Krause: Adventism among the World Religions

GARY KRAUSE

Adventism among the World Religions

The major non-Christian world religions have made only a faint thumb
print on the mission and theological agenda of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church throughout its nearly 150-year history. But in recent years, that
thumb print has inevitably become more distinct as the Adventist Church
has grown rapidly in regions where non-Christian religions dominate.
Partly by choice, partly by force of circumstances, and partly from the
desire to work together in common causes such as religious freedom, Ad-
ventists have increasingly been drawn into dialogue with non-Christian
believers.

Other Mission Priorities

Writing in 1856, Adventist pioneer James White called for a mission-
ary spirit among church members, “not to send the gospel to the heathen;
but to extend the warning throughout the realms of corrupted Christian-
ity.” When the church’s first official overseas missionary, J. N. Andrews,
traveled to Switzerland in 1874 he echoed this priority. He saw his task
as sharing distinctive Adventist beliefs with other Christians. According
to Borge Schantz, Adventists “approved of and praised” mission to non-
Christians but saw it as a task for other churches” (Knight 2007:122).
For the first quarter of a century after 1844, Adventists had, in Richard
Schwartz’s words, “only a limited concept” of taking the Good News to
all the world. Initially the church had seen its mission field as almost
exclusively the United States (Schwarz 1979:141). The thought of a mis-
sion overseas was daunting for the “little flock” of Adventists, and Arthur
Spaulding says this early view of the mission field was a “comforting
rationalization” (Spalding 1961:193). In fact, it was not until the 1890s
that the church even sent missionaries to non-Christian lands (see Knight
2007:124-128).
However, it did not take long before Seventh-day Adventist mis-
sionaries were crisscrossing the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, establishing

2010, no.
Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2
2010 1
 Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 6 [2010], No. 2, Art. 9
94

congregations in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Pacific. But again, as they
reached the shores of foreign lands, they conducted their work with little
regard for reaching out to adherents of non-Christian religions. And as
Richard Schwarz suggests, “Initially Adventists had little concept of the
difficulties involved in meeting sophisticated non-Christian religions like
Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam” (Schwarz 1979:357).
Todd Johnson and Charles Tieszen point out that “tribal peoples were
the focus of Christian mission in the twentieth century,” (Johnson and
Tieszen 2007) and Adventists, too, reached out to these groups and to
Christians of other denominations. Even in recent years non-Christian re-
ligions have continued as something of a missiological blind spot among
Adventists (despite Global Mission and other initiatives), with the church
operating in many parts of the world almost as if other religions did not
exist—aiming most of its “outreach” efforts to other Christians or animists.
Throughout its history, the Adventist Church’s mission focus has been
almost totally constrained within the borders of one world religion—
Christianity. A brief survey of any Adventist Book Center reveals that al-
most all titles are written by Adventists for Adventists (or for other Chris-
tians). Almost all assume that their readers have a Christian worldview,
including a belief in the Bible. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of mem-
bership growth in the Adventist Church has come from other Christians
or from animists at the fringes of other major religions.
Soon after the Global Mission initiative to reach “unentered areas” be-
gan in 1990, then-director of Global Mission, Mike Ryan, visited a country
to conduct a planning session. After working with church leaders on the
philosophy of Global Mission, he encouraged them to work together to
lay concrete project plans. When the plans came back, Ryan saw that they
were aimed at reaching only the minority religious groups in the country,
while totally ignoring the dominant religion that made up more than 80
percent of the population.
Jon Dybdahl recalls asking some early Adventist missionaries to India
what their evangelistic approach was to Hindus. “They replied,” writes
Dybdahl, “We don’t go to Hindus. We search out Christians and give
them further light” (Dybdahl 2006:19). This was the attitude even while
Christians made up only 4 percent of India’s population at the time.

Early Adventist Views of Non-Christian Religions

A survey of early literature suggests Adventists saw few, if any, re-
deeming features in other religions. In 1898, D. A. Robinson wrote about
“the hard, cold, Christless creed of fate of the Mohammedans” and “its
blighting influence upon millions” (Robinson 1898:436). In the same year,
G. C. Tenney wrote of the “ponderous and soul-crushing establishments”

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jams/vol6/iss2/9 2
 Krause: Adventism among the World Religions
95

of “Hinduism,” “Brahmanism,” and “Mohammedanism” (1898:445).

C. P. Edwards called Hindu priests “living incarnations of the character
of the evil one” (1900:458) and Carrie Stringer wrote of “the blight of hea-
thenism, Buddhism and Mohammedanism” that made people’s lives “sad
and hard” (1927:3). In 1912, J. E. Bowen described Hinduism, Buddhism,
and Shintoism as “baneful and false religions” (1912:5) and the Sabbath
School Quarterly in 1974 said that “Moslem influence on Christianity was
as deadly as the sting of a scorpion” (1974:87).
But although evangelism and conversion remained the dominant Ad-
ventist discourse about other religions, and although there were no calls
for anything like what today is called interfaith dialogue, there were oc-
casional and growing hints of the need for understanding and bridge-
building.
In 1946, the Adventist Church set up the International Religious Liber-
ty Association (IRLA) to promote religious liberty and freedom of worship
(Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia s.v. International Religious Liberty As-
sociation). Over time this organization inevitably involved leaders from
other religions in discussions and planning. World conferences of the
IRLA now feature prominent leaders from non-Christian religions. To-
day it consistently calls for greater understanding and dialogue between
world religions (Adventist News Network 2007).
As early as 1902, American Guy Dail, then recording and correspond-
ing secretary of the German Union, had written of the need for missionar-
ies to “[arrive] at a mutual understanding with our newly acquired neigh-
bor” and added that one of the “first duties” was to “recognize whatever
is good in them and in their institutions, and with some nationalities, as
the Chinese, and the educated Arabs and Hindus, it will be to our advan-
tage to have an appreciation of their literature and history” (Dail 1902:207,
208). He concluded that the missionary “must study the art of pleasing
others, of putting himself out for the sake of being agreeable and affable
to them” (1902:208).
The IRLA grew out of an earlier International Religious Liberty Associ-
ation, established in 1893, which evolved from the National Religious Lib-
erty Association, established in 1889 (Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia).

A Broadening Perspective in the 1960s

During the 1960s mainline Protestant denominations and the Roman
Catholic Church began moving toward discussions with non-Christian
religions, and during this time the term “interfaith dialogue” was coined.
For the Catholic Church, the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) was a wa-
tershed in opening up the church to the possibilities of interfaith dialogue.
Around the same period, changes in mainstream Protestant theology

2010, no.
Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2
2010 3
 Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 6 [2010], No. 2, Art. 9
96

downplayed exclusive truth claims among the churches, and prepared

them for dialogue with non-Christian religions. As William Hutchinson
writes, at this time “new initiatives in theology were gaining their clear-
est—and for traditionalists their most alarming—expressions in the con-
text of overseas missions, where questions about Christianity’s relation to
other religions could not be avoided or papered over with ambiguities”
(Hutchinson 2004:222, 223).
Although the Seventh-day Adventist Church never moved toward for-
mal interfaith dialogue during the l960s, there were significant moves to-
ward building bridges to and better understanding of non-Christian reli-
gions. The General Conference Executive Committee had voted in 1956 to
start an orientation program for missionaries that would include studying
“indigenous religions and educational systems” (Minutes of the General
Conference Executive Committee 1956). This did not happen until ten
years later when the Institute of World Mission (IWM) and the Depart-
ment of World Mission were established at the Theological Seminary at
Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan.
Russell Staples, who joined the IWM as an instructor in 1971, recalls
that “the need for a more informed interaction with non-Christian world
religions was certainly a major issue” leading to these additions to the
seminary. He adds, “The establishment of the Institute of World Mission
opened the way for more direct and concentrated study regarding rela-
tionships with the world religions” (Staples 2009:e-mail to author).
In 1961, five conferences on how to better reach out to Muslims were
held in different parts of the world, led by Ralph Watts Sr., a general vice
president of the General Conference (Whitehouse 2008). As a result of
these conferences, it was voted to establish an Islamic Studies Center, with
Robert Darnell as the director. (For various reasons, this never came to
fruition.) These conferences were prefigured by a 1935 Ministerial Con-
vention in Jerusalem that organized a working group to “find ways for
approaching Islam from a Muslim point of view” (Pfeiffer 1981:86).
Darnell, field secretary in the Middle East Union, was an Adventist pi-
oneer in building bridges to Muslims. He called Muslims “our friends”—a
theme echoed by others in the church in the Middle East at this time (see
Semaan 1964:6). In 1963, Darnell wrote:

The true spirit of Christ is the spirit of love for our neighbors.
We believe that among the Christians the Muslim has no more
sincere friend than the Adventist. Adventist-Muslim friend-
ship will he a demonstrated fact when we enlarge the circle of
our love and take the Muslim in. Until then we will continue
to be an unknown unappreciated minority. (Darnell 1963:10)

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jams/vol6/iss2/9 4
 Krause: Adventism among the World Religions
97

In Tehran, Iran, Darnell pioneered a new approach to public meetings.

“The lives and sayings of the prophets were treated in typically Muslim
style and quotations were made from the Qur’an and Muslim traditions
where appropriate,” reported the Middle East Messenger. “The lecturer
spoke in an atmosphere of respect for Islam, its book and its prophet”
(Darnell 1967:7).
In 1967 at Adventist World Headquarters in Takoma Park, Maryland,
the Home Study Institute (HSI) announced a new course in comparative
religions. It involved a “careful study” of major world religions including
Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Animism. “A careful study of
world religions can provide a sympathetic understanding of other faiths,”
said HSI president D. W. Delafield (Holbrook 1967:3).
In 1966 Ernest Steed came to the General Conference to serve as World
Temperance director and executive director of the International Com-
mission for the Prevention of Alcoholism and Drug Dependency (ICPA).
Through the temperance emphasis, Steed made significant contacts with
Islamic leaders in the Middle East. In 1969 he returned from a 9-week
overseas trip and reported to the General Conference Executive Commit-
tee that there was a revival of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. “The tem-
perance work is the one cause that can find rapport with these people,” he
said (Steed 2008).
In Afghanistan Steed met with government leaders, including the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, who reportedly called him
“Brother Steed,” and said, “We are brothers; you are a Seventh-day Ad-
ventist Muslim.” In Ceylon he attended a seminar run by the Adventist
Temperance secretary. The chairman, who was president of the Buddhist
Federation of Ceylon, said. “I have learned more in the last two days about
Seventh-day Adventists than I have ever known before” (General Confer-
ence Executive Committee Minutes 1969).
Steed organized the first World Congress of the ICPA in Kabul, Af-
ghanistan in 1972, which “signaled the beginning of a significant col-
laboration between Seventh-day Adventists and the Muslim community”
(Steed 2008).
Steed took time to become conversant with the themes of the Qu’ran
and the principles of Islam. He visited Egypt on several occasions, met
with the Grand Mufti, spoke in mosques, and also was a guest speaker at
an all-Islamic Conference. Earnest Steed’s son, Lincoln, recalls that “after
his father spoke at one of these meetings, a religious leader in the audience
was offended. He angrily rose to speak. He admitted that the material was
excellent, but asked why they had to hear it from a Christian. There was
an embarrassed silence, and then the organizer of the conference said, ‘I
would like to invite Dr. Steed to become a Muslim.’ Pastor Steed paused,

2010, no.
Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2
2010 5
 Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 6 [2010], No. 2, Art. 9
98

prayed for the right words. He then turned to the organizer and said,
‘Thanks for the invitation, but I’m already a Muslim.’ The audience broke
into applause” (Steed 2009).

Philosophy of Dialogue
Despite its roots in an inter-denominational movement, the Adventist
Church has been skeptical, if not suspicious of ecumenical activities. While
the church has no officially stated opinion on ecumenism, and although
it supports many of its goals, it has steered clear of joining ecumenical
organizations and, in the words of the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia,
believes that “in the total picture the banes tend to outweigh the boons.”
But, also in the words of the encyclopedia, the Adventist Church believes
that “the ecumenical movement has promoted kinder interchurch rela-
tions with more dialogue and less diatribe and helped remove unfounded
prejudices” (Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, s.v. ecumenism).
The Adventist Church has moved with even greater caution in the area
of the interfaith movement with other world religions. Would an updated
version of the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia include the statement:
“The Interfaith movement has promoted kinder interfaith relations with
other religions, with more dialogue and less diatribe and helped remove
unfounded prejudices”? Perhaps it would.
Angel Rodriguez, director of the Biblical Research Institute at the Gen-
eral Conference writes that “despite the potential dangers,” dialogue with
other Christians also has “potential benefits.” He adds, “Therefore we
should not discourage, formally or informally, approaching other Chris-
tians and even non-Christian religions” (2003:8, 9). John Graz, director of
the General Conference Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Association,
says that “[interfaith dialogues] are indispensable if we are to develop
understanding, good will, and peace” (2008:101).
In January of 2007, William Johnsson, retired editor of the Adventist
Review, was appointed as a part-time special assistant to the General Con-
ference president for Interfaith Relations. He was assigned to help arrange
dialogues with “non-Christian entities,” help select topics and presenters,
and serve as co-chair with a representative from another entity (Minutes
of the General Conference Administrative Committee 2007).
Later that year, Johnsson wrote that Adventists should “seek to engage
leaders of Islam in conversation.” He added: “The reality is that both their
religion and ours occupy the same territory, since we are world religions.
We should seek to know them better and help them to know what we be-
lieve and stand for” (Johnsson 2007:10).
As a sidebar to Johnsson’s article in Adventist World, General Confer-
ence president Jan Paulsen wrote: “What then are the values that should

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jams/vol6/iss2/9 6
 Krause: Adventism among the World Religions
99

mark our relationships with those who do not share our faith? Respect,
sensitivity, and a desire to move beyond caricatures toward mutual un-
derstanding—let this be our goal as we continue to engage in the mission
that has been entrusted to us” (2007:8).
Rodriguez adds: “Only the truth is most effective in dealing with oth-
ers. False stereotypes and the lack of correct information weaken witness.
It is precisely the purpose of the conversation to create an environment in
which we are willing to listen to each other in a Christian spirit of love and
cordiality” (2007:28).
Wesley Ariarajah, professor of Ecumenical Theology at Drew Univer-
sity, suggests three main approaches to interfaith dialogue, where each
faith tradition:
1. Learns about each other in a respectful milieu, but also gives an “au-
thentic witness” to its own faith.
2. “Is challenged and transformed by the encounter with others.”
3. Is in a “common pilgrimage towards the truth,” and “shares with the
others the way it has come to perceive and respond to that truth” (Ari-
arajah 2002).
The current approach of the Seventh-day Adventist Church fits most
easily the first category, although it is hard to imagine honestly engag-
ing in this type of dialogue without being “challenged and transformed”
(category 2), to some degree. The third category, where participants sit
around the table as theological equals, with no witnessing agenda, com-
paring notes—and totally open to change—seems incompatible with the
traditional Adventist mission agenda.
Of course any type of interfaith dialogue has its critics—from both
the liberal and conservative perspective. Sam Harris, author of The End of
Faith, and popular apologist for atheism, calls interfaith dialogue “a strat-
egy of politeness and denial.” He adds, “If there is common ground to be
found through interfaith dialogue, it will only be found by people who are
willing to keep their eyes averted from the chasm that divides their faith
from all others” (Harris 2006).
Ironically some Adventists share Narris’s skepticism, for similar rea-
sons, seeing dialogue as a compromise, a sell-out, a denial of the church’s
distinctive and unique message. But dialogue need not be this. As reli-
gious studies professor Paul Mojzes writes, “The Church cannot change
into a society for interreligious dialogue enterprise. If the Church holds
no distinct, worthwhile message and cause, it need not bother enter into
dialogue, because it will have nothing to give in the give-and-take of dia-
logue” (Mojes & Swidler).
Mojzes quotes the Czech Marxist philosopher, Milan Machovec, who
once wrote that he was not interested in dialoguing with a Christian who

2010, no.
Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2
2010 7
 Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 6 [2010], No. 2, Art. 9
100

had no desire to convert him, “with one who holds that the Christian
truths have only subjective and thus limited validity, a mere personal
preference” (Mojes & Swidler). He wanted to dialogue with Christians
who believed that their message had universal applicability.
Within the Adventist Church the Trans-European Division of the Sev-
enth-day Adventist Church adopted in 2007 an official Statement on Is-
lam, designed to foster good relations between the Adventist Church and
Muslims.

Global Mission Study Centers

The Global Mission initiative, voted by the General Conference Execu-
tive Committee in 1990, provided a mandate for engaging with people
of other religious traditions. Instead of focusing just on the “to every na-
tion” part of Rev 14:7, it also emphasized “every nation, tribe, language,
and people.” The emphasis was still on evangelism, but it provided space
for establishing study centers to look at ways of building more effective
bridges to other religions. Centers for Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and
Hinduism have been established, and all except the Hindu Center have
been heavily involved in interfaith dialogue.

Buddhism
According to William Hutchinson, formal religious discussions be-
tween Christians and Buddhists did not really start until the l980s
(2004:189). The Adventist Church was not far behind when in 1992 the Far
Eastern Division, supported by Global Mission, asked Clifton Maberly to
establish a Buddhist Study Center (information in this section is from e-
mails sent by Clifton Maberly, February 2009).
At first Maberly was hesitant. “My first thought was that we didn’t
know enough about Buddhism to begin authentically,” he says. “Yes, we
had Buddhists in Thailand who had become Adventists, even Buddhist
monks who were now pastors, but as far as I knew, no one had built bridg-
es between the two disparate worlds,” he adds. “I was sure none of us
knew who we were speaking to or what we had to say that was relevant.”
Maberly knew exactly where he wanted to establish the center, near the
Mahachulalongkomrajavidyalaya University (MCU), the largest public
Buddhist university in Thailand, with more than 10,000 monks enrolled.
Maberly made an appointmcnt to see the head Buddhist monk for
Bangkok, the highest ranking member of the Sangha (the society of Bud-
dhist monks) for Bangkok, and also the abbot of the Mahathat Temple.
He explained to the monk that he was setting up a study center to explore
the similarities and differences between Adventism and Buddhism. And
asked for the monk’s blessing and suggestions.

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jams/vol6/iss2/9 8
 Krause: Adventism among the World Religions
101

The monk supported the venture, and suggested a place near the uni-
versity would best allow for getting to know each other properly and al-
low for good interaction. Maberly found a place at nominal rent, on temple
property, 30 meters from the main entrance to one of the most important
Buddhist universities in the world. He then met with the chancellor of the
university, a leading Buddhist scholar. The scholar was impressed with
the project and encouraged university lecturers to assign their students to
visit the center and do comparative studies under Maberly’s supervision.
Maberly asked the chancellor how he would react if one of the graduate
monks became a Christian through the process. “He said he trusted that
we would never try to stack the cards in our favour when presenting our
ideas and beliefs,” says Maberly, “and that if a monk became convinced
that Christianity had better answers than he already had, he would hope
he would convert—it would be the only intellectually honest thing to do.”
Maberly set about establishing the center with room to study, debate,
and dialogue. He began working on a library and set up a computer lab.
Soon 20 to 60 monks were visiting the center—named the Centre for the
Study of Religion and Culture—each day. He encouraged university groups
to use the center as their place of meeting, and various associations of
monks began meeting regularly there.
Maberly found that monks were happy to critique materials the center
prepared and distributed to church workers to use. He and Siroj Sora-
jakool had re-written the 27 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church in language designed to “express the meaning of the
document in appropriate Thai.” He gave it to five Buddhist scholars at
the university—the teachers of the monks who came to the center. Within
a few days he discovered that none of them had been able to get past the
first eight or nine statements. “The statements didn’t make any sense to
them at all,” says Maberly. “They had so many questions for clarification
that it seemed futile to go on. By the time I had heard all their questions I
also ran out of steam, and put the document aside as a flawed document
for them.”
“I soon learned that we learned the most if we assumed monks were
our colleagues,” says Maberly. “When we exchanged notes as fellow-
shepherds—fellow pastors—we got a measure of each other. We spent
hours talking through the challenge of caring for congregations. I was
even asked for tips on preaching—on homiletic skills needed to keep the
attention and convict the listeners. I became confident to talk to Buddhist
monks anywhere about anything.”
It was important to Maberly to engage the monks in the center and
implement their suggestions where possible. Soon he had a group of what
he calls monk “owners” who felt this was their center.

2010, no.
Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2
2010 9
 Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 6 [2010], No. 2, Art. 9
102

Maberly also helped facilitate more formal dialogues between Bud-

dhists and Christians. “We assisted people of all levels of experience want-
ing to be able to talk with a real Buddhist or a real Christian in a safe
place,” he says. “We set them up, advised them how to go about it, and
sometimes debriefed them afterwards. I was astounded that so few could
carry on a meaningful dialogue. I had to do more damage control with
Buddhists than Christians. The triumphalist arrogance of Christians was
hard for Buddhists to bear.”
In 2002 Scott Griswold was appointed director of the center. Griswold
came with experience as a church pastor and as an Adventist Frontier
Missions missionary in Cambodia, working among the Buddhists in that
country for six years. Although not denying the importance of dialogue,
he has not continued Maberly’s more formal attempts to connect with
Buddhist leaders but has instead emphasized a spiritual ministry to Bud-
dhists. “Dialogue’s intention should be two-fold, focusing on common-
ality and recognizing differences,” Griswold says, and “actually sharing
with them in a helpful manner so they can see what we truly teach and its
great value for them” (Griswold 2009: e-mail to author).

Islam
On July 1, 1989 the General Conference established the Global Center
for Islamic Studies at Newbold College in England, with Borge Schantz as
director. It was the first tangible result of the Global Strategy discussions
that had begun at the General Conference Annual Council in 1986, and
which culminated in Global Mission being voted at the General Confer-
ence session in l990 (Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, s.v. Global Mis-
sion). Schantz promoted a strongly evangelistic approach for the center,
and in 1995 reported that during his time as director, the center published
“14 different models for Muslim evangelism” (Schantz 1995:28).
The same year Jerald Whitehouse was appointed director, and he
renamed the center The Global Center for Adventist Muslim Relations
(GCAMR), reflecting his priority on dialogue and building bridges to
Muslims within their own socio-religious culture.
Whitehouse says that he accepted the position on the assurance from
General Conference leaders that the church would support experiments
with new methods, and its success would be judged on numbers of min-
istries not baptisms. “The focus was to see ministries established whether
successful or not so that we could begin to learn how to relate effectively
with Muslims” (Whitehouse 2008).
In February 2003, GCAMR participated in a “Building Bridges Confer-
ence” sponsored by the Trans-European Division. Since then the center
has been involved in many dialogues, including personal meetings with

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jams/vol6/iss2/9 10
 Krause: Adventism among the World Religions
103

Muslim leaders, a dialogue with Sharia Muslims in England (2006), the

“Yale Common Word Conference” (2008), interfaith conferences in Doha,
Qatar (2006, 2007, and 2008) and a dialogue at Mindanao State University
in the Philippines (2008).
In Mindanao, Whitehouse and then-Adventist Mission coordinator
for the Southern Asia-Pacific Division, Rick McEdward, joined fifteen
Seventh-day Adventist leaders and scholars and fifteen leading Muslim
scholars for a two-day conference at King Faisal Center for Islamic Studies
at Mindanao Sate University.
An influential Adventist faculty member at the university had ap-
proached McEdward and said, “Pastor we need to do something here,
they respect us but they don’t know us.” She made the initial arrange-
ments, and then invited GCAMR to care for the dialogue.
At the conclusion of the dialogue, the Muslim scholars said that accord-
ing to the Qu’ran, Christian groups are more similar to Muslims than any
other group. But, they added, Adventists were the only ones they could
relate to. They also said that if any tension ever arose between Muslims
and Adventists over any issue, they would he happy to act as mediators to
diffuse the problem (McEdward February 9, 2009: e-mail to author).

Judaism
Adventism finds Judaism perhaps the most natural candidate for inter-
faith dialogue. In the 1930s, the North American Division began publish-
ing Shabbat Shalom,which aims to “promote a climate of respect, under-
standing and sharing between Jewish and Christian communities” and
calls itself “The Journal of Jewish-Christian Reconciliation.”
The World Jewish Adventist Friendship Center aims at “fostering mu-
tual respect, dialogue, understanding, education, and research” between
Jews and Adventists, and is conscious of the “unique opportunity to gen-
erate interfaith dialogue at the highest levels.” Richard Elofer, appointed
director of the center in 2000, has been an ambassador for increasing di-
alogue between Adventists and Jews. He organized an “Adventist Jew-
ish Friendship Conference” in Jerusalem in February 2006. This six-day
conference aimed at “building bridges” between Adventists and Jews,
and featured both Adventist and Jewish presenters. Wherever he travels,
Elofer tries to set up personal meetings with Jewish leaders. He has also
helped foster a network of Beth B’nei Tzion congregations (Jewish-Adven-
tist congregations), all of which rank dialogue with Jews as one of their
major goals.

2010, no.
Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2
2010 11
 Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 6 [2010], No. 2, Art. 9
104

Other Formal and Informal Dialogue

As the church has grown in the area of the 10/40 Window, and as mi-
gration has brought adherents of non-Christian religions to America and
other areas where the Adventist Church is strong, growth in interfaith in-
teraction, whether planned or unplanned, official or unofficial, was inevi-
table. These can range from the Adventist-Muslim Relations Coordinator
of the North American Division speaking at interfaith dialogue dinners to
Adventists in suburban Australia to talking to Muslim neighbors over the
back fence; from formal visits to the General Conference by non-Christian
religious leaders to formal debates between Adventists and Muslims in
Indonesia.
Some dialogues occur at the institutional level with cooperation be-
tween various Adventist organizations, such as the “Our Father Abra-
ham” Conference held at Andrews University in March 2006. Sponsored
by the International Religious Liberty Association, the Seventh-day Ad-
ventist Theological Seminary, and Shabbat Shalom, the conference brought
together Muslim, Jewish, and Adventist scholars for a better understand-
ing of each religion.
Other meetings appear to just “fall into place,” but without consul-
tation with other areas of the church that are also involved in interfaith
dialogue. For example, in November 2008, a consultation entitled “Sab-
bath in Text, Tradition, and Theology” involving Adventists, and other
Christian and Jewish scholars began in Boston. Co-chair Tom Shepherd,
an Adventist theologian from Andrews University, says the goal of the
conversation is “to foster an open and rewarding dialogue between Jews
and Christians on this important religious institution” (Sheperd 2009:10).
However, Richard Elofer, William Johnsson, and John Graz were unaware
of the consultation until after the event.
A controversial example of unofficial Adventist interfaith dialogue is
a project in Manhattan, New York, established and run by Samir Selma-
novic, a Seventh-day Adventist pastor and a leading voice in the Emer-
gent Church movement in the United States (information in this section is
from e-mails sent by Samir Selmanovic to the author on February 6, 2009).
Faith House Manhattan describes itself as “an inter-dependent” commu-
nity that honors and learns from “the teachings, practices, sufferings, and
joys of people from different faiths.” “Faith House will seek to bring pro-
gressive Jews, Christians, Muslims, and sojourners of no faith to become
an interfaith community for the good of the world.”
Principle number 9 of the 10 principles that guide the project states:
“We do not believe in proselytizing: we believe in personal choice and
transformation.” Selmanovic explains that “proselytizing is primarily an
effort to change one’s loyalties to religion (and even using God to do so),”

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jams/vol6/iss2/9 12
 Krause: Adventism among the World Religions
105

and that this is “a sort of religious colonialism or personal manipulation.”

Instead, what Faith House advocates is transformation. “Conversion and
transformation are . . . natural outgrowths of people’s spiritual growth
and when these include conversion that is to be celebrated.”
Selmanovic advocates a two-way street in interacting with people of
other religious faiths. “If we want them to attend our events, we must at-
tend their events,” he writes. “If we want them to be spiritually open to us,
we must be spiritually open to them. If we want them to change, we must
be ready to change. If we want them to read our Scriptures with trust and
respect, we must read their Scriptures likewise. We are interdependent”
(Selmanovic 2009).
Oscar Oscindo, who has been an Adventist pastor for fifteen years, and
Ahi al Kitaab International have been conducting mujadalas (interfaith dia-
logues) with Muslims in East Africa. These have mostly taken the form of
public debates, conducted with respect and friendship.
The Hope Channel recorded a recent event in Mombasa, Kenya for
possible later satellite broadcast, and the dialogue was broadcast live
for two days on the local Muslim FM Radio station that covers the Coast
Province of Kenya up into Tanzania. It resulted in some misunderstand-
ings and tensions in the local community, but Osindo says they were re-
solved. “Our relations with Muslims have been renewed and enhanced.”
says Osindo. “I spent two days after the dialogue meeting with diverse
key Muslim leaders in the region. We agreed to diversify our cooperation
in other areas such as community development, youth, education, and
anti-drug abuse campaign among others” (Osindo 2009: e-mail to author).

Conclusion
Twenty years ago sociologist Robert Wuthnow pointed to a “declining
monopoly of specific religious traditions over the enactment of religious
convictions” (1988:301). Today in the West, Christian denominationalism
is becoming less important, there is a growing suspicion of specific truth
claims by any organization, and accepting all religious beliefs as equally
legitimate is elevated to a virtue.
The dominant discourse about religion in the democratized world is
pluralistic, and it is tolerant. In such an environment the words conver-
sion, proselytizing, and missionary become dirty words—subverting the
dominant discourse—while words such as co-existing, mutual respect,
and working together fit comfortably.
The historical approach of the Adventist Church to its mission does
not fit comfortably with this discourse. While respecting the adherents of
other religions and championing religious freedom, Adventism has his-
torically been concerned with discovering God’s truth, and sharing that
truth with others.

2010, no.
Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2
2010 13
 Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 6 [2010], No. 2, Art. 9
106

George Knight says the belief that it has a distinctive end-time message
has “dominated Adventism for more than a century.” And its conviction
that Jesus will not come until the world has heard the Three Angels’ Mes-
sages “has undergirded and pushed forward the Adventist impetus for
world mission” and left it with no choice but to evangelize in every nation
(Knight 2007:110, 111).
Of course within Adventism there are a growing number of other voic-
es suspicious of this traditional view, and more in harmony with the dom-
inant discourse. Reinder Bruinsma writes, “Clearly, for a growing number
of Adventist believers in the West the metanarrative of Adventism as a
worldwide, divinely ordained movement, united by one theology and one
organizational model, with uniform programs and resources, has outlived
its sell-by date” (2005:19).
Loma Linda University Religion professor Siroj Sorajjakool argues that
God’s revelation is not limited to the Bible and “God has been revealing
himself from the beginning of time in every part of this world.” He adds:
“When love incarnates in our lives, we may finally realize that our cate-
gorical thinking, the division between superiority and inferiority, true and
false, right and wrong, better and worse, which we so desperately seek
for religious self-affirmation, no longer exists because love transcends all
these categories” (Sorajjakool 2004).
The tension between the traditional, dominant discourse of taking Ad-
ventist truth to all the world and those calling for a greater acknowledg-
ment of what God has already been doing in the world may ultimately
prove a healthy one for the church and its mission. The danger on the
one hand is that we are exclusively preachers of the Word, deaf to the
echoes of truth in other religions, unable to contextualize our message,
and unmindful of how God has put “eternity in the hearts” of people un-
acquainted with Jesus or the Bible. The danger on the other hand is that
we lose any sense of a distinctive witness or prophetic calling, and see
our role as merely helping enhance or supplement the experience of non-
Christian believers.
Some within the Adventist Church are also suggesting that its role in
dialogue and mission is more effectively conducted from the position of a
separate religion, a remnant movement outside the boundaries of Chris-
tian denominationalism. They point to distinctive features of Adventism
that distance it from Protestantism and Catholicism, and argue that un-
shackled from Christian denominational baggage, Adventism would be
in much better shape to build bridges with other religions.
Despite the attractions in such an approach, the church should not
rush too quickly to dismiss completely the soil in which it has grown.
Adventist mission is built on the biblical mandate to preach Jesus Christ,

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jams/vol6/iss2/9 14
 Krause: Adventism among the World Religions
107

the prophetic voice of Ellen White that helped shape Adventism as a re-
formist Protestant movement, and a rich heritage of centuries of Christian
theology and mission that has stood the test of time. Adventism should
distance itself from theological aberrations and heresies in other Chris-
tian churches, it must continue to be reformist, and it should he stripped
of “caste and country,” but we should step cautiously before stripping it
totally of its Christian cloak.
As official interfaith dialogue grows stronger, it is ironic that Christians
appear to be totally ignoring their non-Christian neighbors. Research by
Todd Johnson and Charles Tieszen suggests that Christians are hopelessly
and inexcusably out of touch with non-Christians in their communities
(2007). They found, for example that in North America only 35.6 percent
of Buddhists, 22.7 percent of Hindus, and 67.8 percent of Muslims say
they know even one Christian. They conclude that around the world, 86
percent of Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslim do not personally know even
one Christian. In Europe only 31.8 percent of Buddhists, 57.6 percent of
Hindus, and 18.5 percent of Muslims say they know at least one Christian.
The time is more than ripe for the Adventist Church and its members
to broaden their horizons to engage non-Christian believers in a serious,
open, meaningful, and Christ-like way. Since the church was founded in
1863, we have done a lot of talking, preaching, writing, and broadcast-
ing—at people from various religious traditions. But have we also listened
and learned? Have we worked to understand? And have we shown genu-
ine care like we should?
In 2003, Malcolm Bull wrote, “If growth continues at the same rate in
the next century. Seventh-day Adventism will become America’s single
most important contribution to world religion” (279). Now is the time to
rise to that high responsibility.

Works Cited
Adult Sabbath-School Lesson Quarterly. 1974. Trumpets of War. Hagerstown,
MD: Review and Herald, 80-87.
Adventist News Network. 2007. Religious liberty experts call for increased un-
derstanding among faith groups. http://news.adventist.org/2007/09/religious-
liberty-experts-call-for-icrease-uerstaig-amog-faith-groups.html (accessed 17
June 2010).
Ariarajah, Wesley. 2002. Dialogue, Interfaith. In Dictionary of the Ecumenical Move-
ment. Grand Rapids, MI: World Council of Churches and Eerdmans.
Bowen, J. F. 1912. The Nature of Man. Adult Sabbath-School Lesson Quarterly (April):
3-5.
Bruinsina, Reinder. 2005. Modern versus Postmodern Adventism: The Ultimate
Divide? Ministry (June): 16-21.

2010, no.
Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2
2010 15
 Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 6 [2010], No. 2, Art. 9
108

Bull, Malcolm. 2003. Seventh-day Adventism. In Religion and American Cultures: An

Encyclopedia of Traditions, Diversity and Popular Expressions, ed. Gary Laderman
and Luis Leon, 1:277-279. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Dail, G. 1902. The Power of Adaptability. The Missionary Magazine 14, no. 5:207,
208.
DarnelI, Robert. 1963. Adventist-Muslim Friendship. Middle East Messenger, Sep-
tember-October, 10.
Darnell, Robert. 1967. Elder Darnell Changes Approach in Tehran. Middle East
Messenger, March-April, 7.
Dybdahl, Jon L. 2006. Doing Theology in Mission. Part 2. Ministry 79, no. 1:19-22.
Edwards, G. P. 1900. Notes on India. The Missionary Magazine 12, no. 10:455-458.
Graz, John. 2008. Issues of Faith & Freedom. Silver Spring, MD: Public Affairs and
Religious Liberty Department.
Harris, Sam. 2006. Faith Won’t Heal a Divided World. http://newsweek.wash-
ingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2006/11/faith_and_an_undivided_world
.html (accessed 5 February 2009).
Holbrook, D. W. 1967. A New Course in Comparative Religions by Home Study.
Ear East Division Outlook, July, 3.
Hutchinson, William R. 2004. Religious Pluralism in America: The Contentious History
of a Founding Ideal. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Johnson, Todd M., and Charles L. Tieszen. 2007. Personal Contact: The sine qua
non of Twenty-first Century Christian Mission. Evangelical Mission Quarterly
43, no. 4:494-501.
Johnsson, William. 2007. Children of Abraham: How Should Adventists Relate to
Muslims. Adventist World, November, 10.
Knight, George. 2007. If I Were the Devil: Seeing Through the Enemy‘s Smoke Screen.
Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.
Minutes of the General Conference Administrative Committee. 2007. Silver Spring,
MD. January 2.
Minutes of the Genera Conference Executive Committee. 1956. Annual Council.
Silver Spring, MD. October 24.
Minutes of the General Conference Executive Committee. 1969. Silver Spring,
MD.(November 9).
Mojes, P., and L. Swidler. 1990. The Problem: Mission and/or Dialogue? Foreword
to Christian Mission and Interreligious Dialog. http://www.interfaithdialog
.org/reading-room/the-problem-mission-and-or-dialogue.html (accessed 18
June 2010).
Paulsen, Jan. 2007. Beyond Stereotypes. Adventist World, November 8.
Pfeiffer, Baldur, ed. 1981. The European Seventh-day Adventist Mission in the Middle
east 1879-1939. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Robinson, D. A. 1898. What We Owe to India. The Missionary Magazine 10, no. 2:
436.
Rodriguez, Angel M. 2007. Adventists and Ecumenical Conversation. Ministry 75,
no. 12:5-9, 28.
Schantz, Borge. 1995. Muddling Along or Making Models? Goodbye after Six
Years. Adventist-Muslim Review, Spring, 28.

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jams/vol6/iss2/9 16
 Krause: Adventism among the World Religions
109

Schwarz, R.W. 1979. Light Bearers to the Remnant: Denominational History Textbook
for Seventh-day Adventist College Classes. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press.
Selmanovic, Samir. Answering Christian Critics of Faith House (Part I) Cherish-
ing the Gold of the Golden Rule. www.faithhousemanhattan.com (accessed
17 June 2010).
Semaan, Jabbour S. 1964. Call of a Living Conscience. Middle East Messenger,
March-April, 6.
Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. 2002. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald.
Shepherd, Tom. 2009. Adventists Take Leading Role at Inaugural Meeting of New
SBL Consultation. Reflections: The BRI Newsletter, no. 25, January, 10.
Sorajjakool, Siroj. 2004. History of Revelation: A Pluralistic Approach to Christol-
ogy and Mission. Spectrum online, July.
Spalding, Arthur Whitefield. 1962. Origin and History of Seventh-day Adventists. Vol.
2. Washington, DC: Review and Herald.
Steed, Ernest. 2008. Quoted in Allan Handysides and Peter Landless, The Seventh-
day Adventist Philosophy of Health and Healing. Unpublished manuscript.
Steed, Lincoln. 2009. Conversation with the author. Silver Spring, MD, February
12.
Stringer, Carrie L. 1927. The Last Great Day of 1927. Field Tidings 19, no. 50:3.
Tenney, G. C. 1898. India Socially. The Missionary Magazine 10, no. 12:443-445.
Whitehouse, Jerald. 2008. Defending the Right of Muslims to Hear, Accept, and
Practice the Gospel Message in Context, Part 1. Paper presented to the Islamic
Study Committee, Silver Spring, MD, June 16, 17.
Wuthnow, Robert. 1988. The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith
Since World War II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gary Krause is director of the Office of Adven-

tist Mission at the General Conference (see www
.AdventistMission.org). This office has the twin
tasks of caring for the church’s Global Mission
initiative, as well as sharing with church members
how their mission offerings are changing lives
around the world. He is married to his best friend,
Bettina, and they have a beautiful 4 1/2-year-old
daughter, Bethany.

2010, no.
Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2
2010 17