By Given Mutinta
THE DILEMMA OF PROPHETIC SILENCE OF THE SDA CHURCH
The Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church, like many other churches, professes adherence to biblical principles such as justice and compassion, but with a stronger emphasis on prophecy.
However, observations from certain contexts suggest a concerning disconnect between these stated ideals and the church’s actions when its own members face hardship or unjust treatment.
The story of the late Anderson Mazoka, an SDA member and significant donor to the SDA Church, reveals a perplexing pattern. Mazoka’s significant material contributions were critical to the construction and development of SDA churches.
Yet, when he fell ill, it was the Catholic Church that provided him care, while his own faith community remained distant, most likely leading him to convert to Catholicism.
This stark contrast raises questions about the church’s commitment to its members beyond their financial or material contributions.
Similarly, the case of President Hakainde Hichilema, an SDA church elder member arrested on what was described as spurious treason charges, highlights a similar discrepancy.
While an SDA church member, it was the Catholic Church that vocally advocated for his release, while the SDA Church, which had benefited and continues to benefit from his support, was notably silent.
This pattern is not isolated. Ronald Chitotela, a staunch SDA church member and former minister, actively supported SDA church projects.
However, when he was unjustly arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced, the church that had benefited so greatly from his patronage remained silent, while the Catholic Church once again emerged as a vocal critic of the arrest of Chitotela.
This selective engagement raises serious questions about the SDA church’s commitment to its prophetic mandate when it involves challenging the status quo or defending its members against perceived injustices.
The Bible is replete with prophetic voices that unequivocally championed social justice. Prophets like Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah consistently spoke out against oppression, corruption, and the neglect of the vulnerable.
These prophetic traditions within scripture strongly emphasize the imperative of standing with the oppressed and speaking truth to power.
The SDA Church, as a faith community that upholds the Bible as its guiding text, especially the doctrine of prophecy, ought to be deeply rooted in these prophetic calls for justice.
The paradox is that the SDA church appears to be willing to extend a bowl to its members in order to receive soup, but that same hand appears to falter when it comes to prophesying social justice or defending those members in distress.
This selective engagement suggests a potential hierarchy of priorities, where tangible contributions are valued more highly than the intangible yet crucial act of advocating for justice.
This repeated pattern raises fundamental questions about the church’s understanding of faith in action.
As the saying goes, faith without works is dead, and the doctrine of prophecy that does not translate into advocacy for the marginalized or oppressed becomes hollow pronouncements.
Without abandoning its apolitical stance, it is imperative for the SDA Church to bridge the gap between receiving material support and actively defending its members’ rights and dignity.
The question remains: what will it ultimately take for the church to truly embody its prophetic calling, standing up for its oppressed members with the same fervor with which it accepts their donations, thereby demonstrating that its faith is indeed a faith that acts in conjunction with its prophetic convictions?