Whose Tent Is It Anyway?
This post might not make me any friends, that’s okay. I have enough friends already, plus I think my wife kind of likes me.
Prior to entering into my observations and assertions, I’d like to begin with a few disclaimers.
1. I am speaking for myself and no one else.
2. Many of my concerns are echoed by others and I ask if you have similar concerns that you comment below or write an article yourself.
3. I don’t have the answers.
4. These concerns are being shared in the hopes of creating dialogue and not in an effort to cast aspersions on anyone.
The Advent Christian Church has historically had a very large theological tent. Our ranks have often included the orphans from others churches, whose views were considered unorthodox at best and heretical at worst. One such doctrine has defined our little band of misfits— Conditional Immortality. We have multiple views on what the Scriptures teach on the role of women as elders, synergists and monergists, a wide acceptance of Atonement views. Additionally we lack agreement on what we should agree on to be a part of our group. Functionally, you don’t even need to agree with our Declaration of Principles or Statement of Faith to be ordained,to serve in leadership, be a member in a church. I know of ordained Advent Christians who believe in infant baptism by sprinkling (DOP 9), reject conditional immortality (DOP3-4), think it possible to worship the Lord on any day of the week not just Sundays (DOP 10).
So how wide should the tent be? How wide is the tent already? Are we functionally theological universalists by not having an enforceable standard of belief (our DOP and SOF are all non-binding; one can conceivably reject the exclusivity of Christ for salvation and maintain unity within our denomination)? What kind of responsibility do we bear collectively for others within our ranks? I don’t feel ready to answer all these questions, hopefully someone much smarter than I can. However, I will point out some practical difficulties on certain theological disagreements.
If we disagree on the nature of God are we serving the same God? There is a difference between someone who is uninformed, misinformed, and willfully rejecting the nature of God after instruction. However, I think it is important to heed John’s instruction in 2 John 10-11 “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.” John here is talking about the teaching of Christ’s nature as being truly man and truly God. He was warning against showing hospitality to those who rejected the human nature of Christ.
We see that the nature of Christ is critical to knowing Him. Therefore, the nature of God is likewise critical to knowing Him. Should we then say that the nature of God is unimportant to our unity when it is this God that has united us? Most agree without hesitation that our God is one and exists as three persons. Same substance (homoousios) as opposed to different substances (homoiousios), one God who is self-existent and eternal. By the way this doctrine was agreed upon only a few generations after the Apostles in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea.
How does the egalitarian/complementarian disagreement affect us? Some of you will likely say that it doesn’t. You might be right, but I don’t think you are. If you are correct then I’m concerned that our theology isn’t impacting our practices, which is another problem. If you are new to this conversation you might be asking what these funny words mean. Let me explain and then point out the difficulties that this disagreement presents.
Complementarians generally believe that God places equal value on both men and women, but each gender has a specific role and responsibility within the home and the church. Some take this more broadly to mean that women should not serve as leaders of any kind when they'd wield authority over men. Others take this to be more narrow and believe this divinely appointed authority only extends to the home, where the husband is the spiritual head of his family, and to the church, where only men are to serve as pastors/elders within the church.
Egalitarians generally believe that God places equal value on both men and women, but there is no role or responsibility within the home and the church that is defined by gender. There are some who believe that the husband is still the head of the wife, but that does not mean she cannot be an elder or pastor. Both views see theirs as biblical. The extreme end of complementarianism is abusive patriarchy and for egalitarians it is liberalism. Each of these extremes are harmful to the people of God and a roadblock to Gospel proclamation.
So what kinds of problems does this present to us as Advent Christians? It has worked well historically when you consider the women preachers we’ve had, especially in the early days of our denomination. If you want to learn about Abigail Mussey check out Catherine Rybicki’s series here. However, consider the difficulties that could arise if you were to serve alongside a pastor who differed on these issues. Most complementarians I know would not attend a church pastored by an egalitarian, especially a woman. Why? The view sees that the female pastor is unqualified to serve in that role. An egalitarian might feel similarly when the roles are reversed, because the leadership team seems to be unjustly and unbiblically limiting who can serve as a leader.
Imagine that you’re serving on the ordination committee of a candidate who disagrees with you on the matter of women in vocational ministry. A good question is to ask a candidate what the qualifications of an elder are. Some might cite leadership skills, and business acumen. However, you know that isn’t the answer you’re looking for. You want them to cite the Scriptures accurately. You need to trust that they will handle God’s Word with care and accuracy. So they should be evaluating and training leaders according to the Scriptures. If you both fundamentally disagree on who can lead then you are either ordaining someone who will prop up leaders who are disqualified, or limiting the ministry of those who are qualified.
Two big pushes recently within our circle have been church revitalization and planting. Imagine the dysfunction of a church planting core team that has elders/pastors of mixed genders that disagree on this doctrine. Could the brothers and sisters set aside their differing leadership views for the good of the Kingdom? Not without significant compromise on a central ecclesiological doctrine. Even then, how long could such a relationship last? Considering our size and downward trajectory we need to become as nimble and efficient as possible.
The divisions are already there. I’m a newcomer to our denomination and I know that it isn’t perfect. The only perfection we have is the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to us. I’m here to stay because of the many friends I’ve made over the last several years. Men and women of God who thirst for Christ and wish to see the Gospel proclaimed among the nations. Many have made incredible sacrifices, followed God’s call to places they were hesitant to go, and put their wellbeing on the line in order to follow God.
Many of these same people share the same kinds of concerns. They have historic roots and don’t want the dead to dictate how the living should live. Some see our history of theological inclusivism as a good thing while others see it as damning. I’ve even heard one pastor suggest that we will be held accountable for the false-teachings found in churches that bear the name Advent Christian.
The divisions I've mentioned are already present; they just aren’t yet formalized. When I look at those whom I work most closely they are often those I most closely align with theologically. One friend suggested that this segment choose to either leave the denomination and start our own, or simply sign a creed to our own liking and be quiet about it. Like Martin Luther and others during the Reformation, I’m not trying to start a whole new denomination. My goal is to bring these issues to the forefront as I’m wrestling with them. I love a good many people with whom I disagree theologically, but depending on the doctrine, I might not serve alongside them in a local church or in certain associations.
Lastly, I think it important for us each to regularly evaluate our associations both personally and corporately as our churches. At some point a pastor and their church must look at their association and network to see if their partnerships are beneficial. Are they working effectively and efficiently together in Gospel ministry? If not then can they? If not, then why carry on with the fruitless relationship?
Semper Reformanda,
Erik