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.

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.

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)!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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”?

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?

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.

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. )

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.

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!

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.