Meaningless Authority: Advent Christians and the Bible
The year was 1964 and Advent Christians were wrestling over changing the first article featured in the Advent Christian Declaration of Principles. At the time, it read as follows:
We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, containing a revelation given to man under Divine supervision and providence; that its historic statements are correct, and that it is the only Divine standard of faith and practice (Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:15, 16; John 17:17)[i]
The change lobbied for and eventually adopted would restyle it in this fashion:
We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, being in its entirety a revelation given to man under Divine inspiration and providence; that its historic statements are correct and that it is the only Divine and infallible standard of faith and practice.[ii]
The object was to strengthen the Advent Christian statement on the Bible, from merely indicating that we believed the Bible “contain[ed]” divine revelation to asserting that the Bible “in its entirety” is God’s revelation to mankind, being fully inspired and “the only Divine and infallible standard of faith and practice.”
With good reason, we look back on this change with approval. No doubt, the intent of the proponents was to make much of Biblical authority, especially in the face of modernist skepticism, as Robert J. Mayer accounts in his book, Adventism Confronts Modernity. However, even as this approbation of biblical authority was coalescing, it was attended by an effectively fatal companion, as revealed by the commentary of Executive Secretary J. Howard Shaw.
In anticipation of the denomination’s biennial meeting that June of 1964, Shaw briefed Advent Christians on what they could expect and what they should make of this proposed change of the first article of the Declaration of Principles. Anticipating concerns about the fallout of this change, Shaw explains what the Declaration of Principles is and is not:
a. What the Declaration of Principles is: This document was the attempt of our people to set forth in broad Scriptural language the basic beliefs to which we as a people desired to bear witness in Freedom.
b. What the Declaration of Principles is not: It is not and never has been a test of fellowship. We are not a “creedal” people, for the simple reason that we do not believe that any pope, church council or even a delegate body is infallible. Our only creed, we say, is the Bible.[iii]
Notice the reasoning that Shaw employs here to remove any consideration that the Declaration of Principles would hold creedal force. Setting aside the appeal to tradition (that it had never been utilized as a creed), Shaw’s “simple reason” that such force does not obtain is that no human being or institution is infallible. Humans are fallible, the Bible is infallible, and hence the Bible is our only creed.
On the surface, it sounds good. In fact, that sentiment is reflected in the revised article.
We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, being in its entirety a revelation given to man under Divine inspiration and providence; that its historic statements are correct and that it is the only Divine and infallible standard of faith and practice.[iv] [bolding mine]
However, thoughtful consideration reveals that Shaw’s logic has devastating consequences. If human fallibility prevents us from confidently summarizing the primary teachings of Scripture, then of what use is it as our standard of faith and practice? If a church council is too fallible, how much more is the solitary individual in her interpretation? Applied consistently, Advent Christians should be biblical agnostics – confessing no real knowledge of the meaning of Scripture. And if the meaning of Scripture is beyond reach, then its authority is entirely inconsequential, having no voice.
Of course, Advent Christians have always been inconsistent in this regard. We have pored over the pages of Scripture because we believed the truth could be known regarding human nature, Christ’s return, and so much more. Week after week, for over 160 years our pastors have powerfully preached the Word, believing they could deliver the meaning of Scripture with authority to their congregations. Advent Christians believe we can know the teaching of Scripture and respond to its authority. (In biblical terms, we believe in 2 Tim. 3:16-17)
If we believe that the teaching of Scripture can be understood personally and congregationally in an authoritative fashion, despite our fallibility, why do we continue to insist that a denominational summary of the teaching of Scripture (a creed) is not possible on that basis? I suggest it is because of a fundamental misunderstanding.
Advent Christians have sworn off creeds because of the ways in which creeds have occasionally not been open to biblical scrutiny. Of course, this was the essential appeal of the Protestant Reformation against the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Even so, the reformers did not dispense with creeds because of Catholic abuses. Doing so would have landed them in the agnostic quagmire described above. No, instead they committed themselves to biblical authority by deriving their creeds from Scripture alone. In principle, this would mean their own creeds would likewise be open to correction from Scripture. Whatever instances in which such Protestant creeds were closed to the possibility of correction demonstrates not the impropriety of creeds, but infidelity to biblical authority.
We are right to recognize the fallibility of human beings and the infallibility of Scripture. We are wrong when we conclude that we cannot denominationally know the teachings of Scripture, summarize those teachings in writing, and hold one another accountable to submit to the authority of Biblical teaching. If it becomes clear we have erred in our understanding, we should correct our summary. Nothing about this contravenes the sole authority of Scripture.
Now some will worry about how comprehensive we would strive to be in our summary. We should always strive to be comprehensive in our understanding of Scripture, but in humility and with the ability to differentiate between essential teachings and secondary ones. The Advent Christian Statement of Faith does a fine job identifying the central teachings of Scripture. The Declaration of Principles identifies some secondary teachings as well. The former should be the standard by which our churches are ultimately judged. Not because it is the Advent Christian Statement of Faith (though that is very significant organizationally), but because it summarizes the essential truths the Bible teaches. And we submit to the authority of God’s Word.
I invite you to consider my article “Advent Christian Identity for the 21st Century” in which I describe the complementary nature of “The Rule of Scripture” and “The Rule of Charity” in navigating matters of Christian fellowship in this regard.
[i] Freeman Barton, Editor, Advent Christian and the Bible, Henceforth Publications, Lenox, MA 1984, P.7
[ii] Ibid. P.7
[iii] Ibid. P.37
[iv] Ibid. P.7