An Outline for Renovating Advent Christian Distinctives
As promised in my earlier article, I will set forth here my thoughts regarding some ways in which we might renovate our Advent Christian identity. True to this post’s title, I will limit myself to an outline for changes (otherwise I’d be simply rewriting the DOP on my own). For your convenience in considering my proposals, here is a link to the Declaration of Principles.
1. Remove Redundancy – Advent Christians already have a Statement of Faith that clearly articulates God’s Triune nature and upholds the complete authority of Scripture. It might also be said that Principle #5 regarding salvation is redundant or should be articulated in the SOF. If we are going to maintain two documents of belief, the SOF identifying Christian essentials and the DOP Advent Christian distinctives, we should clarify that division by removing any redundancy between the two. If there is any dissatisfaction with the way in which certain beliefs are articulated in the SOF, changes should be made there.
2. Move on from Millerism – Principle #7 states in part, “We believe that Bible prophecy has indicated the approximate time of Christ's return.” This is a clear echo of the Millerite impulse to identify the day of Christ’s return, a tendency that continued in the early Advent Christian era only with greater modesty by not going so far as to set a precise date (read more on this here). Personally, I don’t believe we can determine the approximate time of Christ’s return based on Bible prophecy and it doesn’t seem to me that most Advent Christian pastors believe this either. Most seem to embrace a posture of “readiness” given that every passing year draws us closer to Christ’s return. Such a truism is not at all the same as maintaining that we can approximate the time of Christ’s return by examining biblical prophecy.
3. Elevate Adventism – Given the above you may think I am proposing we abandon Adventism, but that is not at all the case. True Adventism is not bound to chronological speculation. The heart of Adventism is the hope and anticipation of Christ’s return. As Adventists, we insist that Christ’s return represents the complete realization of God’s redemptive mission, realizing complete material and spiritual renewal. We reject the Gnostic frame that has infected the Church, suggesting that our end is to die and go to heaven. Most genuine Christians don’t deny the reality of Christ’s return, but they do strangely seem to overlook it. As Advent Christians, we enthusiastically uphold the hope handed down by the apostles.
Anticipation of Christ’s return is rich with implications. If Christ will return at any moment, we must apply ourselves as faithful servants at all times, seeking God’s approval rather than Man’s. If Christ has told us that he will only return once the Gospel has been preached to its full extent, we must be passionate about mission work, home and abroad. “Maranatha” is a cry of activity, not idleness.
In keeping with our name, this hope, this anticipation, would be clarified and emphasized as the crown jewel of our distinctives.
4. Clarify Conditional Immortality – I continue to believe that conditional immortality is vitally important, but that we must be more precise and limited in our definition of it. Very often it has served as a catch-all term, encompassing belief in the sleep of the dead and annihilationism. Frankly, I think this is a bit sloppy.
In its most basic form, conditional immortality is simply the belief that human beings are mortal creatures, not being immortal by nature; immortality is only given by God. Now, I would contend that the Bible teaches that this sort of immortality is of a heavenly quality, such that it would not include a hellish existence for all eternity. Typically, the necessary “condition” for this positive sort of immortality has been union with Jesus Christ. However, I would suggest that one could be called a conditionalist so long as he maintains that immortality is not intrinsic to human nature and that immortality is conditional upon any terms set by God – whether immortality is given for prosperity in Christ or for punishment apart from him.
If you have understood conditionalism to be merely concerned with punishment you will wonder if this allowance completely eviscerates the utility of the term. I would maintain that it remains useful because conditionalism is fundamentally concerned, not with punishment, but with human nature in relation to God. It is of great importance that we maintain that human beings are not naturally immortal, that we are mere creatures. We are in no way autonomous, we have no standing apart from God, and he is no way beholden to respect our existence. He can appoint us to life, death, or perhaps even eternal torment. He alone is God.
5. Broader Tolerance on Eternal Punishment – Therefore, I think we should allow both annihilationists and those who hold to eternal conscious torment to abide in the fellowship of our denomination. My conviction on final punishment has not changed one iota – I remain an ardent annihilationist. However, as I observed in my earlier article, it seems to me completely incoherent that we would discriminate on this secondary doctrine while also exercising complete tolerance in so many other secondary areas.
Early in our history we divided from the Evangelical Adventists on this issue; I believe this divorce ultimately came at the cost of our Adventism. The Second Advent movement was always a broad movement focused on Christ’s return. As I’ve said, this was reasonable for a movement, especially one focused upon rallying all Christians ahead of Christ’s return. Advent Christians have been compelled to defend conditionalism so constantly that I believe we have lost sight of our Adventism over time. Consistent Adventism (as opposed to a heretical extreme) would insist on the essentials of the faith, exercise charity on the nonessentials, and make every effort to cooperate together across secondary differences, showcasing the unity of Christ to a world that needs to believe in him. Fittingly, this corresponds with the priorities that we find in our local churches.
As far as final punishment is concerned, I do think we should agree that universalism is out of bounds. God is the judge of those who embrace that doctrine, but however merciful his verdict may be, it remains a dangerous doctrine that offers false assurance of salvation. For the remainder, annihilationists and those who believe in ECT must agree to tolerate one another.
6. Broader Tolerance on the Intermediate State – Most of the above applies also to the intermediate state. It is a secondary matter whether one believes the dead are conscious or unconscious before the resurrection. It seems that the early Advent Christians especially embraced this doctrine because it underscored the importance of Christ’s return. Once again, I appreciate that consideration and believe that Scripture teaches the sleep of dead. Nevertheless, I think we should articulate tolerance in this area while insisting that anything less than Christ’s return and the resurrection of the dead fails to deliver the complete redemption promised.
7. Reshaping our Congregationalism – I won’t say all that should be said here, but our statement on congregationalist polity (Principle #8) embraces a very acidic form of congregationalist autonomy. It makes the relationships between all our churches and leaders very utilitarian rather than fraternal; it seems more American than Christian. As Advent Christians, we should be interested in promoting genuine communion for the sake of the Church and the advance of the Gospel. We should remain congregationalist, but articulate a stronger sense of responsibility for one another.
8. Retain – I think we should retain our positions on the Lord’s Supper, Baptism by Immersion, Christian Sabbath, and War. It could be argued that we should allow for infant baptism in the name of Christian unity and Adventism, but I think this would create many practical challenges in our cohesion as a denomination. There is already a similar practical difficulty concerning the ordination of women. In general, I think there are occasions in which we must take stances in areas of secondary practice for the sake of cooperative action. If anything, we might do well to more clearly articulate our conviction regarding believer’s baptism, perhaps also speaking to the state of those who were baptized as infants.
9. The Charity Principle? – I wonder if it would be worth articulating a principle of charity that would explain the rationale behind the lines we draw and those secondary areas in which we take a stance. I think the charity principle is consonant with our Adventism – silence in certain areas is not necessarily a sign of doctrinal apathy or laziness; that is probably something we should make clear.
10. The Ordination Principle? – Regarding women’s ordination, I wonder if we should speak to this issue noting the differences among us. Undoubtedly, some who look into our denomination will wonder about our convictions here. Once again, I think in the name of Adventism and the historical circumstances we have inherited that we can refrain from determining this issue at a national level. I would instead suggest that in keeping with charity, it is the responsibility of the denomination’s ordaining bodies (conferences) to clearly publish their standards in this regard. Perhaps we would want to avoid this for now or not address it in a new DOP – I can sympathize with that pragmatism or line of thinking.
To be clear, I am not suggesting mere amendments or additions to the current Declaration of Principles. I am proposing that we take a blank piece of paper and write the Declaration of Principles afresh. That may seem radical, but it is precisely what our predecessors did. The 1881 version of the DOP was replaced whole cloth by the 1900 DOP, even if there is obvious consonance between the two. If earlier Advent Christians were not captive to what transpired 19 years previous, we should not be held captive by what occurred 124 years ago. Measures passed at the last Triennial convention would now make it possible for us to do this.
Why follow this outline? Follow it because it would offer a genuine reflection of Advent Christian belief today: commitment to Christian essentials, Adventism’s theological vision and missionary impulse, conditional immortality as far as human nature is concerned, and welcoming tolerable differences in other areas. It asks no one to betray their personal convictions on final punishment, but only to increase their consistency with and devotion to the Adventist heart of our denomination.
Instead of our clergy being the sole denominational standard-bearers, I believe these changes would result in more laypeople readily identifying themselves as Advent Christians; they will see the Scriptures and their own convictions in the new Declaration of Principles. We will possess a clear message, a clarion call by which new leaders outside the denomination who share our commitment to the Adventist vision will join us as full members, no longer occupying our pulpits as misfits and second-class citizens. Our beliefs would then reflect our priorities – our commitment to the broad and orthodox fellowship of our local churches, setting forth Christian unity, and our dedication to proclaiming the Gospel ahead of Christ’s return. Do this, and I believe we will bear Gospel fruit.
We will be having conversations along these lines at the upcoming Pastors & Church Leaders Conference (May 7-9) in Alton Bay, NH. In particular, this conference will include a panel-forum discussion featuring Chris Date of Rethinking Hell, myself, Lou Going, and Derek Irvine. Registration has been extended to Sunday, April 28. Please consider joining us if you can – register here.
