By: Leif Bromme
There are few things in this world more personal than faith. The way we interpret
scripture, understand life experiences and handle our relationship with God is highly
individual. Even in a world where objective truth exists, disagreement over the specifics of
that truth is inevitable.
At the same time, we find ourselves divided into denominations – communities
bound together by common beliefs. Enshrined within the baptismal vows of our
denomination, Seventh-day Adventism, is this question:
“Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of
Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?”
To be baptized, the answer to this question must be “yes.” Most of the Fundamental
Beliefs are general Christian principles: the divinity of Christ, the validity of the Bible and
the message of redemption. Also included are more specific doctrines like the prophetic
nature of Ellen White, the recent six-day creation of our planet and the belief that the
Adventist church is the remnant as described in Revelation.
While the Adventist church does not make a habit of disfellowshipping dissenters,
the implications of our baptismal vows are clear. If you do not agree with every doctrine,
you cannot be baptized.
According to Donald Pate, a professor in the School of Religion, the degree to which
pastors adhere to this idea varies significantly.
“Some [insist on covering each belief] very deliberately,” stated Pate. “Some do in a
more oblique fashion. Some that I’ve known have a bit of a different conviction, and they’ll
be honest that this is the ‘official’ expectation, but they are open to people . . . wanting to
move forward with baptism without a full-blown, public affirmation of each and every
doctrine.”
Pate also stated that as a pastor, he himself encountered converts who were unsure
of certain beliefs.
“That raises the whole issue of what baptism is or means. To some
churches/pastors, baptism is simply a public step into Christ and is not at all tied to church
membership. Our church has the long history of equating baptism to membership, and it
has felt, at times, that the ‘membership’ issue is more important than the true step into
Christ.”
When joining an earthly community, complete acceptance of its standards is often
expected. However, the Seventh-day Adventist church is not an earthly community; it is a
community of Christians above all else, called to fellowship. From my perspective, there
should be a place for disagreement – not just at General Conference sessions, but among
members who openly and respectfully hold different beliefs. Our baptismal vows should
not require approval of a long list of doctrines, but acceptance of a few core values – the
most important being a calling to Christ.
As Pate clarified, however, “It’s one thing to ‘wrestle’ with and another to publicly
deny or reject or negate. If a person is open to continued exploration and deeper
conviction, then ‘less than full’ embrace may be enough to start with. . . . If a person is truly
not open to this or that doctrine of the SDA church, it would be best if all parties were
honest about it. Why do they want to be a Seventh-day Adventist if they really are
‘opposed’ to something that’s intrinsic to this church?”
I feel that without clear doctrinal standards, we do run the risk of ‘diluting’
Adventism. Gradually, members’ conflicts may grow into chasms that are too difficult to
bridge. If you believe in 22 of the 28 fundamental beliefs, are you still an Adventist? Is there
a threshold – something measurable that marks the line between disagreement and
incompatibility?
Rather than counting fundamentals, a more helpful approach might be theological
triage – a system described by Albert Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary. He designated beliefs such as the divinity of Christ and the Trinity as
essential requisites for Christianity. Other beliefs like baptisms and sacraments are not
universally Christian but define denominational practice. Mohler also described tertiary
beliefs, which can exist in tension within the same denomination.
Another way to consider the system would be in terms of lifestyle. While an
individual may wrestle with several tertiary beliefs, their conviction of a Seventh-day
Sabbath may override those disagreements and make the Adventist church a good spiritual
fit for them.
Beyond any system of hierarchy, I argue that if someone wants to become a
Seventh-day Adventist, they should be allowed to become a Seventh-day Adventist.
Whether they are drawn by Sabbath-keeping, our prophetic beliefs or a simple desire for
fellowship, only good can come when we allow more individuals to take the step of
baptism. Rather than requiring agreement on each fundamental belief, we should prioritize
education and respect for our tenets.
We are fortunate to be part of a denomination that does not disfellowship members
for minor differences – still, there is significant institutional pressure against disagreement.
To disagree with a peripheral belief of the church, or even to suggest that certain beliefs are
peripheral, is in tension with the very vows that grant membership. As a church, we should
refocus our priorities: not on campaigning for the uniformity of each member, but on
encouraging agreement on the big things and thoughtful dialogue on the small.
