This preamble also sets the stage of controversy (i.e. hermeneutics).
How we see the Bible its inspiration and revelation stage the stage for the kind of Adventism we will reap. Many see the Bible in its simplest form (i.e. literal reading). They push for an orthodoxy that mostly excludes other views. This is actually a logical conclusion to such a reading, the text actually demands that kind of commitment (that is when read in such a literal manner). With zeal they seal all that is right and reject all that is wrong a commitment they transfer to an organized and evangelistic effort towards changing the church with their views. While those who see the Bible via interpretative lenses tend to diminish its value and become relax, self-centered and loose their agenda of gospel preaching. The results, a church that is lacking a voice!

We are now changing this trend via blogs, but these blogs lack the coherence of a movement, there is still an individual spirit that guides us, a gospel zeal demands unity of efforts for greater impact local community wide impact. Kudos to all who try and seek a community that will reflect a diverse Adventism like our preamble really demands, like the Bible presents!

Excellent Stuff.

One question: How does the baptismal vow fit into the whole equation? One of the vows you must accept states: “Knowing and understanding the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is it your purpose, by the grace of God, to order your life in harmony with these principles?” That sounds like it’s raising the beliefs to the level of a creed and contradicts the intention of the preamble. What’s your take?

But, Trevan, isn’t one of the “fundamental Bible principles” the preamble? And why would I want to join the Adventist church if I don’t agree with its understanding of the teachings of the Bible?

The preamble indeed provides fodder for controversy, Johnny. Thanks for pointing that out. I see that in Scripture, there are multiple, competing, mutually-disagreeing, irreconilable visions and voices that cannot be logically or theologically harmonized. Yet they are able to speak with a singular voice across time and positions as to the saving grace of God, even as they disagree on what “grace” is and what that “God” is really like. For me, the challenge is to be THAT kind of a Scriptural community, not a uniform one (that some force the Bible and us to be). I join you in seeking that “diverse Adventism” that impacts local communities.

Trevan. My view is that the Baptismal Vow is a document in a theological limbo that stands in contradiction to the preamble. The Vow was initially voted in by the GC session about a decade after a new version of the fundamental beliefs was added to the Adventist Yearbook in 1931 and the Church Manual in 1932. (We’re squarely looking at the fundamentalist period in Adventism here, influenced greatly by the Protestant fundamentalism of the time.) Now, the 1931 statement was not “official” in the sense that it was never accepted and voted at the GC session, but in 1946, the GC session did vote that the Church Manual couldn’t changed except at a GC session. So, in a roundabout, backdoor kind of way, the 1931 statement became “official.” But that statement, unlike previous unofficial (but de facto official) statements that Adventists had in the 19th century, did not include any “no creed by the Bible” type statement in its preamble or anywhere in the document. Thus, legally speaking, the Vow was not in tension with the statement of fundamental beliefs in 1940-1980. During this period, there was nothing in the current official statements of the church to back up our historic stance that the Bible is to be our only creed. Thus, there was nothing that prevented the Vow and the Fundamental Beliefs Statement from being used a creeds. Indeed, any way you look at it, the Vow is a creed, a doctrinal statement that defines orthodoxy and one by which membership is granted or revoked.

But with the return of the no creed but the Bible language to the preamble in 1980, we have a genuine tension in the most basic documents of our community. Simply put, the Baptismal Vow in 1980 became, to borrow legal language, “unconstitutional” (sort of) and placed in a creedal limbo. So, the problem is not only the line you quoted from the Vow (which you rightly see as elevating the 28 to the level of a creed; the 2nd question in the Alternate Vow as voted in 2005 is actually worse in my view), but the Vow itself.

Because the 1980 preamble was so hastily put together during the GC session, I don’t think they had the time or presence of mind to think through its full implications. Quite possibly, if the delegates were mindful of what those three sentences were doing to undermine the authority of the 27 that they were voting on and the Baptismal Vow that they had had for 40 years, I don’t know if it would’ve been voted it in in its current language. But for this turn of events, I’m grateful and believe that the Holy Spirit was indeed at work.

Oh, boy, I think this is how “canon law” became an academic discipline in Catholicism.

“Oh, boy, I think this is how ‘canon law’ became an academic discipline in Catholicism.”

Yep. The Code of Canon Law is really analogous to the SDA Church Manual–it’s the internal policy. It started as a cluttered assortment of documents and was only codified in 1917, then revised in 1983. Canon lawyers have to know the history and the theology behind it, as well as the history of interpretation.

Thank you Julius for capturing the beauty of what is left out, the importance of readng Scripture together as a community, and the attitude of humility that makes room for all in the conversation. Creeds are like sound bites, they eliminate nuance and reduce ideas in the process. Stories, on the other hand enhance ideas through context and specifics. It is significant to me that Jesus taught with stories rather than lists or creeds. As N.T. Wright has noted, it is the narrative nature of Scripture that gives it authority. There are stories that surround each of the 28. Would we do better at sharing God’s grace by telling those stories? Would the stories help us get to the point of how God has led us and blessed us in spite of ourselves?

J:ulius, great analysis of the 28. How it is used and how it has been used in another story. In the 17th: “The Gift of Prophecy” there is a clear statement that “Ellen G. White, as the Lord’s messenger….are a continuing and AUTHORITATIVE source of truth….” which has long been a thorn for many Christians who accept ONLY the Bible as authoritative, not a 19th century non-canonical prophet.

All long-time SDAs realize that her writings HAVE been used to demonstrate heresy (Ballenger, Canright, Cottrell, Ford, and others) and still has much force in fundamentalist congregations. How can her approval for doctrinal decisions, which has been used in the past, ever be removed from SDA beliefs, such as the IJ, importance of 1844, and sanctuary doctrine? Haven’t most of the unique SDA beliefs been “blessed” by her, rather than scriptural interpretation?
Do Adventists have an obligation to “update” such previous doctrinal inclusions by Sola Scriptura rather than her approval? How many of the 28 can be demonstrated by the Bible only?

Julius,

Wow I am certainly impressed. Great analysis of the GC sessions voted statements and their role in keeping diversity of Biblical approach.

Like you pointed out in your comment, I do not believe the intentions of the preamble architects were to allow all of the diverse voices that you mentioned, nonetheless as it stands it allows so.

You mentioned that the 28 are descriptive statements of the dominant consensus views but not normative. I understand that you are unpacking the preamble not as it is practiced but what the statements actually mean, yet I must emphasize that the 28 have long been used as normative.

I mean I couldn’t possibly see Adventist acceptance of a person that truly questions (as an example) the Trinity: the relevance of a Nicean Creed, with all of its linguistic limitations to capture Jesus’ divinity in a crusty theorem that is better left up to, although anachronistic (but isn’t that the case for all) the language of quantum physics.

I guess my question is: given the openness of the preamble language, will the GC session realize this and scramble to tighten it, or in the spirit of Biblical diversity keep it as it is?

Instead of the current 28 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists, how about the 28 Fundamental Teachings of Jesus Christ? Better not…it would probably destroy the church, and spearhead a new movement! But why aren’t the basic teachings of Christ the first and last word in all Christian churches? It seems like just about everyone has veto power over Jesus Christ! Whose church is it, anyway???

Julius,

Once again, great essay which points out the great asset and great detriment of the Adventist statement on the Bible and its interpretation. Since you’ve pointed out positives of this position, I will draw out what I see as the negative (which you deal with in #4 of your outline.)

This statement as it currently stands, as Ed points, out opens things up so much that anyone can read the Bible anyway they want to: It can be read primarily as a book foretelling end time events, as a health guide book, as a science book, etc. This has been done is the Adventist church as other movements throughout church history.

I’m going to go out on a limb (for some Adventists) and argue that the Bible does not interpret itself. (In other words, I advocate “prima Scriptura, but believe “sola Scriptura” does not make much sense and was not taught even by the Reformers as most Adventist understand it today.)

The Bible is book formed by the community of God’s people for the community and there is a distinctly Christian way of reading the Bible. The early church realized this and developed what is known as the “rule of faith” which emphasized the teachings of the apostles. This was developed in to the Apostle’s Creed and further on as the Nicene and Chacedonian creeds.

I’m not advocating Catholicism by appealing to tradition as all these statements of faith were formulated before any divisions in the church and are appealed to all major bodies of the Christian church–East, West, Catholic, Protestant, etc.

The way we read Scripture is shaped by the communities that raise us, reach out to us, and include us. I believe the Adventist church must learn to to hold its distinctive beliefs in light of the way God has guided the church through history. If we come up with something radically different (i.e. anti-Trinitarian) in our interpretation of Scripture, we cease to be Christian.

For too long we have acted as if church started in 1844, ignoring the traditions we have built on and the shoulders upon which we have stood.

Zane, your comment is too important to pass over lightly.

“For too long we have acted as if church started in 1844, ignoring the traditions we have built on and the shoulders upon which we have stood.

Adventists have long represented or presented the SDA church as the begiining and end of Christianity, ignoring all the doctrines decided long before Adventism. The acceptance of main doctrines were established, accepted, and instituted by the one Christian church, which Adventists look upon as the harlot or Babylon. Without the early church and those who struggled to define doctrine and were persecuted, there would be no Christian church today. Even the castigation of Constantine, a bad name within Adventism, should be credited for legitimizing, supporting and providing for Christianity’s growth while also enforcing tolerance for all religions within the Roman Empire. How few Adventists know its history!

The preamble is a theological Rorschach test. Those who want the Big 28 to be noncreedal read the first two sentences as a refreshing acknowledgement that it’s the Bible rather than a pronouncement (this pronouncement) of the church that determines our creed, while those who do are satisfied that, finally, these scriptural truths listed here are being given the creedal status they deserve, since, after all, they ARE the teachings of scripture, the very teachings we hold as our creed. The last sentence is read by the intellectual crowd as a reassuring commitment that these beliefs can be fixed whenever we determine we’ve been wrong about something, while those who believe this list represents eternal truth are likewise reassured that, that goodness, we’ve realized that this list need only be updated when we find a better way to say the same things.

The genius of this preamble is not that it grants latitude, but rather that it says nothing!

Elaine - “How many of the 28 can be demonstrated by the Bible only?” I think all of them. “Haven’t most of the unique SDA beliefs been “blessed” by her, rather than scriptural interpretation?” Yes. But we’ll never be able to tell if we would’ve come up with those beliefs apart from White. Just as we’ll never be able to tell if we would’ve come up with the doctrine of the Trinity, apart from the experiences of the 2nd and 3rd centuries….

Ed - Since most early Adventists did not believe in the Trinity, I can actually imagine Adventists who deny it. In fact, haven’t you come across anti-Trinitarian Adventists? There’s a number of them here and there. I disagree with them; but I can’t say there don’t belong. On GC tightening the preamble, I seriously doubt it…but then…you never know.

David - I can’t argue with you on that ….

Zane - “The way we read Scripture is shaped by the communities that raise us, reach out to us, and include us. I believe the Adventist church must learn to to hold its distinctive beliefs in light of the way God has guided the church through history.” Amen! I’m not arguing against doctrines or distinctive beliefs. I’m arguing that we hold on to beliefs tightly, but carry them loosely.

“If we come up with something radically different (i.e. anti-Trinitarian) in our interpretation of Scripture, we cease to be Christian.” As I also wrote Ed above, I can’t agree with you on this. But your point is well-taken as the canon itself - in the way it was formed and selected - is a fossilized record of the struggles of a certain time period, and so you’re right to point out that Scripture was read at the time of its canonization carries a great deal of weight.

Robert - Thanks for pointing out the flipside of my post in a much more succinct way. I wish I could’ve said what I said in so few words.

Julius - i enjoyed your discussion re the development of the baptismal vow. How do you see the choice given at the last GC session in 2005 between two vows? There is the traditional vow and then the following option.
1. “I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour and Lord, and desire to live my life in a saving relationship with Him.
2. I accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and I pledge by God’s grace to live my life in harmony with these teachings.
3. I desire to be baptised as a public expression of my belief in Jesus Christ, to be accepted into the fellowship of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and to support the church and its mission as a faithful steward by my personal influence, tithes and offerings, and a life of service.’
Here in the South Pacific Division the above option is the one printed on all baptismal certificates. The old thirteen traditional vows are as far as I know, no longer printed.

Julius,

On “holding on to beliefs tightly, but carrying them loosely…”

In my opinion, l there are some doctrines that should be held more loosely than others. In other words, there are some doctrines that are clearly essential/central to Christian faith/practice. The problem with Adventism is that we think that things that in the end are not that important are important. Our rejection of the early creeds/church history has left us to reinvent the wheel.

The way the things currently stand, what I believe about the Bible, what I eat, what I think will happen at the end of the world, what I believe about Ellen White, how I interpret Genesis 1, and belief in Jesus Christ (as believed by the majority of Christians through history and throughout the world) all seem EQUALLY important. This makes people squabble about a bunch of minors, instead of the majors.

The creeds clearly focus what is important to the Christian faith–the life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ and presents a distinct picture of salvation–God reaches down to us and saves us, not we ourselves. This is what our beliefs should be structured around.

We should not hold to this belief loosely at all; it is the belief that that fuels our love for God and our love for others.

Yes, some early Adventists were non-Trinitarians. Appealing to this does not justify the validity of these views for the church at large today, as they have resulted in legalism, the view of Jesus primarily as a example (which he certainly was) rather than Savior, and I will argue, destroyed the Christian experience of many well-meaning people.

Thank God for Ellen White, who helped steer the Adventist church back into the ranks of orthodoxy. Without her, we would be a sect.

Elaine,

Yes, I agree the derogatory name calling of other Christians has only increased our reticence to engage an learn from the denominational traditions that preceded us and actually birthed us. Traditionally, we have very narrowly defined what it means to be a “Christian” and we didn’t even have that definition right…

Juliius: Excelllent Ramble on the Preamble!

This is already prompting a valuable conversation and I can see why. Provocative thoughts on there being no formally specified hermeneutic, the difference between Scripture and creeds and communal readings of the texts. Especially appreciated the wider and pertinent application of I Corinthinas 13. Three areas for further conversation:

1. Do we say anywhere in the 28 that in our polity the local congretation determines who is and who isn’t a member in good and regular standing? I don’t recall; however, I think this is important with respect to alternative interpretations and freedom of thought and expression.

2. “A literal reading of the Bible is generally assumed throughout the 28, but not explicitly promulgated. Once again, this is a matter of Adventist tradition.”

I wonder if many SDAs wouldn’t say that [the now increasingly infamous] matter of authorial intent matters. Wouldn’t they say that we should take literally those texts that are meant to be read literally and not literally those that are not intended to be read that way? At least as a first approximation, isn’t this a good hermeneutical principle?

3. “Often, those of us who like to be contrarian like to find problems with the dominant, majority view expressed in the 28 and attack the traditional as narrow, parochial and fundamentalist. But humility requires that we show kindness and generosity toward the seemingly unkind and ungenerous—even those who want to persecute and eradicate us.”

A. Good invitation to humility, kindness and generosity.

B. Are there really very many who”like to be contrarian?” Most whom others view this way find it painful to object to what is sometimes said and done. Maybe they aren’t masochists?

C. I guess that there are “those who want to persecute and eradicate us.” But not that many. Our denomination, like all the others, is harder on schismatics than heretics, something that often perplexes and frustrates the conservatives who think the liberals get away with too much. Do we have to come this close to paranoia?

Thanks!

Dave

David H. and others,

Certainly, someone joining the Adventist Church is going to do so because they believe what we do. However, the question is: Do they have to believe all 28 the way we do? In other words, what if the person has a different interpretation on one of the fundamental beliefs? They “score” 27 out of 28. Is that “good” enough? Even taking it to a more micro level. Maybe they agree in principles with all 28 but there are certain aspects of some of the beliefs they see differently. What happens then?

I think the reality is that anyone who has actually taken the time to read through the fundamentals and really study them, will have some disagreement with the book in how a particular passage is interpreted or perhaps something even greater. Is that breaking the vow?

I doubt that there is a singe SDA in the whole world who believes all 28 as they are now written. Never has been and never will be. I bet that even the GC president winces at the way some things are expressed. This is why the local church is given the responsibility to determine church membership and why congregations often consider some things in addtition to agreement with the 28.

I strongly agree with David. The local church (and/or max. the local conference/mission) must be the one entity exercising the powers for church membership. I also wanted to point out, from a highly pragmatic perspective, that it is nevertheless good that the preamble (i.e. SDAs have no creed but the Bible) exists “de jure” although, as we know, it hardly exists “de facto”. It is the only safeguard that prevents Seventh-day Adventism from becoming an overnight sect.

“There is nothing that formally prevents one from using a Catholic or an Orthodox version.”

This is a fascinating observation, Julius. After all the ink that has been spilled on the subject (not to matter which translation is best), that this is left open is intriguing. Is this just a loop-hole that someone forgot to close or was there intent? Probably you’re right, it was just an assumption–and yet, given the vociferousness of the controversy over the centuries that seems hard to swallow.

As to the comment that “Adventists have long represented or presented the SDA church as the begiining and end of Christianity,” that simply isn’t true. Church history courses at Adventist colleges and universities don’t skip from 100 to 1844–this remains “our” history. And the theological interpretation given to church history in “The Great Controversy” emphasizes the faithfulness of people through the ages, and God’s ability to work through men and women of every era. Adventists didn’t just start from scratch–and do not see themselves as the sum total of Christianity, as we see in the FB where the Church is defined as “the community of believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.”

Maybe I was unclear. I actually meant to say that the defacto situation on that ground in Adventism is that despite the openness in the wording of the preamble, the 28 fundamentals are viewed as normative.
It is true I have known enough that question the trinity but if they openly advocate it they would be seen as heretics, and any other of the 28 for that matter.

Thankyou to Trevan and David L.
I have to believe that there is dissent (albeit minor or nuanced) in every Seventh-day Adventist Christian regarding the 28 fundamentals. To me, it seems as though this must be the case [as demanded by our preamble]. It is so encouraging to hear someone validate that perception. Thankyou Julius for this conversation and for your cogent article…it reminded me to look at our preamble with joy and thanksgiving. In the past, I have been tempted to look at it with skepticism…stemming from a lack of belief that the 28 really are changeable.
But i have not seen it as almost ‘protection’ for those who question the status quo. I am encouraged.

“How many of the 28 can be demonstrated by the Bible only?” I think all of them.”

Julius, I am sure that you probably may be able to do so. But how many of your peers from other denominations would find it acceptable? How many Adventists who accept the SDA beliefs, usually from childhood, have no other comparison to enable them to make an informed decision? SDA students who are taught these doctrines from the beginning of the education in Adventist schools are also not likely to be given pros and cons.

How is it then possible to “prove” these SDA doctrines to those who are not biblically knowledge or in a position to rightfully discern?

How many of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists can be clearly taught from the words of Christ? How many doctrines of any Christian church can be clearly taught from the words of Christ? Perhaps Christ forgot something. Jesus, what were you thinking???

Many can be. But among those things Jesus said was, “when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” John 16:13.

As I understand it, no doctrine in any denomination merely summarizes what Scripture says on a given topic.

Each doctrine is an iinterpretation and application of Scripture in light of what that denomination has learned in its own history, [EGW, for example], what it takes to be true from other sources and what it is experiencing here and now.

Doctrinal formation is a second-order enterprise . It is always revisable in light of bettter understandings of everything, especially Scripture. Our preamble makes this explicit, as Julius has demonstrated.

The SDA doctrine about “the state of the dead” is a helpful illustration of this process, I think. It is based upon a specific interpretation of Scripture in light of the sorry history of dualism, scientific evidence about what happens when people die, and the negative experiences people had with spiritism in nineteenth century North America. I think it is an excellent doctrine, one that I have no shame sharing with others!

There are some in every denomination who apparently believe that their doctrines are founded exclusively on Scripture.; however, it is not difficult to identify things tthat they brought to the sacred texts rather than found them there.

One advantage of being up front about things other than Scripture that always contriubute to doctrinal formation is that it is then possible to review and revise them.

Will this preach iin Peroria? Yes! Thank you! Dave

If you want to know how we do it in The Netherlands… it’s like this: someone who wants to be baptized in the SDA is foremost baptized as a Christian. A “creed” is read that more or less resembles the Apostolic Creed. The 28 are “assumed” to be adhered to, but most of us regard it as the current Adventist way of looking at things that has only value for the time being, from one day to the next. Panta rhei.

Henk, this is very interesting… Is the long standing practice of your local church or the entire conference?

Zane,

It is standard procedure in the Dutch Union, although every pastor is free to use the “old” prodecure or the “new” one. The new one has been in use for more than 15 years I think. The majority of pastors use the new approach, that is, I do not know of a pastor that uses the old formulation, although one or two retired pastors, if asked to baptize, would prefer the old formulation. In fact one cannot find a printed baptism certificate with the old formulation. On the inside of the baptism certificate is a Dutch version of the 28 FBs.
To be honest, I do not know a collegue-pastor who does not adjust one or two points of the FBs. I myself, when giving catechism on the subject of the AI, I explain the majority view, all the while also pointing out its weaknesses. Twenty years back some conservative members would hace hanged me on the highest tree, but nowadays I think I belong to the more conservative Adventist pastors, so reckon…

Zane,

Oops, I forgot. We have a several Ghanese and West-Indian churches. They use the official (English) version of the baptismal vow.

Henk,

Thanks for your responses. I had a couple questions:

1. What is “AI”?
2. Have you ever had someone who agrees with the basic Christian formulation of their baptismal vows, but objects to the Adventist fundamentals either partially or wholly? Would you still baptize them?
3. I’d be very interested in seeing the modified “Apostle’s Creed”. Could you post it or send me a copy? Why a modified version instead of the actual creed?

This is all very interesting to me as it seems to be, at least in my eyes, an advancement to the way we do things in the States. Here it is different depending on the region you live and you can get everything from the traditional vows to a loose hodgepodge of Jesus+Sabbath+Don’t Drink (in other words, nothing clearly distinctively “Christian.”)

I think there are strengths and weaknesses to the “new” approach, as you already intimate, but find it fascinating. I had no idea there was an entire Union in the Adventist church that did this!

What is wrong with following the apostles’ requirement for baptism? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Too simple? It’s been mucked up for 2,000 years and continuing.

True. Every baptism in the Bible is an instant one. You hear and are convicted in the heart of Christ. Then you’re baptized. Look at John the B., the 3000 in Acts 2, the Ethiopian Eunuch, Paul and Silas’ prison warden. Are there other examples? The original way has been perverted.

Are the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of SDA’s the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of Ellen White? Could it be any other way? To try to do it any other way would be to put new wine in old wine skins and create a big mess. To elevate the teachings of Christ above all others would be placing old wine in new wine skins. Hey, that sounds pretty good! But wait a minute, we don’t drink! But all of this is enough to drive one to do so!

Seriously, how about a “prayer book” like the Anglican and Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, consisting of the “best” of Christ’s Object Lessons and Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing? How about an Adventist liturgy? These sources also represent the mature inspired thoughts of Ellen White, and my guess is that there may be less of a literary dependency problem.

Adventists have relied upon Ellen White to be theologically different and superior. But Adventists have relied upon Dr. John Harvey Kellog (figuritively and literally), rather than Ellen White, to become rich and increased with goods! What happened to the sanitariums, prevention, and natural treatments?

Zane,

1. AI, typo, I mean Investigative Judgment.
2. Ellen White is an example that springs to my mind. There are those that do not find it a requirement to believe the writings of Sister White in order to be baptized. I agree and I will baptize them.
3. I will do my best in translating:

I believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ His Son, and in the Holy Spirit.

I believe that Jesus Christ is my personal Redeemer; that He became a man and died on a cross for the sins of the world, but was raised from the dead by God,
that He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God as our Mediator, from where (whence) He will return to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the resurrection of the dead and eternal life.

I believe that God will strengthen me to live as a new-born creature to live according to His will revealed in Holy Scripture and is expressed in the Ten Commandments.

I believe that I am a temple of the Holy Spirit and that, out of love for God and humanity, I am called to live a righteous life.

I believe that God has called me personally to build up His church and to spread the Good News.

That’s it. “Entire Union”, yes, but it is virtually the only Union that has no Conferences. Weird but true.

I’m an older adventist(60+) I am delighted with the refreshing candour with which you guys are able to discuss these issues. Keep it up !! I wish more of our paid ministry had the courage of your convictions. And that the ‘heavies at the top could/would listen!!

Henk,

Thanks for sharing this…I really like it. A little light on the actual teachings Jesus (as are the other creeds of the early church), but much more focused and simplified, while retaining the “contributions” of the Adventist theology to basic Christian teaching as understood through history.

You mention that you have no conferences in your union. Semantically, you could refer to it as a conference without a union as well. In this area as well, you lead the rest of us, at least in the States, where there are regions, conferences, unions, and divisions all piled up together. But that is the topic for another thread. =)

Thanks for sharing your insight and experience.

Henk, One more question for you. How do the churches in your Union handle “lifestyle” issues? Do you baptize people who drink socially or smoke?

I’m sorry that I haven’t been able to keep up with the discussion.

Wayne - Re your question about the newly voted 3-point alternate vow, I like it better, but as I’ve indicated, I think there’s a big tension, if not an outright conflict, between the “no creed but the Bible” stance of the preamble and the de facto creedalization of the Vow and the 28…which, I suppose, as has been suggested, may be a good thing that keeps us together.

Zane - On holding and carrying, I’m personally in full agreement with you on the point of the centrality of Jesus. Yet I can’t discount the reality that the historic Jesus of Nazareth and the beliefs surround the person and work of Jesus aren’t always the central feature of a Christian’s faith. I’m thinking of the liberal social gospel folks. They may deny the historicity of Jesus and the traditional teachings on the atonement, for example, but I believe that they ARE Christians because, even as they carry their Christology “loosely,” they are living out the life of Christ. What fuels our love for God or others as Christians doesn’t have to be belief in incarnation and atonement, does it? I could give another example involving, this time, an extreme conservative, but I’ll stop. You get the drift. What do you think?

Dave - Thanks for the complement. You’re a real Barnabas to the Mark that I am. As to your three questions,

(1) In the 28, there’s nothing that says anything about who makes membership determination. That’s in the Church Manual, I believe. The point that you’re raising is a very, very significant one in my mind. By saying “no creed but the Bible” but not dictating how one should read Scripture and then, in the Church Manual, saying only the local church can grant and revoke membership (though there’s a disputed exception clause on revocation), the Adventist church is actually very congregational in the area of beliefs. Surprisingly so to some.

(2) Thanks for reminding us about authorial intent. I do believe, as you stated, that “as a first approximation,” a literal reading is “a good hermeneutical principle.” I think the debate is over what is the real, underlying authorial intent. I think that’s where hermeneutics of suspicion kicks in, complicating the matter. So much so that reading Scripture has become like reading a presidential campaign press release or a column by David Novak or James Carville. It’s the very authorial intent that needs to be deconstructed first. We’re living in the best of times and the worst of times, aren’t we?

(3) As a contrarian-masochist =), I do think there are many purists within Adventism and Christianity who would like to persecute and eradicate those who are open to diversity and hold different views. I’m glad they don’t act those impulses out. But wait, hasn’t it happened in the 90s and 80s and 70s of Adventism? Well, you lived them in ways I haven’t yet, Dave. Have I inherited unfounded paranoia? Anyhow, the point I was hoping to make was essentially a restatement of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 about loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us. But yeah…easy for me to say….

Trevan - Right on about the difficulty of swallowing the entire 28 either as a baptismal candidate or a longstanding member. The difficulty is compounded by the historical fact that most of the 28 articles were written as consensus (which is often an euphemism for “compromise”), mediating statements between various parties (mostly Seminary professors in 1977-80) involved. So, I agree with Dave when he states that no one agrees or is expected to agreed 100% with the 28 the way they’re written.

Julian - Appreciate the distinction between de jure and de facto.

Bill, Zane, Elaine - On recognizing (or not) Adventism’s connection with historic Christianity, I think we could’ve better taken Ellen White’s example of surveying church history the way she did (even with all her flaws) in Great Controversy and utilizing non-Adventist sources en masse to compose her books (which shows obvious an openness to historic ideas outside of Adventism). She remains a hero in my book.

Ed - I agree with you on anti-trinitarians of today being treated as heretics. No doubt about that. We’re always generous to dead heretics than to live ones, aren’t we?

Kris - I’m encouraged that we’re encouraged. I praise God for the intellectual and existential camaraderie that the blogosphere is providing all of us.

Elaine - I can’t quibble with your questions, because I too have lived the same. I don’t think the threshold for conviction isn’t at the level of “proof” anymore. I think it ought to be “plausibility.” That’s what I meant by being able to show all Adventist doctrines from Scripture—show them to be plausible and let the Spirit do the convicting. What more can we do?

David V. - I’ll have to disagree with you on making the “words of Christ” both the parameters and yardstick for doctrinal statements. Sounds too much like “red letter theology” to me. Jesus may not have forgotten things, but he didn’t necessarily need to restate and emphasize everything. Jesus in the gospels emphasizes the Law and the Prophets, too, so I don’t know we’re required to get all our doctrines from the sayings of Jesus in red letter. In fact, your hermeneutical principle that we should get all our doctrinal statements from Jesus itself isn’t found in the words of Jesus. What do you think?

Dave - “One advantage of being up front about things other than Scripture that always contriubute to doctrinal formation is that it is then possible to review and revise them.” I think Knight’s “A Search for Identity” is helpful in this regard, especially the first chapter on the roots of Adventism. I wonder if the Adventist Society for Religious Studies papers from 1995 or 1996 when they discussed the roots of Adventism are readily available somewhere online….

Henk - Thanks so much for illuminating and expanding our understanding through how the Dutch are practicing Adventism. You indeed have gone Dutch in a beautiful way!

David V. - An Adventist worship/liturgy/prayer book is an intriguing idea. Should we have agreed on a common book of prayer first instead of a common statement of beliefs? Probably both are necessary. Which is more foundational - comon belief or common worship?

Jim - Thank you for joining the conversation. We need wisdom from all quarters!

Zane,

Here I can only express a gut feeling. Smoking is ont done. I know of only 1 man who smokes and remains a member of the church. There are no disciplinary measures, mainly because no one knows about it.
Social drinking is getting more and more common. My gut feeling: 25-30% of the Adventists under 60 years of age do drink now and then. I know one or two who really have got a problem where none was before. They are eligible for the AA.
Some pastors will baptize people who drink now and then. I know a few pastors who drink socially and make no secret about it.
Coffee, tea and even Cola is served in church after service. That is a long-standing habit over here.
You know, American and European Adventist life-styles are quite different from eachother. You stress things that we do not stress and vice versa. Most of us are not vegetarian although the number of vegetarians grows a bit, not because Adventism says so, but out of respect for life.
I’m on a holiday now, so, if you have more questions, I will answer them in about a fortnight. All the best.

Julius
Thanks for taking the time and energy to respond to all of us so well! I burst into laughter when I read your gentle suggestion that you may have inherited a bunch of “contrarian, masochistic paranoia” from me and others! How true! How very true!! Keep up the excellent work!
Dave

Order of Authority:
1. General Conference (in session)
2. Ellen White’s writings
3. Old Testament
4. New Testament
5. Teachings of Jesus Christ
I hope I’m wrong, and if so, what is the correct order of authority?

Henk, maybe a little “Elijah complex” going on? (1 Kings 19:14)
I do not know whether weird but certainly not true. In Trans-European Division there is besides the Netherlands also Danish Union of Churches and in Euro-Africa Division there is Austrian, Bulgarian, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish Union of Churches. So there are at least 7 Unions in Europe that have no conferences, as far as I know. Though not the point of our discussion, I wanted to point it out for things to be factualy precise.
Daniel

Reacting to you statement: “‘Entire Union’, yes, but it is virtually the only Union that has no Conferences. Weird but true.”

Julius, The pre-amble, (now as clarified and shined by you), will be the perfect blessing to bestow on my Alyson as she gets baptized (9/7). The baptismal vow by Henk’s translation is excellent (thanks, Henk), and the centrality of Bible as creed, individual reading of it, committment to the community’s search for meaning and application is the spiritual growthplate that will hold her well through the years.

For young people who are vulnerable to doubting their authenticity as SDA’s when they don’t agree with prevailing beliefs/lifestyles, this pre-amble is actually a bulwark of reassurance that they don’t have to leave to be honest, the umbrella is not narrow but explicitly wider than previously assumed.
(Wonder if our academy bible teachers ought to share this perspective with their Bible classes- hmmm, on second thought, I’m not sure the parents and schools would be able to handle the “freedom” inherent in it. )

Dave - I certainly did not mean to accuse you of being the progenitor of my paranoia. On the contrary! Thanks for always being a generous, humorful, encouraging influence.

Arlyn - The elevated cardiac temperature resulting from reading your comment will linger throughout the day. I’ll certainly share the joyful news about Alyson with Iris, Sherwin and Ansel. Please give our hearty congratulations to Alyson and warmest regards to your family! We still talk about the wonderful time we had with you guys two years ago.

Even as i write and talk about freedom and being “progressive” and all, I find myself acting cautiously and teaching more traditionally in relation to my children and students because I don’t want my exercise of and openness to freedom to somehow be a stumbling block to them. I’m hoping for the best in thinking that our academy teachers are struggling with the same issues and aiming to hit that proper balance between freedom and respect. It remains a continuing challenge to exercise the right kind of wisdom in providing guidance and example to our children. So, I congratulate you in helping Alyson reach this wonderful and blessed milestone.

Henk,

I’m moving to Europe…I’ll see you when you get back from your vacation. =)

Julius,

In the end, I don’t think Christianity is all about having certain cerebral beliefs about Christ/God. However, I don’t like the division we often make between the person and work of Christ (divinity/atonement) and his teachings (social gospel). In my mind, faith in Christ includes both aspects…it’s the whole package.

Conservative evangelicals can be faulted for emphasizing “orthodoxy” over “orthopraxy” and making salvation totally about beliefs and the next life; but theological liberals seem to want to reduce the teachings of Christ to the Kantian categorical imperative.

You ask, “What fuels our love for God or others as Christians doesn’t have to be belief in incarnation and atonement, does it?” In the end, I think it does. The gospel, as it has been understood to church history, as well as the OT, is the understanding of God working on behalf of his people to “save” them.

We do not work our way to God, but he comes to us and we respond to him. The teaching of the incarnation and atonement is a full expression of this belief which is unique to Christian faith and shapes our understanding of God and the extent of his love for us. It is beyond what we can imagine for ourselves. God loves us to the point of dying for those that hate him.

We are called to do the same.

My concern is that theological liberalism provides an much more impoverished picture of God, one in which God is limited to an Enlightenment understanding of what is “rational” or not and ultimately results in a new type of legalism. We save ourselves through our obedience to Jesus’ teachings.

Does this make any sense?

Which brings up[ the age-old question: Must one have a religious faith to be a good and moral person? Certainly, religious belief and faith has contributed to millions of good, kind, and generous people. OTOH, many of the world’s worst human actions of murder and genocide have also been committed in the name of religion. We can’t ignore the terrible history and hope to erase it from our collective memory, because if we do, we will eradicate the memory of our beginnings in the Jewish history recorded in the OT. The combination of Judaism and Christianity (the term “Judeo-Christian is of very recent origin) makes it impossible to dismiss the earlier OT history and must be answered to our critics. Since then, religious wars, Inquisition, Crusades, Islamic wars were all based on religious belief of God, weren’t they? Which begs the question: Who is your God and haven’t you created him in your own image?

Hey Elaine,

If your point is that humans through out history have used all kinds of things to justify violence toward one another, including religion, I agree with you.

I’d also argue that though this is not contradictory to the teachings of some religions, it totally contradicts the teachings of Christ and who he revealed God to be.

Also, if you are using this to criticize religion, I’d point out that secularism (and liberal theology) have not faired much better if you look at WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, etc.

In the end, there is something deeply flawed with humans, the question is “how do you fix it?”

Can we do it our selves, and by obeying God or some ethical maxim, or does must God do something in us that we cannot do for ourselves, something that is “supernatural”?

[...] Read the Rest at this link (No Ratings Yet)  Loading … Posted by Sherman Cox II on Saturday, August 4th, 2007 [...]

Zane, your argument reminds me of children who say that they are no worse than their sibling!; or a speeder who tries to excuse himself because there were others who were even going faster! Christians, not atheists, are the ones usually labeled “hypocrites” for professing beliefs on which they do not act.

You are straddling the paradox of God’s actions as revealed in the OT with Christ as shown in the New. The attempt to demonstrate that they are one and the same as shown by their actions is quite impossible to show. If you say that the God of the OT who “repented” that he had made man and caused them all to die, or that he ordered child sacrifice, or that he ordered mass murders on those enemies who stood in the way of the the Israelite’s taking the land, then I will listen. But to say that this god is also revealed in Jesus in the NT is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation that has, and will continue to be too difficult to explain or understand for rational beings. Only those who paper it over and deny the record can do so. Or, I will await your explanation as you understand it.

Suggested Order of Authority:

1. General Conference (yearly theological update).
2. Teachings of Jesus Christ.
3. New Testament.
4. Old Testament.
5. Ellen White’s writings.

I hope I’m right. If not, why not?

Hello Elaine,

You bring up two separate issues here. On the first, in my last comment, I was not trying to defend Christians or Christianity; I agree with you, as I think any student of history or observer of contemporary events; Christians do not live up to the teachings of their professed founder. I was not trying to “excuse” myself in anyway, but include myself in the category of “hypocrite.”

My point was that the early creeds of the church present a distinct picture of salvation for persons like myself. Teaching me a bunch of ethical maxims (from Jesus or anyone else) only will add to my pride and ability to manipulate others. My argument is that liberal theology, with its emphasis on Jesus as a moral exemplar/teacher distorts the picture of Jesus/God/salvation as understood by most Christians through history.

The second issue you bring up is unity and disunity of the OT/NT God. While the passages/incidents you bring up are very challenging, I do not think they exhaust what the OT has to say about God. I’m no OT expert, but here are some cursory thoughts:

1. The NT (Jesus’ teachings on hell/judgment, Revelation’s depiction of the final judgment) has passages in it that are just as fearful as the OT.
2. The OT must be interpreted in light of Jesus, who Christians believe to be the culmination of God’s revelation.
3. There are some beautiful passages in the OT (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) that describe God’s tender love toward his people. One of the major themes of the OT is God’s “hesed” or steadfast love.
4. The prophets also make it very clear that God cares about “justice” –care for the poor, the widow, the fatherless.
5. Jesus’ own message is consistent with these strains found in the OT.
6. The OT must be interpreted by comparing it to the other Near Eastern religions of its times. What did they teach? How are the similar? How are they different? For example, the flood story can be found in other cultures as well. The similarities are interesting, but the differences even more so. The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, depict the gods sending floods to the earth as a punishment for being to loud! The reasoning given in Genesis, is that humans continue to “do evil”, i.e. hurt each other. Some scholars find parallels between Gen. 1 and Babylonian creation myths. Fine. In the Babylonian myths, the sun creates the world and humans. Genesis 1-2 depicts God as a personal creator. I think it would be interesting to compare the story of Abraham and Isaac to the practice of child sacrifice practiced in the Near East–these gods demanded sacrifice…but do not in the end “provide the lamb.”

Marcion, an early figure in church history, made the same distinction you do between the OT/NT God. The church responded by canonizing the Bible–OT/NT together.

In sum, I believe that a consistent picture of God is found in the OT/NT.

What do you think?

Oh, and #7. God in the OT is consistently portrayed as “stretching his arm” to save his people from problems and their enemies. This is what Christians believe God has done for them through Christ–defeating the enemies of sin, death, the devil, and their own fallen natures.

Can you direct me to the nearest “red letter” church, which places the teachings of Jesus first and foremost? Does one exist? Has one ever existed? I’m beginning to think that the Antichrist won’t have much to do when he (she?) finally shows up! Perhaps the Antichrist has been here for the last 2,000 years…

I just started reading your blog again. Regarding the question “Should we wait until a person has been taught all 28 before admitting them into the church?” We baptize children as young as 8 years. They certainly do not understand the 28. In fact we have a very simplified version for them. Some adults are not much above the level of children. As long a a person loves Jesus, has given their life to Jesus, and accepts the Sabbath I would admit them into the church. However, at New Hope we do use the 13 Baptismal statements although completely rewritten. Go to
http://lookingforachurch.org/, click on About Us and then click on What We Believe.

“Everyone therefore who hears these words of Mine, and does them, shall be likened unto a wise man, which built his house upon the rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon the rock.” Matthew 7:24,25. QED

Trev and Jules:

Ack! I just realized I ditched you guys on this conversation. I please accept my apologies.

I believe that the 28 are written with broad enough language that, together with the preamble (which I remind you is part of the “Statement of Fundamental Beliefs”), there is room for significant variance of interpretation. I have my own quibbles and places where I would word it differently, but I see myself as being harmony with the Spirit that generated the document.

Here is a revised suggested order of authority:

1. Teachings of Jesus (not making Christ’s teachings first and foremost may be the biggest mistake/oversight/conspiracy in Christian history).

2. General Conference (or any church governing entity, including the Vatican).
They have the task of applying the historical teachings of Jesus to modernity, in the context of organized religion).

3. New Testament (the historical record of an attempted application of the concept of Christ (but not the teachings of Christ) to a then contemporary context).

4. Old Testament (the historical stage upon which Christ entered, and sacrificed Himself to make the OT obsolete as the defining standard and modus operandi for humanity, and to provide a new and living way to relate to God and others).

5. Ellen White (a lesser light, pointing to the greater light, an inspired, but not infallable, interpreter). For non Adventist churches, whoever their leading historical (in some cases, hysterical) authorities may be.

I hope I’m right (I think I got it wrong last time)! Here I stand (how dramatic)!

Good question that.”Should we wait until a person has been taught all the 28 Fundamental Beliefs before admitting them into the Church.” For me, it is really important that new members have been given the basic tools to feed themselves spiritually, to pray, and to be able to give a personal witness as to what Jesus means to them. These to be are non-negotiable elements of a new life. If this precludes 8 year olds from being baptised, then so be it. Let them be baptised when they are capable of making an informed, meaningful and independent decision to adopt the Saviour of their family and the Saviour of their church as their own. This for them is what it means to leave behind the old life of indecision about the Saviour and accept a new life as a decided follower of his.

My pastor here in an outer province of Korea will baptise kids who have been to the equivalent of a Vacation Bible School. There is no expectation that they will ever attend the church on the Sabbath. None of them do. (Sorry, one or two of them have parents who are Church members). All that is required is the agreement of their parents that they be baptised.

Regarding the baptismal vow. It should be thought of as being just as sacred and binding as one’s marriage vow. It is both a solemn promise (and a joyful one) and a declaration and testimony of our love for God.

Let our canon lawyers do their thing. It may be helpful. Like Julian I am not convinced that tying the baptismal vow to a Summary Statement of Fundamental Beliefs is wise or helpful. The helpful thing is to make a declaration of key features of our belief in God and His way of salvation. This makes the exercise much more personal and less institutional.

Some time ago, Norman Gulley in the Journal of the Adventist Theolgical Society made a call for the rewriting of the Fundamental Beliefs, so as to re-form them founded on the basis of the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan and the sure victory of Christ.

Gregory Boyd makes a telling point when he states that the New Testament pictures the warfare between Christ and Satan as the spiritual problem of confronting and overthrowing the enemy and not primarily an intellectual problem of theodicy.9God at War, 67).

This means then that in the future we could reshape our fundamentals to speak to and enlighten people engaged in this spiritual struggle.

The preamble to such a summary statement of beliefs would state clearly that the beliefs outlined have been found to be helpful in informing the thinking of Adventists, in safeguarding their spiritual welfare, and in building effective and healthy Christians. Certainly, what we believe about the way God communicates with us, about the character of God and of humanity, about the dimensions of salvation, about ethics, the church and last things has a great impact on our success or otherwise in the spiritual battles we face.Humanity receives from God’s word meaning and faith, and love from God himself. We are to grow in humility, assurance, ethical behaviour, fellowship and hope.

Truth is not primarily an intellectual thing. It is a spiritual reality. Error and heresy are not primarily a lack of orthodoxy. More importantly, these things are evil because they have a great influence on our spiritual progress.

The preamble to a revised outline of fundamental beliefs should not only state our openness to more helpful ways of thinking about truth, it should also state the spiritual dynamics that are associated with such beliefs.

It has long fascinated me how little of our apocalyptic understanding is contained in our Fundamentals. Is this a deficiency, deliberate neglect, or a wise latitudinarianism.I do not know the answer.