PRESS CONFERENCE - JAN PAULSEN

OCTOBER 10, 2002

Executive Dining Room, General Conference

Welcome to you all. I am delighted to see you and delighted to meet you here. As you know, maybe this will become a somewhat regular event. Most of you I meet on a very regular basis here in the house, but there are two or three of you whom I do not see very often.

Annual Council by its very nature is set up to deal with both the business of the church, that has many, many facets to it, and also the finance of the church. We deal with finances and policies. They tend historically to be two of the big items that bring world leadership together. Leadership from around the world come for Annual Council, and very important decisions regarding the finances of the church are taken here. These are agreed upon, as are the policies that give guidance to our decision-making machinery for various parts of the world. But we have also made a very deliberate effort to make sure that we set aside quality time inside the considerations of Annual Council to look at the matters that are central to the mission of the church. Therefore you will have noticed that we have spent a number of hours about strategic values or core values issues that we feel are good for the church to look after. We have taken time to talk about specific initiatives in mission, such as yesterday when we talked about Sow 1 Billion, which, in some ways, is larger than what we can probably envisage, and also today when we received the report from Evangelism and Witness. Again, focusing the attention of leadership on the mission of the church. We do this because there is such a well-settled conviction with all of us that the business of the church is primarily a spiritual one--it is related to the witnessing ministry of the church and that everything we do somewhere, somehow needs to be driven by this, even when it comes to defining our policies. They make sense only in terms of what the mission of the church is.

When we make decisions about the finances, and we do this in planning for Annual Council, my colleagues and I have the opportunity to sit down and evaluate the decisions we are going to take regarding the use of finances. We ask ourselves the critical questions about whether this is important for the life of the church, for the mission of the church for the tasks before us, and if there is a better way we can do it. It is reasonable to expect that we will receive good value for these kinds of investments, so when we come to Annual Council and we sit down and together counsel, a number of these issues have been thought through and we are ready to present specific proposals to the body.

I am pleased with the way Annual Council has gone. We had a somewhat difficult time that has to do with remuneration. Is it not always difficult when we deal with remuneration?! But at the same time we arrived at some workable parameters within which we will see if we can hold together, as a church. Everyone who is employed by the church makes certain decisions with regard to sacrifice and putting to maximum use the professional skills and balance that they have. They are not necessarily, I hope, at any time asking what more they could make elsewhere, but just simply saying that this is part of the mission and they want to be part of it too. We came through that discussion and we feel we have something that is good. So there we are. I am happy to take any questions that you may have.

Q: Dr. Paulsen, you are a leader of a church that is made up of many different constituencies, but one family. Can I ask a very basic question? There are many, many activities and concerns. For you, what is your "gut" feeling? What do you want most for this church? What is the single most important feeling you have for the church?

A: It is very difficult to say one single thing. There are probably three or maybe four things that are very important for the church. It is not that any one of them is particularly acute at this time, but they are things that we need to attend to and look after as we move ahead. One is to do with the fact that we are growing so quickly. Rapid growth does produce challenges. How do we look after these people? One thing is to have people to make decisions. How do you give people an opportunity to be nurtured and to grow and to develop within the decisions, within the community of faith that they have chosen? This needs to be looked after. This is very, very important to me--working with the leadership of our church in every part of the world to find homes, churches, chapels for the communities that are in rapid growth. You can only sustain a community for so long under the palm tree--you have to provide them with something that is more permanent. They need to know and they need to feel within themselves that, "I have a home, somewhere where I belong. There is a community and there is a place that I can go to."

In addition to these particular outreaches in mission, it is very important that we as a church family around the world nurture our oneness, nurture the things which hold us together. We have very clearly defined that we are one family around the world--we are not a loose collection of regional and national churches. That has to be attended to. I have said this many times. Unity is not something that is good at taking care of itself. You have to give attention to it.

If I could mention one more thing that is important now, I would look to our institutions of higher learning. They are invaluable to us as a church. We have over 100 around the world--universities and university colleges, all critical to the life and witness of the church. It is important to me as a church administrator to keep open communication and a flow of collegiality and understanding with our institutions. I want them to feel at home within the church and, at the same time, I want the church to look to these institutions and see them as valuable partners in the life and mission of the church.

Q: This Annual Council, while itself has dealt with important matters, has taken place against a backdrop of discussion in this country about the imminent military action that most people are expecting. Tomorrow for example, 50 church leaders from this country and from the United Kingdom are going to issue a statement decrying the war and militarism that is developing. Does our church have any statement to make at this time and, in conjunction with that, if perhaps we don't or if it's just for our own members, are we ready and willing and see the necessity of restating our historic positions on non-combatency and conscientious objection?

A: We are not signatories to a particular statement that is being released today or tomorrow. I think war at any time is a terrible solution to any human problem because those who suffer most in a war situation are the ones who are least able to defend themselves. There must be a solution other than war to the tensions and to the difficulties that arise. I come from a non-combatant background. That is my conviction, that is my home, that is where I belong. It may well be that the church needs to look again at how strongly and how clearly we have stated our position on that, but I am an advocate of not taking up arms against fellow human beings.

Q: Pastor, I would like to take you back to the growth issues. It is my perception as I have spoken with various administrators from different divisions that a concern for them is that they are excited because the church is growing, but they are concerned because they feel that we don't have the infrastructure to nurture new members. How is Sow 1 Billion going to affect this? How do we find a balance between these high expectations of Sow 1 Billion and our needs here?

A: We have to keep in mind that the church is a witnessing community--that identifies us. You cannot have something that you value such as we do with our faith in Jesus Christ without becoming involved in the sharing of this faith. That lies in the dynamics of a community such as ours and I would think in any Christian community. If you have found in Jesus Christ that which gives meaning to your life and to the future, you are compelled to share. That is also the Lord's command--that the church will always be looking for opportunity to become more effective in its outreach. It lies in the nature of the church. What do we do to make sure that which we are sowing and reaping is given an opportunity to grow and mature? It is not one answer we are looking for. It is a constant activity of making sure that we attend to that. The outreach initiatives will engage the laity of the church. This is to me the wonder and the beauty of Sow 1 Million. It blows the mind how can you possibly grasp something like this, but there are so many people who have said to me that this will enable the whole church to become involved in something that is related to witness. People are saying that small regional units and blocks really are nice, but they are so limited. Now it is really something we are talking about that reaches the whole world. So we are trying to do both.

Q: Unity is a theme that you have mentioned here, as well as in your essay that was published in the Review, and it is an important principle about what we have been talking about. In light of the history of our church in which our theological understandings have evolved over time, and the observation that many of our pioneers could not accept one or more of the 27 fundamental beliefs as it sits today, do you see a time when the Holy Spirit will move the church to modify any of the current 27?

A: It is very difficult to predict the Holy Spirit. I don't think anything is close in that sense. We have all along said as a church that God's truth for us is something that we understand clearer and clearer. We study, we come to understand and the Lord leads his people along this way. How this will affect any of the stated 27 fundamental beliefs of our church is impossible to say. I believe that the Lord has led this church and is leading the church to its present understanding of scripture and in defining and presenting the 27 fundamental beliefs. How the Lord will lead the church to a state of understanding present truth 10 years from now--20 years from now--if we are still here, we will have to wait and see.

Q: In your keynote address you talked about the church becoming more involved in social issues. While we don't want to lose the essence of our mission, you were also saying that you felt that the church perhaps needs to speak more clearly and more definitively about some of these issues. What are some of the things that you see as important in that arena, and how you would feel if we might address those things that are the more important of these around the world?

A: Rather than provide you with a list of specific issues, what I would say is that it seems important to me that as a church, as church leaders, we have to remember that this is where we are today. We are sharing a secular world with all kinds of believers and non-believers. This is where we define obedience to God and that is precisely where each of us are trying to respond to God and be obedient to him where we are. And that has all kinds of everyday practical issues we are up against. In some parts of the world it is the secular society and its challenges to the Christian faith. Yes, occasionally there may be a big issue that may require a restatement from the church. But we are a global community and I have to think globally. When I go to some of the islands of the Pacific, communities in which we are a large segment of the community, the Seventh-day Adventist Church may be the largest Christian church in that particular community. The public officials and government people in the community want to know if we as a church have a stand on these things--moral direction--some sort of guidance to the community. And I have stated in those situations several times that we are not a people given to secret solutions to national tensions by the use of arms. We do not engage in activities that are destructive to society, so we are a positive factor in society. I want a community to be better because the Seventh-day Adventist people are there, and that has to do with everyday life. That has to do with the concern the community has for children and their future, education and health. So to answer it broadly, my main concern is that, as important and valuable as our spiritual values are, and faith and the future, we do not forget, even as we teach and emulate the things that belong to the everlasting kingdom, that this is where we are. We have a responsibility from God in looking after the environment, in looking after the community, in looking after the children of families who may not share our faith. We are meant to be a tool to create a better life.

Q: I would like to ask a question in regard to an article by Phil Jenkins, "The Next Christianity--Christianities New Centre." He talks about how the center of Christianity has moved to the southern hemisphere. That is where the growth truly is and he believed that that is where Christianity is going and it isn't going to come back to North America. Do you agree with that statement? How do you think this will impact us as Adventists?

A: I read the article--very, very interesting. I don't believe that a church such as our own should be imprisoned in any cultural social definition of what is happening out there. I think we as the Seventh-day Adventist Church need to ask ourselves what is it that ties this community around the world together. How can we affirm each other and contribute to the life of others and receive from their dynamics and cease to think in terms of a regional mindset? It's the regional mindset that develops these gulfs, but if we can overcome the regional thinking and be open to the fact that we have much to give and much to receive from one another, then I don't think that the definitions, however interesting they are, and I am sure accurate in very many respects, will imprison us and hold us in these confines. I think we can break them. Of course I see that the elements of Christianity described in the article recognizes that which is called "southern Christianity" has the strongest growth in Christianity. That it is a Christianity that is the most conservative and it isn't challenged in quite the same way as the Christian faith is in areas, as the article says, covered by northern Christianity. I think it simply recognizes the fact that we all live in just the places we are in and those are the realities of life just where we are. Our faith is one that affirms the supernatural. It affirms God's involvement in our lives totally.

Q: Some of the slogans that we use here and at the council, Sow 1 Million, Go One Million and Reaping God's Harvest, suggest a very aggressive form of evangelism. When these things are known outside of our community, how will people perceive them? For example, the Go One Million phrase was sighted in a recent issue from The Hindu portraying this aggressive form of Western Christianity, which is attacking traditional society in India, and we have people who are languishing in jail as a result of being involved in this. We have Global Mission Pioneers who are in jail because they are viewed as being disruptive to society by conducting these evangelistic thrusts against a majority of the community. How wise is it for us to use these very kinds of visible slogans that can easily be misunderstood?

A: The church has no choice but to be worldwide without limitation. Obedience to the Lord also means obedience in this respect. In doing so the church needs to take care so as not to come across as a hostile community failing to respect the values and the religions that prevail in the various countries that we go to. We are not destructive to the communities and to the societies, but whichever way is possible and wherever possible we will take our witness and we will share. You have to remember that many of these slogans or initiatives of programs that are agreed upon are spelled out in the way they are to capture the imagination and involvement of our own members. But we are also constantly making them sensitive to the fact that when they go out, wherever they go, that they have to show respect to their fellow human beings. We are not an aggressive invader who will simply just go in there and going about doing our task without any respect for what is there.

Q: Within the church there is a perception that there is the compassionate humanitarian wing, which we call ADRA, and then we have the "dunk-them-and-count-them" wing, which is called Global Mission. I think it is somewhat of an artificial distinction because Jesus modeled witness and ministry as wholistic, and I have witnessed many Global Mission Pioneers whose witness is humanitarian and compassionate, and not condescending to the people, but showing the love of Jesus to them. I am wondering if you could speak to this artificial distinction and what we as a church can do to foster this concept of the wholistic mission or ministry.

A: Any distinction that may be made is artificial. We are dealing with people everywhere who are complete human beings. We have all kinds of needs, including the need to be loved and understood and to be cared for, and when people suffer physically we have a responsibility as a church to go there. Christ is touched by the suffering of humanity, so Christ, through the church, through our capabilities and resources, is there to heal and to help. I accept no gulf between that and the teaching, preaching, baptizing and holding together the spiritual community. We hurt in some places and we are strong and in good health in other places. This is the whole world we are in, and the church must show itself as a caring, a healing, a proclaiming, a teaching, and a nurturing community. The church needs to be strong and open in doing these things.

Q: Following up on questions about non-combatency: We have parts in the world now where we as Adventists are a significant presence by sheer numbers and by what we have done via education. Now we have the prospect of war, where we have Adventist Americans bombing Adventist Iraqis. Can you comment in general on the changing role of the Adventist Church in politics as we have gone from being a little group trying to protect ourselves from oppression to a group that has influence whether we want to or not? How do we behave ourselves in the new political world that we can't get out of?

A: As you know, there are some countries where we are a large part of the community and we are engaged in government positions or in senior positions in the judiciary. It is a reality that is just what happens. Both the church, and maybe more the individual himself or herself, need to make decisions. "What can I do what and should I do? How can I be drawn as a person given the professional skills and training that I have, given the interest I have in politics? Where and how should I allow myself to become involved?" The basic answer to that brings you back to the basic question: "How can I as a believer be obedient to God? How can I make a creative, positive, strong influence in the society where I am living? There is not a single set of answers, but I do want to acknowledge this--I do not believe it is the way for us to go to withdraw from every public responsibility that may potentially come along the way. I think that Seventh-day Adventists need also to ask themselves, "How can I be a constructive participant in shaping the future of the community that is my most immediate world?"

Q: In your response, in that description that you gave, the individual needs to be obedient to Christ and to the teaching of scripture as he or she attempts in that community to serve. We have been talking about unity and it seems to me that part of this unity is to address the question, "To what extent does church unity mean that my identity as an American is subordinate to my identity as an Adventist?" There are decisions in government or in those arenas that have implications beyond, such as the collision of different national interests. I am an Adventist and those are Adventists--political enemies who should be religious friends. How do we put that together?

A: This is a difficult question that you ask. I am a simple person. Let me just make it as a testimony as to where I stand. I cannot compromise my faith--that is, both faith in God, in Christ, and the way in which I understand his will to be defined. I have got to be obedient there. But I am equally sure that God has an enormous concern for what is happening to society in general. And so he wants tomorrow to offer some hope and some sense of future for the children who are going to make the next generation. I have to ask myself, "How can I as a Christian, not abandoning any of that, but precisely because my roots in these are so strong and clear when I look to society with the professional skills that I have, how can I function?" This is to me an important Christian posture to take and there is no one single answer with the challenges that you come up against. I think we have a responsibility to relate to the realities of life that we meet also here.

Q: I think about how this church began and where we are today. It seems to me that against huge odds we have become a large church, with big institutions and well-known institutions and a very fast-growing church. Where are we going? Twenty to 30 years from now, what do you see? The changes have been so amazing.

A: Our family from around the world comes from children. We also have to remember the children. Other Christians count the children--they make up the family also. We are somewhere in excess of 20 million. I want to underscore that the Seventh-day identity is very uniform, very common around the world, very strong.

Q: In light of the fact that IBMTE has generated much concern on the part of academics and others at colleges and universities in North America, and in light of the fact that this was an initiative put into place by your predecessor to some degree, could you comment on your own view of the desirability of the IBMTE concept--particularly focusing on criticism that it has engendered on the part of many academics in North America?

A: The first item I want to stress is that it really was the church Annual Council, the body from around the world, that said, "Yes, it is a good idea." The fact that it was my predecessor who was in office at that time, and that I have inherited that, is probably not the most significant thing. Rather, it was a decision made by the church in counsel together. It is important to remember that this action setting up the IBMTE was in order to accomplish and to preserve a small set of very significant values--five or six of them were identified in the Annual Council action. People who have been unhappy with the IBMTE have talked with me and I have asked, "What do you find objectionable or offensive in these values?" And none have said to me that the values identifying the action are objectionable. They are not. They think they are reasonable and there is much to be said for them. My second question then is, "Is it the procedure or the process in accomplishing these that you have difficulties with?" Yes, this is where some register certain problems. I point out to them that the same action from Annual Council suggests a certain process or procedure that should be followed, and our committee that has worked further on this has developed a manual, for want of a better word, that could serve to implement this. But the action of Annual Council says that if there is a better way to accomplish the objective that is more acceptable in your particular situation, keeping in mind that the action was for the world church, each region or division is at liberty to take steps to propose another route that is more acceptable to them. If their values are good and if you have the option to take an alternative route to achieve and accomplish these values, then we have room for movement in this. I want to say this in connection with what I referred to earlier. This is to me illustrative of the fact that we need to keep a non-hostile, open, congenial communication going with our institutions of higher learning. I lived in those communities for a number of years and they are important to the church. We have some wonderful servants of the Lord and the church in our institutions of higher learning. But we need to be sure that our institutions of higher learning continue to preserve their identity with the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its mission.

Q: Earlier when you were talking about the 27 fundamentals, I believe you used the term "present truth." It resonates with me and all of us as Seventh-day Adventists, and clearly was used by E. G. White and was used as shorthand for prophetic visions. Right now again this weekend the Christian coalition drove a victory rally and I see the agenda for that as strongly driven by their perception of prophetic vision relating to Israel and America in prophecy, and so on. How do you think Seventh-day Adventists at this particular time in history should respond to this need to define ourselves more publicly in this present truth conflict? Do we need to stand up and clarify where we stand on the United States in prophecy and the Middle East? Is there a need for that or should we be quiet?

A: As a church we have spoken both generally and specifically with reference to this. You will find that in our public initiatives, in various evangelistic settings, the church has been very specific and very precise. Our understanding of prophecy has been stated very clearly. Yes--I think it is very important that we ask ourselves, "Have we said it clearly? Is it current? Is our understanding of prophecy formulated in the most helpful way, the most fairest way today?" Again, it is part of an ongoing reevaluation of oneself that has to take place and I would say there is not one answer to it. You go to South America and the issues of clarity in regard to one particular matter of prophecy are abundantly clear there, while it may not be in some other parts. So it is a regional issue in addition to the fact that we are trying to speak as clearly as possible.

Q: If you were asked what you felt were the greatest needs of our pastors--pastors who are out there in the front lines--what would you say the needs are? How can we help them as a church?

A: We as leaders need to seek every possibility to reaffirm the pastors who minister to the congregation every week--those who are given that critical assignment of feeding the flock. We need to reaffirm them in their calling. Sometimes we create an environment in which they tend to feel they are not as central or important to the life of the church as certain other categories of employees, such as those who are elected to office, such as myself. The people who have the ministry and the assignment of feeding the flock every Sabbath have a critically important assignment. I want them to know that is how I and my colleagues see them. Secondly, I think it is very, very important for those who have that role to critically ask themselves whether they are seeing and preaching the word clearly--whether their dependence and use of the Bible is the focal point in their worship. A worship service is first and foremost looking to God and worshipping God. I think the pastor needs to ask himself, "Am I truly leading the congregation to look to God and see him and worship him?" It is not a goal to be entertaining and disclose the goals that he or she has obtained from the printed press as the basis for the sermon for the day.

Q: The Remuneration Committee report was a major aspect of this Annual Council. How satisfied are you that these new policies will be effective in dragging back the institutions who have operated outside of the guidelines?

A: I am reassured that there is not a large number. There are not a large number of institutions here in North America who remunerate their personnel outside the parameters which were set up today. Some of them have already assured me that if the world church were to vote these kind of parameters that they will come into line with that. We don't begin to play games with this. We have decided where we are going to draw the line. I think it is so important that we be honest and open about what we do, and if we say this is where we are going to draw the line, let us be so transparent. This is reality and we are not doing funny things to circumnavigate the things that we have agreed on. I am very optimistic that we have both made allowance for people, and I am thinking of the large, and for a range here that goes beyond that which is available to pastors and to people such as myself who are in elective office. And I think it is right that we have done that. But at the same time we have drawn the line, which will also of them require sacrifices. If they looked outside to the community, yes, of course many of them could get a job outside that would pay more. So in answer to your specific question, yes, I am very hopeful that we will be able to bring the family together also on this point.