The last fifty years have probably been the most theologically challenging and productive period in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
These years have been a time of growth and intellectual formation during which we have moved beyond the wording of doctrinal statements to explore their theological significance. This theological awakening has, of course, resulted in some serious theological and doctrinal debate among us.
There are two main forces involved in the current debate and tension. One maybe found in sectors of our academic community, where some are calling the church to reformulate, modify, or abandon some of its distinctive views in order to make its message more relevant and intellectually attractive to its members and to the world at large. A second group consists of lay members and some church workers who express concern in the light of what they perceive to be the introduction of undesirable changes in church doctrine and standards.
The two groups operate at different levels of communication, and their influence affects different audiences. The first group is sometimes called "progressive Adventists" (others call them "liberals"). With much of its influence in academic circles, this group tends to impact the formation of workers, particularly pastors and some administrators. The second group usually refers to itself as "historic Adventists" (others call them "conservatives"). This group is influential mainly among lay people and a limited number of pastors and church administrators.
Both groups seek to influence the church through books, magazines, and other means of communication. So far, neither group has been decisive or determinative in what the world church believes or teaches.
The interaction between these two groups has resulted in some theological tension within the church. Interestingly, there is fundamental agreement throughout the world church when it comes to the validity of the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs. The differences and tensions surface when attempts are made to flesh out the fundamental beliefs. In what follows, we will examine some important areas where there is diversity of opinion.
Soteriology
Adventists believe there is salvation only through faith in Jesus Christ. It is impossible to find an Adventist who will disagree with that simple biblical fact. The split appears when individuals try to explain how we are saved. Some progressive Adventists argue for the moral influence theory of the atonement. They exclude expiatory substitution. Officially, the church has embraced both concepts as it has tried to remain faithful to the biblical text and its Protestant roots. It has made statements such as: "In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God's law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming" (Seventh-day Adventists Believe, Fundamental Belief 9; 106).
It is difficult to say how seriously these differences should be taken, because only a small number of Adventists find themselves in disagreement with the officially expressed position of the church. Nevertheless, this significant variation could motivate the church to continue its exploration of the mystery of the atonement.
Among historic Adventists, the situation is more difficult to describe and assess. In some circles salvation is initially through faith in Christ, but meritorious works are not excluded. Once the individual accepts Christ and receives the Holy Spirit, he or she is enabled to perform, through the power of the Spirit, good works that in some way make a contribution to salvation. The church, on the other hand, has stated: "These precepts [the Ten Commandments] are the basis of God's covenant with His people and the standard in God's judgment. Through the agency of the Holy Spirit they point out sin and awaken a sense of need for a Saviour. Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments. This obedience develops Christian character and results in a sense of well-being. It is an evidence of our love for the Lord and our concern for our fellow men" (Fundamental Belief 18,232, emphasis supplied).
Another view of salvation argues that the whole human race was legally saved, redeemed, reconciled, forgiven, and justified on the cross. This was possible because at that crucial moment in history every human being was in Christ. However, this is not the way the church has understood the biblical message of salvation. "In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life" (Fundamental Belief 9; 106, emphasis supplied).
The church, in its official documents, knows nothing about a biblically based legal universal justification on the cross. It knows only justification by faith in Christ. Therefore, it sees in what Christ accomplished through His ministry as a whole and on the cross the provision of salvation that has to be accepted in order to be effective in the life of the individual.
Christology
The church has formally affirmed: "God the Eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. . . . Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God" (Fundamental Belief 4; 36). This is a confirmation of the biblical teaching without any attempt to define the specific nature of the mystery and with the implicit recognition of the unfathomable nature of the Incarnation.
However, even though the church has never stated its position on the nature of the humanity of Christ, Adventists have always been interested in the topic. This should not be seen as a threatening enterprise as long as those exploring the mystery do not try to impose on the church their own peculiar views and understanding.
Historic Adventists have argued that Christ had a fallen nature. They have used that position to buttress other theological concerns. The tension between the church and those promoting this view is the result of their attempt to make their particular view part of the Fundamental Beliefs of the Church and their eagerness to criticize the church for not acknowledging their position to be the correct one.
Progressive Adventists have shown little interest on the subject of the human nature of Christ, but in general they appear to support the view that seems to prevail among Adventist theologians, and possibly most ministers and theologians. This view argues that Jesus was neither exactly like Adam nor exactly like us. He was unique.
This topic will continue to be debated among Adventists. What complicates the discussion is the level of dogmatism coming from some of those involved in the debate. As a result, in some places the unity of congregations has been seriously affected. Because of the disruptive nature of the discussion, appropriate leaders in the church have the responsibility to respond to this controversy.
Ecclesiology
Two fundamental issues dominate the discussion of ecclesiology: the nature of the church and its authority. Progressive Adventists appear to be interested in a decentralized system of authority. They seem to consider the General Conference in session to have some type of authority over the world church. In some instances, however, they are in open disagreement with the decisions made there and actively argue for different positions. Their implicit, and at times explicit, call for decentralization seems to be resulting in more independence from the world church. The more extreme expressions of this call are found in the rise of Congregationalism and the official separation of some local churches from the world body of congregations.
A closely related issue is the question of the use of tithe. Churches with congregational tendencies would like to keep some of their tithe to cover local needs and programs. Some conferences are already experimenting with new models and exploring new possibilities. What tends to be overlooked is that this is not just an administrative issue but an ecclesiological one with serious doctrinal, theological, and biblical implications. One would expect that those implications be explored before changes are introduced in the administrative side of the church.
Historic Adventists have rejected some aspects of traditional Adventist ecclesiology. When they argue that the church is not proclaiming some fundamental biblical truth (e.g., the true gospel), they are in fact saying that the Adventist Church is no longer the repository of present truth. Consequently, some have constructed parallel organizations, with legal identity, to preserve and promote the truth that they feel the church is not proclaiming and is not willing to accept from them. This seriously challenges the authority of the church as ultimately constituted through the world body of believers.
Some historic Adventists reject the teaching that the church is the exclusive repository of tithe and the only channel for its distribution. They base their position on the idea that the Adventist Church is the church of God but that its true expression is located in those who are faithful to God within it. One gets the distinct impression that they see themselves as the faithful ones, therefore having the right to receive tithe and use it for the promotion of their views.
Ecclesiology is one area in which progressive and historic Adventists seem to be raising the same concerns. Both tend to question the authority of the church in some areas or in one way or another. Both are interested in more independence from the world church. Both question the claim of the church to be the only repository of, and channel for, the distribution of tithe. Thus ecclesiology will continue to be a lively subject of discussion for years to come, and if it is not handled carefully, it could threaten the unity of the church.
Eschatology
Since Adventism is an apocalyptic movement, eschatology is essential for its self-understanding and for the mes sage it proclaims. But even in this area we find some fragmentation. Many progressive Adventists de-emphasize eschatology and stress social involvement or personal relevancy here and now. The "delay" in the expected appearance of Jesus seems to have weakened their expectation, and they want the church to fill the waiting period with ministry to the poor, the oppressed, and the environment. Among them some seem to have questioned and even rejected the Adventist end-time scenario and its interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation and the doctrine of the sanctuary. To a significant extent, this is the result of the influence of theology in Adventism critical of the teaching of the church. At the same time, however, it is a reaction to speculative "time setting" that at times has been embarrassingly common among Adventists.
Historic Adventists support the traditional eschatology of the church, but some have pushed it beyond what the church is willing to state in its official documents. This applies particularly to their concept of the eschatological harvest, the existence of a last generation of perfect Christians who will reach a standard of commitment to Christ unreached by any other previous generation. The "delay" in Christ's coming is considered to be the result of the unwillingness of the church to live up to the message entrusted to it or, according to others, the fact that some aspect of the message has been rejected.
Eschatology will continue to be a point of debate. The rejection of historicism, if it ever happens, will radically alter Adventism by weakening or destroying its self-identity. Therefore, one could expect the church to oppose strongly any attempt to replace our system of prophetic interpretation.
Biblical interpretation
Biblical interpretation includes not only biblical hermeneutics but also the nature of the Bible, its revelation, and inspiration. Here again there are some fundamental agreements among Adventist theologians. All accept the unity of the Old and New Testaments and acknowledge that the Scriptures are the written Word of God, given through divine revelation and inspiration.
But it is the nature of revelation and inspiration that introduces differences of opinion and results in different hermeneutical approaches. The basic issue is the role and extent of the human element in the final product. No one denies that there is a human element in receiving and writing down the revelation entrusted to the prophet. But was the human element minimal or more significant? To what extent did God use cultural concepts and customs as He conveyed to His instrument the message He intended to communicate? Since cultural influence is usually recognized as playing a role in biblical writing, the question becomes How can we distinguish between what is culturally determined in the Bible and what is not? These and other similar questions are now under discussion among Adventists theologians and interested lay people.
Progressive Adventists tend to allow for the presence of a rather strong and significant human element in the process of inspiration that led to the inscripturation of God's revelation. Consequently, some of them will probably argue that in the communication of the message God used cultural practices and beliefs known by the prophet to facilitate comprehension but did not invest them with permanent relevance. From the point of view of hermeneutics, they will press the idea that the exegete must look for the message that is being communicated rather than become entangled in discussing the relevance of ancient cultural practices reflected in the biblical documents. They will put the emphasis on inspiration as thought or person inspiration. What is of value, they say, is the thought that God was expressing through the language and images used by the prophet.
The implications of that approach are very risky. For instance, by using it, one could conclude that the historical accuracy of the Bible is not important since the "historical" information found there was being used to communicate a particular message or thought. Consequently, some of them have argued that the Creation story is not history but a cultural belief used by the Lord to convey the important message that He is the Creator.
It is at this point that progressive Adventists collide with the position of the church. The church has stated that the Bible is "the trustworthy record of God's acts in history" (Fundamental Belief 1; 4). And with respect to Creation it says, "God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made 'the heaven and the earth' and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week" (Fundamental Belief 6; 68).
Historic Adventists accept the stated position of the church on inspiration and revelation. They, together with many other Adventists, will not allow for a view of inspiration that is culturally determined. As the debate continues, there is the risk for some to move to the fundamentalist extreme, arguing for the doctrine of inerrancy, a position rejected by the church. The nature of the Bible and its proper interpretation is another area where certain significant changes could have a devastating effect on the message and mission of the church.
Church standards
Related to the question of the authority of the Bible is the subject of church standards. This is an area of serious disagreement in the church, loaded with emotional and judgmental attitudes. Progressive Adventists aggressively challenge traditional standards, while historic Adventists attack the church for lowering them. Progressive Adventists argue that the church should be interested in defining broad, general biblical principles and leave the specific implementation of those principles to church members, without the mediation of the church. For example, the church must teach the importance of modesty and simplicity in personal adornment, but it must not assume the right to define which type of jewelry is modest and simple.
This is indeed an open challenge to the teachings of the church that will require time and willingness to listen to the witness of the Scriptures for its resolution. Two important issues are at stake: the authority of the Bible and the authority of the church. The potential for division is enormous.
Conclusion
Theological tensions are difficult to solve. In many cases time takes care of them. Some of them are simply rejected by the church. Others are modified and slowly incorporated into the teachings of the church, while still others are easily accepted by the body of believers. Meanwhile, the dialogue and evaluation of different opinions are important for the well-being of the church. Those involved in the debates must be willing at times to put aside personal convictions and preferences in order to preserve the unity, the message, and the mission of the church.
