Faithful Living (Edited by Nathan Brown and Joanna Darby)

Nathan Brown and Joanna Darby have recently published a collection of essays on just living entitled Do Justice. The book is currently available in Australia, and it will be released in the U.S. in 2015. The One Project plans to distribute the book at their conferences around the world, increasing exposure for the book. ADRA Australia released the first statement about the book, which is fitting because the Forward was written by Jonathan Duffy,  former CEO of ADRA Australia and current ADRA International president.

Mark Webster, the current ADRA Australia CEO, writes that the editors have pulled "together the wisdom of a diverse group of 26 people for whom justice is a passion, harnessing their thoughts, experiences and advice into a cohesive whole." Webster continues,

Authors such as Kendra Haloviak Valentine and Ty Gibson explore that foundational nature of justice to our faith and indeed our existence. Dwight Nelson and Lowell C Cooper, among others, explore the nexus of faith and justice in the context of the church and its beliefs. Lisa Clark Diller and Zivayi Nengomasha join their voices with those of others seeking to make justice an intentional part of their lives. And another group, including Tim Gillespie, Ella Smith Simmons and Mindi Wiygul, share guidance from their own experiences of justice in practice.

The entire review can be read here.

College View Academy Hosts Fundraiser for ISIS Victims

College View Academy students put on a fundraiser for ISIS victims, Megan Conway reports for KLKN TV (ABC 8) in Lincoln, Nebraska (link). Recently, Union College also hosted an event focusing on Iraqis affected by the conflict.

KLKN article excerpts:

At the Union College campus tonight, hundreds came out for a benefit concert. The purpose of the concert was giving back to families in the middle of a war zone, thousands of miles away. College View Academy students hosted the benefit concert all in an effort to help the victims of ISIS.

Special guests Mayor Chris Beutler and his wife came to the event. Baked goods were sold and students sang and played instruments.

The volunteers raised just over six and a half thousand dollars. Their hope is to influence other schools and organizations to do the same, stressing that every little bit helps. [complete article]

Update: APF has been told the funds are going to Adventist Frontier Mission's (AFM) refugee ministry in northern Iraq (link). Also, all funds designated for Yazda are being sent to that nonprofit. Finances are going to AFM because neither ADRA nor the Middle East Union is active in the area, we are told. As of Wednesday night (15 Oct), the total raised has increased to $9,500.

The Good Neighbor Community Center posted two short videos of local media coverage:

• KLKN ABC 8 (article transcription)
• 10 11 Now

Union College Hosts Interfaith Iraq Memorial

Today is the International Day of Non-violence. The UN describes three categories of non-violent action:

• protest and persuasion, including marches and vigils;
• non-cooperation; and
• non-violent intervention, such as blockades and occupations. (link)

A meaningful story about an Adventist vigil is the recent memorial service hosted by Union College in Lincoln, NE. The Lincoln Journal Star reports that

300 people of different religious backgrounds gathered for the "Interfaith Iraq Peacemaking and Memorial Service on Sunday, which was dedicated to remembrances of Yazidis who have been killed and enslaved by ISIS" (Chris Heady, 28 Sept 2014).

The article shared the context and motivation for the event:

Lincoln is home to more than 1,000 Yazidis, a group of Kurdish-speaking people who live largely in northern Iraq. Lincoln's Yazidi community is the nation’s largest, and on Sunday some of them, along with other Lincoln residents of various faiths, tried to send out a message of peace to the world. They urged everyone to look at humans as people, not as their faith or skin color.

Doug Hardt of the Union College Center for Interfaith Studies and Culture conceived of the remembrance ceremony after traveling to Iraq this summer. After seeing one million people without homes and after talking with people who had gone through hell, he said, he wanted to do something to remember those who had died.

The article concludes:

As the group of 300 or so reflected during a moment of silence, phones lit the poem on the back of a program: “Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me.” (complete article)

See also the earlier article, "Union College's Iraqi memorial service aims to begin healing, reconciliation" (Lincoln Journal Star, 26 Sept 2014).

APF readers who are interested in nonviolent peacemaking in the Middle East may find the following items worth considering:

• CPT - Iraq
• Is There a Nonviolent Response to ISIS? (Flood, Huffington Post, 12 Aug 2014)
• What Can Christians Do About Iraq? (Raushenbush, Huffington Post, 8 Aug 2014)
• Fasting for the Middle East (September 11 to October 20) (Komarnicki, Evangelicals for Social Action, 9 Sept 2014)
• Jim Foley, ISIS, and What I Learned from Being Kidnapped (Gish, Red Letter Christians, 25 Aug 2014)
• ISIS vs the Way of Jesus (Medearis, Red Letter Christians, 11 Sept 2014)
• Acting Like A State: ISIS, the US, and Jesus as Lord (Wilson-Hartgrove, Red Letter Christians, 22 Sept 2014)
• ISIS and the Good Samaritan (Hunt, American Jesus, 22 Sept 2014)
• How Christians Reject Jesus: On Violence and ISIS (Ericksen, Sojourners, 24 Sept 2014)
• War Is Not the Answer (Wallis, Sojourners, 11 Sept 2014)
• more...

"Alternatives to Violence: Various SNVM Members Speak About the War on Da'esh (ISIS)" SNVM member Rasha al-Qass Yousef:

As a Syrian from a Christian background who has many years of experience with different Syrian opposition groups, I believe military intervention against ISIS will only lead to the creation of more extremism.

Before starting with a military solution, why not explore political, economic, and social solutions? Why did it take the West so long to embargo the oil produced by ISIS? Why did the West turn a blind eye to the flood of jihadists entering Syria through Turkey? Why no real pressure on Gulf countries for their official and unofficial massive support of different nefarious armed groups? Why did the “Friends of Syria” fail to provide Raqqa—the first liberated area in the country—with any support for the local community, the civil society organizations, and the emerging local council, despite all the calls to do so?"

—Rasha Qass Yousef, member of the Syrian Nonviolence Movement and the Syrian Democratic Forum, a co-founder of the Haquna Movement, a civil resistance group in the city of Raqqa that campaigned against both the Assad regime and the armed groups who seized the city, including ISIS

Posted on Facebook by the Syrian Nonviolence Movement

Published online by Dissent Magazine

News Round-up

News Round-up: Ferguson, Iraq and Syria, Hobby Lobby, Ebola, UN Day of Peace

Finding the Adventists in Ferguson (Byrd, Spectrum, 1 Sept 2014)

Darrell Alexander, an Adventist minister of music who is now retired, and lives in the St. Louis area, said, “Do we actually get out there and help other people the way Jesus did, or do we just talk about it? If we are a church about people, and a church about helping the afflicted, then we need to be on point. We need to back that up with our actions.”

Adventist-Linked Group Presses UN on Iraq and Syria (McChesney, Adventist Review, 2 Sept 2014)

A religious freedom group with links to the Seventh-day Adventist Church urged the United Nations and international community on Tuesday to act quickly and decisively in protecting Christians in Iraq and Syria against “unimaginable and unprecedented” violence from Islamic State militants.

Viewpoint: Politics and SDA Religious Liberty (Gessel, Spectrum, 5 Sept 2014)

In a statement posted on June 30, 2014, the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America announced that it is “encouraged” by the ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case. This week, the online Adventist Review published a document prepared by a General Conference Associate General Counsel that provided the underlying support for the June 30 statement.

Dispatches from Ebola-Hit Liberia (Appel, Spectrum, 8 Sept 2014)

Liberia’s capital, Monrovia, has come to a standstill as the deadly Ebola outbreak sweeps the region. Cooper Adventist Hospital is the only hospital still open to treat patients with problems other than Ebola. In mid-August Dr. James Appel, a graduate of the Loma Linda University School of Medicine with years of experience at Adventist hospitals in Chad, flew to Liberia to work at Cooper Adventist, an Adventist Health International hospital with only 25 beds and very little supplies and equipment.

Adventist Church to mark UN’s International Day of Peace September 21 (Etats-Unis/ANN, 18 Sept 2014)

Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders are inviting members to join the United Nations’ International Day of Peace on Sunday, September 21 by responding to a call for a minute of silence at noon with prayer.

Adventist Mission Doctor Speaks Out on the Ebola Crisis and Foreign Aid (Appel, Adventist Today, 19 Sept 2014)

I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be foreigners involved.  I’m just saying that the foreigners should be working alongside the Liberians, helping them to find a solution to the Ebola problem, not trying to impose Western ideas that obviously aren’t working.  Foreigners should not be bringing in a lot of money that is spent on things that will just make the Liberians envious and want to share in the spoils of aid money.

Shall I or Shall We War?

Submitted by Pastor Dr. Mark A. McClearySenior Pastor, Liberty Seventh-day Adventist Church, Windsor Mill, MD

In the 60s, the musical group Chilites rhetorically asked, “War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Say it again!” Marvin Gaye, the soulful balladeer, caused us to reflect on war’s impact when he asked, “What’s going on?—Brother, brother, brother, there is far too many of you dying. Mother, mother, mother, there is far too many of you crying.” These lyrical prophets speak to the reverberating issues and negative impact of war, then and until now.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet pondered this topic at the micro and interpersonal level when he asked, “To be or not to be, ah, that is the question?” George Hebert Meade describes the individual and socialization via the metaphor of “I” and “Me.” The former is the individual as idiosyncratic initiant, and the latter as the situated person within society, sending and receiving influencing messages. Thus, Shall I or We War? indicates the personal and public dynamics and decisions involved in war.

Christopher Marlowe stated, “Accurse be he that first invented war.” On the other hand, Francis Edward Smedley declared, “All is fair in love and war.” Ironically speaking, both are right in my opinion. War is terrible at the individual and corporate levels, and yet the effectual ends of war seem to legitimize even the terribleness of war. Perhaps William Sherman’s assertion helps explain this conundrum—“the legitimate objective of war is a more perfect peace.” This seems to be the battle cry of jingoist protagonists and religious pulpiteers who are pro-war in Iran, Korea, the Middle East, or wherever USA Manifest Destiny is hampered. This is especially the case after the recent beheading of the American journalist by Isis. It seems similar to the nationalist pep-rally-like rhetoric of George W. Bush after 911—“the folk who did this will hear from us soon.” Bush made this prediction before any alleged hijacker was identified and before he launched what turned out to be a bogus hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Said weapons, if found would have been used to confirm Iraq and Sadaam Husein's blame for the 911 tragedy. Shall I or shall we war? According former President Bush, "Yes."

220px-S._Baring-Gould_portrait

Human history is a record of war in various manners—between men and women (James Thurber), Civil War (100 Years War in England and between the North and South in the USA), pre-1989 Cold War between the USA and its democratic allies and the USSR, and lastly, the Medieval Crusades until today’s Christian West versus the Islamic fundamentalists. How ironic that a popular Christian hymn, Onward Christian Soldiers, written by Sabine Baring-Gould, affords Christian individuals and groups to sing heartily, “On onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before. Christ the royal master, leads against the foe, forward into battle see His banners go.” Shall I or shall we war?

The New Testament writer, James, explains the cause of war when he says, “Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war” (James 4:1, 2, NKJV). Perhaps, the mention of war sends chills up your back. However, on this side of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, history and present media outlets report that war is a present and future reality for individuals and global society.

Conclusions

God’s guidelines for Israel, in anticipation of encounters with non-Jewish peoples as they traveled to and later occupied the Promise Land are as follows:

• War is with an enemy and not a friend.

• War is a final reaction to oppressive interactions that would not respond to positive peace negotiations.

• War, sanctioned by God, is to protect His people from the corrupting influence of the aggressor and infidel.

• War, authorized by God, will result in salvation for His people and their land.

The Lord, maybe not some individuals and groups, loves all people—Iraqis, Palestinians, Israelis, Ukrainians, and Koreans—“For God so loves the world…” (John 3:16). God is no respecter of persons, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, gender, or social-economic status. I suggest that the President, war pundits, grieving families, and every “I” and “We” consider war according to counsel. I trust in the practice that a multitude of input is safer than impulsive reactions (Prov. 11:4).

I look forward to the day when all wars—Ferguson, MO, environmental upheaval, legislative, religious, micro and macro—will be moribund.

There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, The Spirit of counsel and might, The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. His delight is in the fear of the Lord, And He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes, Nor decide by the hearing of His ears; But with righteousness He shall judge the poor, And decide with equity for the meek of the earth; He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked. Righteousness shall be the belt of His loins, And faithfulness the belt of His waist. “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, The leopard shall lie down with the young goat, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (Isa. 11:1-9, NKJV).

News Round-up

Adventist Church Files Amicus Brief for Workplace Religious Freedom Case at Top U.S. Court (Ansel Oliver, ANN, 27 Aug 2014)

The Seventh-day Adventist Church filed an amicus brief today urging the United States’ top court to accept the case of a Muslim girl who was denied a job because her hijab—a head-covering—violated a company’s policy. The Adventist Church’s “friend-of-the-court” brief is joined by seven other faith groups for the case Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. [complete article]

Adventist Church Sponsors Its First Religious Liberty Festival in Britain (Victor Hulbert, John Surridge, Dan Serb and ANN staff, ANN, 26 Aug 2014)

The Seventh-day Adventist Church in Britain held its first religious liberty festival, in which Church leaders offered an overview of religious freedom developments and urged Church members to continue defending rights for people of all faiths and beliefs. More than 2,000 people attended the “Free to Worship” festival on Saturday, August 16, the second of a two-day event at the Bethel Convention Centre in West Bromwich. [complete article]

Adventist Leaders Speak Out on Unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (Adventist Today, 21 Aug 2014)

Pastor Daniel R. Jackson, president of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination in North America, released a statement early Thursday morning (August 21) about the ongoing civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. “As a part of the larger family of America, Seventh-day Adventists grieve with Michael Brown’s family and extend our heartfelt condolences for their tragic loss," he said. "We are praying for our Ferguson community family who are in such great pain." [complete article]

Adventist Church’s Anti-abuse Initiative Set for August 23 (Ansel Oliver, ANN, 15 Aug 2014)

Seventh-day Adventist world church leaders are calling on all Adventist congregations to designate a portion of their August 23 church service to mark the EndItNow Abuse Prevention Emphasis Day. The Adventist Church’s annual day of emphasis brings awareness to the issues of domestic violence, sexual abuse and other forms of mistreatment. [complete article]

AW: Love Your Enemy?

Denis Kaiser, a presenter at the recent symposium on World War I held at Friedensau Adventist University, has written a reflection piece on WWI for Adventist World--"Love Your Enemy" (August 2014, pp. 24-27).

Kaiser providers a brief history on the first world war and the Adventist response to it, including the formation of the Reform Movement. Kaiser explains:

As armies mobilized, young Adventists were conscripted and dragged into the machinery of war. Some denominational leaders in Germany lost their nerve and assured the military authorities that its conscripts would defend the homeland with weapons even on the Sabbath. At the same time they sought to convince church members that the Old Testament readiness for war was still applicable today.5

This position was, admittedly, not entirely new for Adventists in Central Europe. Yet the fact that these leaders practically told church members what they expected from them was certainly unique. A number of individuals voiced their discontent and opposition. The subsequent turmoil and contention could apparently only be stopped by disfellowshipping the “troublemakers,” resulting in further alienation, antagonism, and hard feelings. This internal “war” eventually led to the establishment of the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement.

Kaiser then turns to an ethical exploration of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, arguably the portion of scripture to which Christians (i.e., followers of Jesus Christ) should first turn when attempting to discern Christian moral responsibility. "In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) Jesus outlined the laws of His kingdom and gave us a glimpse of the wide framework in which He addressed moral and ethical issues. John Howard Yoder, a Mennonite theologian and ethicist, detected seven ethical principles in that sermon that I find helpful in considering how we can apply biblical principles under changing conditions and circumstances."

Kaiser concludes the article by considering the Adventist Church's mission. "God’s children should be characterized primarily by the attempt to resemble God’s character of perfect, excessive, and reconciling love to friends and enemies. Ultimately, Seventh-day Adventists consider it our mission to proclaim the three angels’ messages 'to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people' (Rev. 14:6) to draw people to Jesus so that they may not perish but be saved."

The complete article can be read online here.

What is Central or Peripheral to Adventism, to Adventist Peacemakers?

Chris Blake uses the language of central and peripheral when discussing the priorities of faith (see "In Christ There Is Neither Conservative Nor Liberal," Adventist Review). In the past few weeks, two communications from Ted Wilson (Seventh-day Adventist world church president) have hinted at what is central and peripheral to Adventism, at least as Wilson envisions it.

First, in the August 2014 edition of Adventist World, Wilson considers noncombatancy in Adventist history ("The Battle: Should Adventists Serve in the Military?"). Wilson briefly describes the early roots of the position:

As with other difficult questions, the pioneer leaders studied the issues using the Bible as their guide, and concluded that the position most consistent with biblical principles was noncombatancy (the conscientious objection to bearing arms). The primary reason for this position was that Adventists serving in the U.S. military would be forced to compromise their loyalty to God if they obeyed the commands of their officers. The two Bible commandments most directly involved were the fourth—to keep the Sabbath holy, and the sixth—not to kill.

This short overview omits that those who enlisted were disfellowshiped, but there certainly isn't room to cover every detail of this early period in such a short article. After considering various aspects of Adventist practice and history, Wilson addresses the question of the church's stance today:

Gary Councell, director of Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries, addresses this question in his book, Seventh-day Adventists in Military Service: “Though the Seventh-day Adventist Church advocates a noncombatant position, pacifism, military service, or noncombatancy are not tests of church membership. The denomination does not act as the conscience for any member or military commander, but it does seek to inform the conscience and behavior of both, so decisions can be made with a maximum of understanding and thought.” [Gary R. Councell, Seventh-day Adventists and Military Service (Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries, 2011), pp. 30, 31.]

Thus, while the official church position is that of noncombatancy—conscientious objection to bearing arms—the decision as to whether or not to serve in the military and bear arms is left to the conscience of the individual.

The church supports Y (noncombatancy), but members are allowed to practice X (combatancy) or Z (pacifism).

Compare this openness to disagreement regarding noncombatancy with a second topic--creation. Wilson spoke about creationism to open the International Conference on the Bible and Science in Las Vegas, Nevada (15 Aug 2014, Adventist Review coverage). Wilson supported a 6-day (6 x 24 hours) recent creation. "We believe that the Biblical creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 was a literal event that took place in six literal, consecutive days recently as opposed to deep time." This is the most common view held by Adventists, as I understand our history, so it is not noteworthy in itself. The notable feature of the speech was the boundary-drawing that marks off who is a true Adventist. Wilson stated,

If one does not accept the recent six-day creation understanding then that person is actually not a “Seventh-day” Adventist since the seventh-day Sabbath would become absolutely meaningless historically and theologically and most of our Biblically based doctrines centered in Christ and His authoritative voice would become meaningless as well. The person may claim to be an “Adventist,” but in reality without the clear Biblical understanding of the foundational Sabbath doctrine and God’s authority as Creator and Sovereign of the universe, it is really impossible to arrange a meaningful theological construct that would lead to or be acceptable for a belief in a literal second coming of Christ. ("God's Authoritative Voice," 18 Aug 2014)

To be a true Seventh-day Adventist, one must believe in (1) a literal six-day creation that (2) happened recently (approximately 6,000 years ago; "Wilson: No Room for Evolutionists in Adventist Schools"). To be a true Seventh-day Adventist, one must agree with both features.

Comparing these two stories reveals what is central to Adventism and what is more peripheral, at least as understood by the current president. A recent, 6-day creation is central or fundamental, so there is apparently no room for alternate views, even on how recently this creation occurred. Social constructs of peace and nonviolence are considered more peripheral, so there is significant space to state where the church stands, while leaving room for personal conviction.

What do you think?

1) According to your understanding of Adventist history and biblical ethics, how central is shalom to the church, to God's kingdom?

2) What guides our valuation process of determining what is central and what is peripheral?

3) Is it better for church leaders to lay down absolute boundaries (e.g., creation article) or to state a given position and allow diversity of thought on the topic (e.g., military article)? What are the pros and cons of either approach? What are the useful limits of either approach?

4) Creationism is certainly important to Adventist peacemakers, no matter our various understandings of the details of origins. How do aspects of this doctrine affect our actions, values and lifestyles today (e.g., made in the image of God, creation was "good," God being the source of life, or relationships between humans, between humans and the rest of creation, between humans and God)?

5) The science and faith conference is a 10-day event. If the church were to convene a similar gathering on Adventist peacemaking, what themes would you want covered?

The Moral Imagination

Note: I write from a North American perspective, specifically from the United States.

The questions we ask greatly determine the answers we find. Therefore, I believe Christian peacemakers need to be intentional about the questions we prioritize. Which of the following questions are productive, distracting, dangerous, or beyond our sphere of influence?

• What should the Ukrainian government do to ensure the integrity of its borders?
• What should the Iraqi government do to protect religious minorities?
• What should Hamas and Israel do to enable peace and security in the region?
• What should the US military do in Iraq and Syria to protect US interests?
• What should the US government do around the world to protect minorities and stop genocides?
• What should Christians do in situations of violence and injustice?
• How can Christians live, work and serve in ways that promote true peace?

For me, the final two questions are the most critical; however, judging from the conversations I have within my Christian social circles as well as the content that appears on my Facebook wall-feed, they are the most ignored.

I occasionally hear this comment in the context of the first five questions: We have to do something. Unfortunately, it seems that for too many of us, the military option is the only something that comes to mind.

It can be difficult to voice reservations about this option. “Don't you care?! You just want to be pious and righteous, ignoring the reality of evil injustice. You can't just talk to these tyrants; they only understand the bullet and the bomb.”

While I genuinely believe that nonviolence is a productive strategy for people of any world view or religious conviction, I will direct my thoughts here to Christians, specifically Adventists.

First, I think we need to be careful about believing too firmly in the efficacy of violence. Blowback is real. Unintended consequences are numerous. For example, the US supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, but then for various reasons it was determined that his influence in the world needed to be curtailed, so the US took him out. That left a power vacuum, allowing ISIS/IS to expand, which is today's problem. Arming one group today seems to require the arming of an opposing group tomorrow.

We also supported rebels/freedom fighters in Syria, with some calling for much more military support. “The government is killing their people; we must do something.” Now we know that IS was one of the groups in Syria that we supported; some even had a photo op with John McCain during his trip to Syria (Counter Current News). Of course McCain didn't intend to support IS, but rushing to the military option can lead to new problems such as this.

Or consider the US involvement in Afghanistan. We supported the freedom fighters against Russia. But then the winners built a nation we didn't like; so we had to go against the ones we had armed. The cycle of violence—the repeated reality that military intervention creates tomorrow's conflicts—should make a person pause, regardless of whether or not they claim to follow the way of Jesus Christ. That is, setting Christian ethics and values aside, this historical pattern should seemingly diminish our confidence in the effectiveness of military intervention for creating the future we desire (For more on this see chapter one of Subverting Global Myths, Ramachandra, 2008; yes, a bit dated. There are many more examples both current and historical.).

Second, I think we need to take more seriously the injustice-violence cycle. I once came across a statement by Quakers that essentially said, “Don't ask us to engage in a violent solution to the Nazi problem when you ignored our counsel all along that the Versailles Treaty was bound to foster such problems.” Similarly, throughout the “War on Terror,” some of us have argued that US actions—drone strikes, indefinite detention in Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, to name a few—act to make recruitment efforts by terrorist organizations all the more effective. Peace activists are not surprised by IS and other radicalized movements; we have been warning about the possibility all along. Naturally, it is not only the acts of the US military that incubate movements like IS; governments in the Middle East are quite capable of stoking it as well. Acts of injustice today—regardless of the actor—create conditions for violence tomorrow.

Third, I think far too many people have failed to develop what John Paul Lederach calls the moral imagination (see The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace, 2005). And here I now speak directly to those who desire to follow Jesus in the real world—this messy, violent, unjust world.

If we can't imagine a response other than military action, then that is the only something we'll advocate for in the public space or work for in our sphere of influence. So I ask: What else can Christians do to limit violence and promote a just peace? I believe that any action that supports justice today makes peace possible tomorrow. “If you want peace, work for justice.” There are countless ways to support justice in the world; let your imagination run wild!

Here are some questions to spark your imagination:

If I would go to the Middle East to fight violently for justice, would I go and work nonviolently with a development and relief agency? Consider MCC (positions, story).

If I would advocate for America's youth to go fight in the Middle East, would I also advocate for Adventist youth to go on a delegation there with Christian Peacemaker Teams?

If I would advocate for American tax dollars to go for military operations, would I also advocate for church finances to support peace and justice ministries and projects?

Do I consider the promotion of peace and justice to be the business of government but not the business of the church? If so, what assumptions is this division based on?

What injustice is some entity in my circle of influence perpetrating or experiencing today? How can I work to promote justice in this area today in order to prevent violence tomorrow?

One significant struggle peacemakers face is the call for instant results. We need to stop the Syrian war now. We have to end the Ukrainian conflict now. We must stop Hamas and Israel from bombing each other now. Somebody has to stop IS now. Because military intervention is perceived as the only effective short-term approach, we too easily ignore the need for longer-term approaches that deal with the roots of the problems. As soon as Country X is “solved,” we must immediately stop the violence in Country Y with another “humanitarian intervention.” We follow the media, jumping from headline to headline, from conflict to conflict—solve each one now (and “my party would never have let it get this bad in the first place”). As Christians, maybe we can find a way to slow down and look at the longer game. Kevin Courtney, who founded Preemptive Love while living in Iraq, shares this conviction:

We need a long-term plan, not just a short-term fix. There are agencies helping Christians, Yezidis, Turkmen, Shabak and others, and those services are necessary. But this isn't only about what Obama or Maliki must do now. The Christian church needs to reconsider its relationship with violence; that is part of what has landed us and others in this dire situation. We cannot carp about Christian persecution and not talk about violence and our use of violent solutions. We need a 40- to 50-year plan so that when the time comes to overthrow the next dictator, we are not as blind to our own complicity and stuck with short-term gains. (Huffington Post, 11 Aug 2014)

The questions we ask greatly determine the answers we find, so I encourage Adventist peacemakers to start with the question, What can I uniquely do as a disciple of Jesus? Jesus isn't caught off guard by these violent developments. He said the love of most would grow cold and that there would be wars and rumors of wars. Peace organizations can't stop all war, but wars don't end war either. Only Jesus' return will do that. But here in the midst of great suffering and evil, Jesus blessed the peacemakers and taught many lessons on peacemaking if we have ears to hear them. The world knows how to use its weapons; do we know how to use the tools of the Spirit? What questions am I prioritizing?

A few articles to nurture the moral imagination:

• What Can Christians Do About Iraq? (Raushenbush, Huffington Post, 8 Aug 2014)
• Is There a Nonviolent Response to ISIS? (Flood, Sojourners, 13 Aug 2014)
• Seeking the Peace of Christ: Christianity and Peacemaking (Roberts, Patheos, 2010)
• Fr. John Dear, Dismissed from Jesuits (Sweas, Religion Dispatches, 6 Mar 2014)

We Are Our Communication: Violence, ISIS, and Adventist Peace Witness

By Barry Casey

"Every part of a system is so related to its fellow parts that a change in one part will cause a change in all of them and in the total system. That is, a system behaves not as a simple composite of independent elements, but coherently and as an inseparable whole."

These dispassionate words may not come to mind when we see the shelling in Gaza or watch in horror the videos of what the Islamic State is doing to Christians in Mosul. But they give us a way to deal with these extremes and to understand them.

The quote is from Pragmatics of Human Communication (1967) by Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin, and Don Jackson, who were three of the principal researchers at the Mental Research Institute of Palo Alto in the late 60s and early 70s. The pioneering work that they did, trying to understand the connections between communication and human behavior, was an interdisciplinary venture that spanned psychopathology, mathematics, literature, systems theory, and communication studies. They wanted to know how communication as an interactional process affected our behavior.

Starting from the axiom that "all behavior is communication and one cannot not communicate," they arrived at the conclusion that everything we do when we communicate with each other affects all our communication processes and cannot be separated out. Put simply, to say that the actions of person A causes the behavior of person B ignores the relation of B to A and the effect B may have on A's subsequent reactions.

Like it or not, they seem to be saying, we're all in this together. Every time Hamas fires a rocket at an Israeli settlement it is communicating; with the inevitable reciprocation on Gazan villages there is a deadly communication process in place that becomes a feedback loop. Every action results in a reaction which provokes a new action ad infinitum.

Furthermore, if we isolate an action in order to find its cause—and thus to blame—we miss the wider context in which that action takes place. We discover that actions happen in a context and that that context occurs within a relationship between people and groups. Focusing on the particular actions and not on the relationship between the parts of this system results in us missing the meaning of the actions that take place.

An example given by the authors is the difference between my foot kicking a stone and me kicking a dog. When my foot hits the stone it will move and eventually come to rest again. But if I kick the dog it may jump up and bite me. The kick has become not simply energy but information; my behavior has communicated something which the dog, rightfully so, interprets as an attack and responds accordingly. A kick is not just a kick within a relationship: it sends a message that grew out of the relationship prior to the kick and will affect responses to the kick.

As I read news reports of the actions of ISIS/Islamic State, watched videos, and read the comments of readers and viewers I could feel a tension building in me. I could imagine the desperation of the thousands trapped on Sinjar Mountain, the children dying from thirst and exhaustion. And I wanted to obliterate the militants surrounding them on the plains below. It wasn't enough that American pilots drop supplies to the victims: I wanted to see the bodies of those fighters after the bombs tore through them. I wanted video of them calling out for help as they bled to death.

And then a curious but inevitable thing happened. As the tension in me built the world divided up neatly into right and wrong, black and white, us and them. Crush them all! Barbarians! Stomp their lives out! So they're killing Christians and ethnic minorities? Damn Muslims!

In a flash I had gone from righteous indignation to murderous wrath, from a generalized tolerance for other religions to a Crusade mentality against all Muslims. From the particular to the general. Kill 'em all and let God sort it out later.

It got even worse when I stumbled across a website that is apparently run by Christians who believe Islam is Satanic. Their comments were raw hatred, all the visceral fear and fury of those who are absolutely certain that their enemy is the Devil and they are on the side of the angels. And these were self-confessed Christians. In the words of George Orwell's Animal Farm, I looked from pigs to men and from men to pigs, and already I could not tell the difference. And that's when I remembered Paul Watzlawick and his pragmatics of human communication.

I realized I was confronted with a moral dilemma that I couldn't face—the slaughter of the innocents. I was helpless to do anything except inwardly rail against the perpetrators. The situation was too complex for me to handle, so I simplified it. I had divided my perceptual world in two: Christians and Muslims. But of course it's much more nuanced than that. It's Sunni against Shiite, Kurdish against Iraqis, caliphate against sovereign states, America against rebel forces, economic interests against religious and political ideologies, men against women and children, hate-filled Christian extremists against fanatical Islamic jihadists.

But even that was still too simple, a binary response to something multi-faceted and entangled. I recalled something I'd read years ago by William Irwin Thompson, a cultural historian and philosopher: "We become the thing we hate," he said. And I remembered, too, how easily we are manipulated by media images, and how adept political and military groups have become at the propaganda arts. Our instant and ubiquitous media draws us all across the lines in the sand. By watching we become changed—and not for the better. All those Christian groups glued to their YouTube videos, who thought Hamas and Islamic State would be in our streets next week unless we nuked them, would be more likely to turn on their neighborhood mosque or to beat up someone wearing a hijab on the Metro.

I am not at all settled on this. I could visualize myself, with the best intentions, running out into no mans land with my hands out, imploring both sides to cease fire, and getting shot before I could make my eloquent statement. Where am I on the non-violence idea? Generally for it, from the safety of my Maryland suburb. Children in Mosul were being beheaded, said a Chaldean-American activist on CNN. Is that true? I shudder to think so, and yet my children have their heads on their shoulders in the sweet summer evening air. Am I to feel guilt because we are safe, our home has not been bombed, my wife and daughter have not been raped? Guilt of that sort doesn't seem productive and yet my heart can feel the terror and the blind rage and the sheer relief of having survived an attack, all in my imagination.

Hobbes thought the world was a place of constant terror, a life that was, as he famously put it, 'nasty, brutish, and short.' Kant was steadfast against lying and murder, for any reason, and Aristotle counseled moderation in all things. Courage and prudence were cardinal virtues that didn't need to be moderated; how could you be too courageous or too prudent? Dietrich Bonhoeffer, that Christian exemplar of integrity and ethics, said, 'When a horse is running wild in the street, you stop the horse.' There is a time for words and a time for action, he seemed to be saying. Pacifist that I am would I hesitate to shoot someone about to murder women and children? The Tao cautions that violence should be the absolute last resort, and be discharged with sorrow and not with triumph.

What is becoming clearer to me is that we are, all of us in this tortured, dark, yet beautiful world, bound to one another. The death of one—any one—impoverishes all of us. This, I am convinced, is not New Age ignorance disguised as bliss. It is, rather, part of the virtues of humility and courage that Jesus and others exemplified. We cannot not communicate. All that we are, says the Dhammapada, is a result of what we have thought. Our revolution begins from the inside—and affects the world.

Barry L. Casey 240-273-2345 (cell) darmokjilad@gmail.com Read my blog @ http://danteswoods.com