Tag Archives: the 28 Fundamentals

Fundamental Belief Number 8 (Great Controversy)

All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood, as presented in the historical account of Genesis 1-11. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Gen. 3; 6-8; Job 1:6-12; Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:12-18; Rom. 1:19-32; 3:4; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Peter 3:6; Rev. 12:4-9.  (Rev. 12:4-9; Isa. 14:12-14; Eze. 28:12-18; Gen. 3; Rom. 1:19-32; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; Gen. 6-8; 2 Peter 3:6; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14.)

Aside from the re-arrangement of the biblical texts, the major change in this fundamental was the addition of a sentence that could have been placed in FB6, “as presented in the historical account of Genesis 1-11.” I understand that there were two reasons for placing the statement here instead. First, it is the only place in the 28 FBs where the Flood is mentioned. Second, since this fundamental also mentions creation, it made it possible to reference Genesis 1-11 as a whole and not just the chapters related to the Flood. While many scholars have questioned whether the primary intention of Genesis 1-11 is history, this sentence certainly expresses how the average Seventh-day Adventist views these chapters.

This statement opens with the phrase “all humanity,” but that by itself is open to misunderstanding. The entire universe is involved in the great controversy and is affected by its outcome (Col 1:20; Eph 1:9-10; Rev 12:7-10), as the sentences that follow in the statement make clear. The ultimate outcome of the controversy is the vindication of God’s character of love. The statement leaves ambiguous, however, just how or by whom God’s love is vindicated. It is interesting that while the worldwide flood is mentioned here, the cross is not! From the Adventist perspective, the cross is more about theodicy (vindicating the character of God or defending God’s reputation) than it is about soteriology (how people get saved). Recent scholarship affirms that even Romans and Galatians are more about God and His character than what Luther saw in them, a revelation of how we get saved.

A key text upon which this statement is based is Revelation 12. At first glance Revelation 12 seems to be about a war against aggression and rebellion. How do you reconcile the self-sacrifice of the cross with such an aggressive story? A closer look at Revelation 12 makes clear that the battle language there is metaphorical. It is not a war fought with tanks and planes and guns, the great controversy is a war of words. The tail of the dragon (Rev 12:4) reminds the reader of prophets telling lies (Isa 9:15). The ancient serpent of 12:9 recalls the Garden of Eden where the serpent spewed out deceptive words (Gen 3:1-6). The method of the dragon’s attack in heaven is to accuse the “brethren” (Rev 12:10). And he is overcome by “the word of their testimony” (Rev 12:11). The battle language is the metaphorical backdrop to a war of words.

A Loma Linda perspective on this Fundamental focuses on the picture of God that human beings hold. God is not the kind of person His enemies have made Him out to be. He is not arbitrary, vengeful, unforgiving and severe. Instead He is both infinitely powerful and infinitely gracious. Not everything that religion says about God is true and some of the things even Christian religion says about God make Him look bad in the eyes of the world. God is often portrayed with a character more like that of Satan. So a major theme in Adventist evangelism is that everyone, including Christians, need to critique their own religion. Human beings do not, by nature, gravitate to an accurate picture of God. And if all who want to know God are willing to exchange what they think they know for truth, it will bring us all closer together.

There are practical implications of this picture of God for patient care. In more traditional types of chaplaincy, people are encouraged to think of death as simply part of life. When people are suffering, Jesus is portrayed as a sustaining presence more than as a healing one. There is also a desire to avoid doctrine at the bedside. While these points make sense in general, at Loma Linda we find it helpful in many cases to go further. While doctrine may not normally be appropriate at the bedside, it can at times be important for the chaplain to explore with a patient. Chaplains need to minister to a patient on the basis of the spiritual resources the patient brings with them. And in a world of great diversity, the chaplain needs broad spiritual and doctrinal understanding in order to be able to minister to many different types of people.

It is also true that there are occasions where what the patient believes is itself a source of suffering and can make both the dying process and the healing process harder than it needs to be. Patients often believe that they are sick because God is punishing them. While a doctor or a chaplain may not want to get into the details with a patient, the great controversy motif gives the caregiver the confidence to gently confront destructive doctrines with a message of God’s love and care even for those who have made a mess of their lives. The great controversy offers a perspective for understanding some of the difficult stories in the Bible that may be part of a negative narrative in a patient’s life.

In the Adventist view, the essential nature of God’s character is love. And for love to occur, it needs to be freely chosen. Love that is commanded or forced is not love. In creating the universe God was expanding the circle of love that was always there among the members of the Trinity. But for His creatures to truly love God they had to be free to do so. And being free to love meant they were also free to rebel and reject God’s love. God so highly values the freedom of His creatures, that He allows them the freedom to choose and also the freedom to reap the consequences of their choices. That means that God does not will that people be sick or die. Sickness and death are the consequences of freedom and illustrations of what happens when freedom is exercised in rebellion and self-centeredness. People are not sick because God is angry with them or because he is punishing them (although He can use misfortune to get our attention), suffering is a natural consequence of the present human condition. Suffering does not exist because God is evil or weak, it exists because God values freedom above all else. And one day the universe will be healed and safe, not by superior force, but through the abundant evidence that the universe is ruled by self-sacrificing love.

The Great Controversy motif also has powerful implications for geopolitical issues today. Some ask the question, Is Islam a religion of peace or a religion of violence? In light of the Great Controversy that is the wrong question. There is a universal conflict between God and Satan. That conflict is being played out in every nation and every religion. The line between good and evil is not between “us” and “them,” it runs right down the middle of every religion and every person. That means God is at work within Islam, and so is Satan. God is at work in Christianity, and so is Satan. God is at work within Adventism, and so is Satan. Because of the cosmic conflict, Islam can be a religion of peace and a religion of violence at the same time, because both God and Satan are at work in the hearts of Muslims. This FB has powerful implications for many aspects of religion.

SDA Fundamental Belief Number 7 (Nature of Man/Humanity)

Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do. Though created free beings, each is an indivisible unity of body, mind, and spirit, dependent upon God for life and breath and all else. When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil. But God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker. Created for the glory of God, they are called to love Him and one another, and to care for their environment. (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7, 15; 3; Ps. 8:4-8; 51:5, 10; 15; 58:3; Jer. 17:9; Acts 17:24-28; Rom. 5:12-17; 2 Cor. 5:19, 20; Eph. 2:3; 1 Thess. 5:23; 1 John 3:4; 4:7, 8, 11, 20.)  (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7; Ps. 8:4-8; Acts 17:24-28; Gen. 3; Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-17; 2 Cor. 5:19, 20; Ps. 51:10; 1 John 4:7, 8, 11, 20; Gen. 2:15.)

The changes in FB7 were few and simple. In addition to re-arranging the texts at the end and adding 1 John 3:4, the title was changed from “Man” to “Humanity” for the sake of inclusive language. The only other change was eliminating the phrase “under God.” The phrase was thought to be redundant with other things in the statement and could leave the impression that Adam and Eve’s sin was somehow under God’s direction or supervision.

This fundamental is another remarkable evidence that the writers of the original 27 were able to say many important things without taking sides on the most controversial issues among Seventh-day Adventists. When writing statements of belief, less is more. For example, the word “reconciled” points to the atonement in an open-ended way, not settling an issue upon which Adventists have sincere differences of opinion. This encourages continued study and discussion but enables us to stay unified, even in the midst of significant differences. The writers of these fundamentals were working to unite rather than divide. The changes made to FB6, however, seem intentionally divisive, or to be charitable, unifiying in a more exclusive sense. They were grounded in the concern that certain views will harm the body if not excluded. Time will tell if that venture will prove positive or negative for the church.

The SDA doctrine of human nature raises many more issues than does the doctrine of God (the subject of fundamentals 2-5), but these in general are left untouched in this statement. For example, How does the image of God relate to the nature of human beings who are marred by sin? In the intriguing words of one scholar, “Sin is unnecessary, yet it is inevitable.” What exactly do we mean by sin and how does this affect who human beings are and what they can become? While human beings are clearly physical, what do we do with aspects of human nature that seem to transcend the physical? One thing is for sure, the SDA view of human nature is much more popular among non-SDA biblical scholars and theologians than it was a hundred years ago.

One striking aspect of this statement is its focus on the more negative side of human nature, its enmeshment with sin. This is spelled out in some detail. But it would have been nice to give a little more detail on the positive side of humanity, not just noting that we were made “in the image of God.” What are some of the good things we retain from our origins, marred though they may be?

One thing not explored in this fundamental is the relational side of human nature. In the Protestant, Western tradition, theologians focus on individuality and freedom. But Genesis 1:26-28 focuses much more on relationships and community. The first humans were created with three basic relationships, 1) a relationship of submission to God (based on the “image” and “likeness”), 2) a relationship to the environment (“rule over, dominion”), and 3) a relationship with other humans (“male and female”). So a Hebrew view of human nature would focus more on the community than on the individual, which is central to Western thinking. The immediate consequence of sin was broken relationships, exile from the garden, the place where God can be directly encountered. Relationships with God, the earth and each other were broken after sin. So sin is manifested in the loss of community as much as it is in the internal distortions that occur in each of us. SDAs emphasize the individualistic nature of sin, but that is not a complete reflection of the biblical picture.

A Loma Linda perspective on this fundamental focuses on a number of things. 1) Adventists value the human body and thus focus on health and healing in spite of a strong apocalyptic mindset. 2) We also value the community. Resurrection means that people don’t go to heaven as individuals when they die. All remain “asleep” in their graves until the resurrection, and then the entire community is re-united in bodily form. 3) Additionally, this life is not the ultimate thing and death is a defeated enemy. We battle against disease and death because that is what God is doing. We battle in confidence that death is a defeated enemy, but we don’t get cast down when we lose a battle with death, because we know that we are winning the war. Deaths in this life are not the final word. Death on this side of Jesus’ return is just a sleep. The ultimate reality is beyond.

Although this is emphasized in later FBs, it is important to mention here that the SDA doctrine of human nature proclaims the unity of human beings (Gen 2:7; Eccl 12:7). Body, mind and spirit are not separate entities, but combined in a wholistic unity. This has powerful implications for the practice of whole person care and even more powerful implications for scientific research into human nature. Some of the best neurological and psychological research is increasingly substantiating the Adventist view of human nature. So this doctrine is a powerful guide to scientific research on the human body and mind.

SDA Fundamental Belief Number 6 (Creation)

God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic and historical account of His creative activity. He created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation six days the Lord made “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work the work He performed and completed during six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted the same unit of time that we call a week today. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God.  (Gen. 1-2; 5; 11; Exod. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Isa. 45:12, 18; Acts 17:24; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; 11:3; Rev. 10:6; 14:7.) (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.)

In the 1980 version, this fundamental particularly sought to deny, on the basis of Scripture, three beliefs that Seventh-day Adventists in general reject. 1) It denied that each of the days of creation in Genesis 1 can or should be interpreted as representing long ages. 2) It denied the “gap theory” in which long periods of time occur between the various days of creation. 3) It denied that life on this earth, particularly human life, began long ages in the past. The large scientific picture of the universe is in broad agreement with that perspective. According to the current scientific understanding, the universe is perhaps 13 billion years old, the earth has been around for 2-4 billion and human life is an extremely recent development. While there were many issues unaddressed by the 1980 statement, it affirmed a broad consensus between the evidence of Scripture (the earth and the heavenly universe were here before creation week—Gen 1:2) and the evidence of science. A broad-based, inclusive statement like the 1980 version allowed for a variety of solutions to perceived differences between Scripture and science. But a series of conferences and recent science/faith controversies led church leadership to the conclusion that the 1980 statement wasn’t specific enough.

So this is the fundamental belief that was most changed by the recent actions in San Antonio.  As originally expressed (in 1980), the wording was largely drawn from the biblical text itself, and was careful not to say much more than what the biblical text actually said. This style was and is in keeping with most of the fundamentals, so there is danger that the changes mandated by a group process may create a type of fundamental that is different in kind from the others. The major concern is whether the new wording will tend to divide more than it unifies believers.

Looking specifically at the changes, four phrases are crossed out, not because there was anything wrong with them, but because the new wording replaced them with different, lengthier or more specific language. So let’s focus on the additions. To the first sentence was added the words “and historical.” This was to exclude the idea that Genesis was not intended as literal history, but as legend or poetry that should not be taken literally. As a student of Hebrew, I can affirm that Genesis is not poetry, it is narrative. Adventists generally agree that Genesis 1 is historical rather than legendary narrative, hence the addition. The addition of Genesis, chapters 5 and 11, to the text list was to provide biblical evidence for the relatively short length of the history between Genesis 1 and Abraham.

The addition of “He created the universe” is deliberately separated from the six-day creation to leave open the reading that suggests an old earth but a much more recent creation of life as we know it. “A recent six-day creation” was designed to conclusively rule out the idea that the days of Genesis could be read as long ages, although the previous statement was clear enough for most on that point.

The biblical quotation from Exodus 20:11 was expanded to include “the sea and all that is in them.” The language of Exodus 20 seems to restrict the six-day creation to this earth. It is not talking about the original creation of the universe. Since Adventists believe there were other worlds watching the creation (Job 38:7) and that sin arose before the creation of humanity, it would be consistent to see Genesis 1 as describing a later act than the creation of the universe. So this expanded statement does not take sides in the young earth vs. old earth debate. The age of the earth is an open question, it is life on this earth that is “recent.”  The lengthy and awkward addition in the fifth through seventh lines (“the work He performed and completed during six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted the same unit of time that we call a week today”) was designed to exclude the idea the days of the week were different in length at the time of creation than they are now. The assertion, generally accepted by the church’s membership, is that the days of creation were roughly 24-hours long in today’s terms.

Because this fundamental has become as controversial as it has, it is difficult to get groups of people talking honestly about it. The discussion often bogs down to assertions, condemnation and ridicule, and such tactics can be used by all sides. A thoughtful exploration of what we know and what we don’t know on the topic can be hard to come by. One of the problems with this topic is that many or even most Christians who think carefully about the topic have come to believe that the science on the matter of origins has been settled, so the only issue is how to accommodate Scripture within the scientific worldview.

While there are a few Adventists, mostly practicing scientists, who have adopted such a view, most Adventists tend to differ. They believe that origins science is still in its infancy and that creation may one day, when we know more than we do now, have scientific credibility. So they are reluctant to allow science to determine how one reads Scripture and often feel that the “science” itself is more determined by atheistic presuppositions than by the evidence. So the Adventist Church has always been at the forefront of “creation science,” the attempt to apply sound scientific research principles to the matter of origins, seeking the holes in the arguments for macro-evolution (evolution as applied to long ages rather than observable experience) and also evidence for God’s design in creation and a relatively recent history for life on this earth.

But this viewpoint is challenging for most Adventist scientists, particularly when the evidence creation scientists uncover does not support traditional views, as is frequently the case (I have done tours of geological formations with some of the most fervent creation scientists and they have candidly pointed out difficulties). The danger of a more-detailed fundamental on creation (as recently voted by the world church) is that it glosses over the challenges and tempts proponents to manage the evidence in their teaching and preaching so as to win an argument rather than pursue the truth. Such “fudging” is very challenging for young people learning their way into the basic sciences. It can lead them to believe that the arguments for creation depend on the ignorance of the audience. They often feel that the more you learn, the less satisfying are the answers sometimes given.

I am not a scientist, I am a biblical scholar. So my default position is to approach the subject on the basis of the best understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 and similar biblical texts, rather than merely accept the consensus of science. But I realize that for a scientist, the matter is not so simple. I do not believe, therefore, that we should ask people to suspend logic, evidence, facts or reason in their pursuit of truth. I do not believe that we should ask people to believe that science as generally practiced is an elaborate deception, foisted upon us by those who are seeking ways to undermine the Bible and belief in God. What we need alongside this fundamental is a companion statement, written by believing scientists, that articulates exactly how evolutionary science should be taught and practiced in the light of the faith statement the world-wide representatives of the church have voted. I have often called for this, but I am not aware of such a statement at this time. Until it is there, believers will need to be very understanding of the deep challenges that young scientists face when they seek to integrate their faith with their practice of scientific method. Scientists need room to explore or they quickly fall behind their peers.

Let me suggest one possible way forward. The Asian mind can deal with tensions like this (between science and creation) better than the Western mind. The Western mind is shaped by Greek philosophical concepts that require black and white outcomes, and uniformity of thinking. This philosophical foundation permeates biblical scholarship as well as science, demanding precision where the Bible offers little, demanding answers when it asks all the wrong questions (like “Should women be ordained?” a question not asked in the Bible and, therefore, not answered compellingly in the Bible). The Asian mind, like the Hebrew mindset of the Bible writers, is OK with a little ambiguity. Perhaps on this fundamental, we should be OK with a little ambiguity as well.

Our discussion at the School of Religion raised some fresh questions that might illustrate some of the above. Do Genesis 1 and 2 discuss the creation of matter or the organization of matter? In the Hebrew mindset could there be distinctions between different kinds of death (first death, second death, natural death, death caused by sin), and would that have implications for the geological column? Is there a “biblical world view,” or is claiming such the result of organizing the Bible’s teachings on the basis of a person’s own experience and reasoning? If the purpose of Genesis 1 and 2 narratives is more theological than scientific, how much scientific information should we really expect from it? Genesis 1 is like a birth certificate, it establishes our identity as human beings more than it declares exactly how we got here.

The Loma Linda approach to this topic is grounded in our value of humility (LLU has seven foundational values: justice, compassion, humility, integrity, freedom and self-control/purity). True scholarship is not so much about how much one knows, it is about knowing how little one knows. What science does NOT know is much greater than what it does know. What Genesis does NOT say is much greater than what it does say. A standpoint of humility allows the freedom to think and explore within broad general guidelines. On the whole, the 28 SDA Fundamentals do a marvelous job of managing the church’s approach to challenging topics. Time will tell how the changes voted in San Antonio will play out in the church’s experience.

SDA Fundamental Belief Number 5 (Holy Spirit)

God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He is as much a person as are the Father and the Son. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ’s life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; 2 Sam. 23:2; Ps. 51:11; Isa. 61:1; Luke 1:35; 4:18; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:7-13; Acts 1:8; 5:3; 10:38; Rom. 5:5; 1 Cor. 12:7-11; 2 Cor. 3:18; 2 Peter 1:21.) (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)

As usual, the Scripture texts were re-arranged in this fundamental. Aside from one major addition, the wording is identical to the 1980 version of the statement. The added sentence, “He is as much a person as are the Father and the Son,” is clearly intended to rule out the view that is popular in some Adventist circles; that the Holy Spirit is not a unique person or entity, but is simply the omnipresent power of God the Father (and sometimes also Jesus Christ—in the latter case something of a “Binitarian” view). It also affirms by implication the divine personhood of the Son, in case anyone would ever challenge that.

According to the way this doctrine is written, the Holy Spirit never acts alone. In all of His activities the Father and the Son are also involved. Adventists are, by profession, monotheists, not “tritheists” (believing that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct gods). It was the relationship between Father and Son that split the early church into Eastern and Western traditions. The Eastern church wanted to clearly distinguish the work of the Father and the Son, the Western church wanted to emphasize the unity between them. Seventh-day Adventists have adopted the Western side of the debate, not surprising, since they are rooted in American Protestantism, which arose in Western Christianity. Eastern Christianity has never had a reformation like that of Luther and Calvin in the West. A result of this split (formalized in the year 1054 AD) is that Western Christians, including Adventists tend to subordinate the Holy Spirit to a degree. Father and Son are both seen as “sending” or having authority over the Spirit.

Exactly how the members of the Trinity relate to each other is debated among all Christians. Does the Trinity represent three “centers of consciousness” (note that the NT does not use the term “persons” with reference to God as most Christians today do, including SDAs in Fundamental 2)? Or is the Trinity one center of consciousness that we experience in different ways and at different times? The first leans toward “tritheism” and the latter toward absolute “monotheism.” Furthermore, the Eastern church tends to have a social view of the Trinity, emphasizing the inner relationship among them, while the Western church has a more psychological view of the Trinity, emphasizing their distinction and uniqueness. Each side of the debate does what it can to balance its own over-emphases. Clearly, the sharper you try to define your view of the godhead, the more mind-bending the outcome. Some things are best left a bit blurry, lest we subtly come to think we can control or manage God.

The Loma Linda view of these things tends to heighten a focus on the Father and on the wholeness of God as a model for the way we view human nature. If one makes the distinctions among Father, Son and Holy Spirit too strong, one can end up with three gods. At Loma Linda Jesus is the clearest revelation of what God (including all three) is like, if you have seen Him you have seen the Father (John 14:9), and by implication also the Holy Spirit. But enough on the godhead as a whole, this fundamental is about the Holy Spirit.

Once again this fundamental seeks to be clear without being too specific, it is careful in what it says and what it doesn’t say. For example, the Holy Spirit “draws and convicts human beings” (ironically, in the NT it is the Father [John 6:44] and Jesus [John 12:32] who do the drawing, that term is never used for the Spirit). The “convicts” part is firmly based on Scripture (John 16:8-11), yet does not probe very deeply into that process. How the Holy Spirit works in our lives is largely left open to experience, research and individual impressions, which is as it should be. The Spirit is described as the active agent of the godhead in the present age. “He” inspires, fills, draws, convicts, renews, transforms and empowers. All of these activities can be known in human experience, yet are hard to detail and define.

Throughout church history, people who emphasize the Holy Spirit tend to be spiritual “insurgents,” people who press for change and new ideas (see John 3:8). So it is not surprising that Adventists today tend to de-emphasize the Spirit. It would be interesting to research what happens when people over-emphasize or under-emphasize the Spirit. When people over-emphasize the Father (at the expense of the Son and the Spirit), it tends to lead to a dark and foreboding religion, where God is severe and punitive and people are fearful. When people over-emphasize Jesus Christ, the religion tends toward sentimentalism (like the song “In the Garden”), an over-focus on one’s own sinfulness, and a loss of majesty and awe in relation to God. When people over-emphasize the Spirit, it can produce a focus on self and the need for more and greater experiences with God. When those experiences don’t happen it can lead to disillusionment and loss of faith.

SDA history includes periods of Holy Spirit over-emphasis and ecstasy. One of these was at the very beginning, when the “shouting Methodist” background (the charismatic roots of Ellen White herself) led to noisy gatherings with people being “slain in the Spirit.” There was a strong emphasize on manifestations and less on sober research and reasoning. Another period of over-emphasis was the “Holy Flesh” movement around the year 1900. Adherents sought a physical experience of the Spirit, shouting and praying until someone fell unconscious, after which they would be considered ready for translation and no longer able to sin. When the Holy Spirit is emphasized too much we tend to baptize our own impulses.

One of the first “heresies” of the Christian Church involved the Montanists in the second Christian century. Arising in Asia Minor, they were doctrinally orthodox in general, but believed that the Bible (the OT and the apostolic writings at that time) is not the most direct path to God, the experience of the Holy Spirit is. So they practiced the spontaneity that comes from the Spirit and believed that, in a sense, every believer is as inspired as the prophets and the apostles. They sought to reform the church but were soon isolated and marginalized.

A concluding note. There is nothing said in this fundamental about the charismatic phenomenon of speaking in tongues. While that phenomenon has rarely been part of Adventist experience and would be awkward in most Adventist worship gatherings, there is no specific condemnation of it in the SDA fundamentals. In practice this means that Adventists who wish to are free to practice some form of speaking in tongues as long as they do so privately and do not agitate within the larger body over the matter. When the issue is agitated, it quickly leads to strife and division, which becomes a problem of order rather than one of theology. It is like keeping the feast days of the OT. It is permissible but must not be mandated.

SDA Fundamental Belief Number 4 (Son)

God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly humanman, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God’s power and was attested as God’s promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to heaven to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (Isa. 53:4-6; Dan. 9:25-27; Luke 1:35; John 1:1-3, 14; 5:22; 10:30; 14:1-3, 9, 13; Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; 2 Cor. 3:18; 5:17-19; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-19; Heb. 2:9-18; 8:1, 2.)

Aside from re-arranging the texts and inclusive language, the only significant change voted in San Antonio was the addition of “to heaven” after the word “ascended.” This was intended to state explicitly what was formerly assumed, that the ascension was to heaven not some other place.

This statement is a marvelous example of the church choosing to express itself in a way that all can agree on without taking sides in the internal debates. The language here seems to deliberately echo some of the creeds in the early Christian centuries. The statement carefully balances between pre- (Jesus had the human nature of Adam before the Fall—“sinless”) and post-lapsarian (Jesus had the nature of Adam after the Fall—“sinful”) positions. It carefully leaves room for both sides to live according to their consciences while staying unified on the things that are most clear. One might wish that the same approach had been taken in regard to FB6 (Creation), where the recent action at the General Conference in San Antonio codified a more narrow position that might not prove helpful to the very people who need clarity on this issue the most (scientists).

It is interesting that FB4 states things very differently than some or most early Adventist positions. This is one of the current fundamentals that our earliest pioneers would have had a hard time signing on to. Joseph Bates, James White and Uriah Smith would probably have rejected language like “God the eternal Son” and “Forever truly God.” E. J. Waggoner, of 1888 fame, never accepted the eternity of Christ, and he flourished five decades after the Millerite movement. Ellen White never challenged the views of Waggoner and Jones on this matter, possibly preferring to protect their view of the gospel rather than challenging their deficiencies in the area of Christology in the early 1890s.

The other possibility is that she herself was still growing in her understanding of this subject. Recent historical evidence suggests that Ellen White’s own shift in regard to issues of salvation and the deity of Christ occurred in Australia in the year 1896, when she attended a camp meeting lecture series on the Gospel of John by W. W. Prescott. The series focused on these very issues and articulated positions she took in Desire of Ages (1898) and later. It seems providential that SDAs moved in this direction (deity of Christ). We would have had a much harder time engaging other Christians in the 20th Century and beyond had our views on Christ been less orthodox.

On this doctrine Adventists are very much in line with the orthodox tradition, the great creeds of the early church. But if you go back to the fourth and fifth centuries, the orthodox position on Christ was anything but sure to win the doctrinal contest. In the early centuries Arianism (the view that the heavenly Christ was not truly divine but was a created being) was more popular than the orthodox position, so the early church’s move to the full deity of Christ and the Trinity was a bit startling when it occurred. While to us many of these ancient debates seem “much ado about nothing,” early church leaders were seeking to safeguard the essence of salvation. If Jesus is anything less than God, how could He truly be our Savior? In a real sense, salvation and the nature of Christ are closely related.

It is sometimes said that heresy is the mother of orthodoxy. In the early church debates, people often explored both extremes (Christ was primarily divine or human, for example) and then the mainstream of the church reacted by saying the truth couldn’t be either extreme, it must, therefore, be somewhere in the middle. The reality is, orthodoxy is almost always more complicated than heresy. Heresy is often the result of over-simplification. The resulting orthodox view of the trinity and Christ expressed things differently than the New Testament did, but was as faithful to the Bible as possible, given the nature of the questions people were asking at the time.

Something to think about. What if Christianity had come to the United States as an Asian religion rather than a European one? What would it have been like? What would we be like? But that is a speculative point. As it is, Adventism came to embrace the full orthodoxy of the Christian church on the subject of God and Christ. Adventist uniqueness becomes visible in other points of doctrine.

SDA Fundamental Belief Number 3 (Father)

God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gra­cious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also those revelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Deut. 4:35; Ps. 110:1, 4; John 3:16; 14:9; 1 Cor. 15:28; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 John 4:8; Rev. 4:11.)

The only change outside of some rearrangement of the texts was replacing the word “revelation” with the word “those.” Rather than saying that the actions of Jesus and the Spirit are revelations of the Father, the focus is on the equality of the three.

A crucial text in relation to the character of God is Exodus 34:6-7. What kind of God does this text portray? The passage piles up all the words in the Hebrew language that express the idea of grace in its various applications to the human condition. It expresses that God is love in the inmost aspects of His being. The text begins by saying that the Lord God is “merciful and gracious.” The Hebrew word for “merciful” (rachum) is related to the Arabic opening of the Qur’an, where Allah is described as merciful and compassionate (rachman ir-rachim). God is also described as “long-nosed” which is often translated “slow to anger.” The Hebrew word for anger is related to the nostril, since anger is often expressed in heavy breathing. If the nose is long, it expresses the basic idea is that it takes God a long time to get angry.

There is a disturbing picture (for many) in the latter part of this passage, the idea that negative judgment would fall on four generations, one of which would be at most children at the time of the offense being considered. Our discussion noted several aspects of the larger context. For one thing all four generations would have lived in the same compound (super-extended families), so there are corporate aspects in the actions of a family’s leaders. The three or four generations is, however, in contrast with the thousands of generations to which God’s expresses love and mercy. So even when He is making threats, God leans far in the direction of mercy.

The text goes on to say that God forgives “wickedness, rebellion and sin,” but will by no means “leave the guilty unpunished.” First of all, the same word for forgive (naqqeh) is found in both sides of the expression. Literally, God forgives wickedness, rebellion and sin, but does not forgive the guilty (pôqêd). How is it that the guilty are somehow less forgivable than the “guilty.” Aren’t they all guilty? Here it is helpful to note that the “guilty” are those who are outside the covenant, in other words, outside of a relationship with God. To be outside the covenant is not something people stumble into, it is the consequence of their own choices. So the dark side of this text is not a threat to be feared. Rather, the text implies that there is lots of latitude for those who are in relationship with God. The key is not the type of sin but whether or not the person is in covenant relationship with God. Perhaps the words of Ellen White are appropriate here that it is not the occasional good deeds or misdeeds that counts, but the larger trend of the life (Steps to Christ, 57.2).

In ancient times the gods were very wrathful and arbitrary. In that context it may not have been possible for Israel’s God to gain the respect of the people without some thunder and threats. But in texts like Exodus 34, John 3:16 and 14:9, we see a picture that cuts against the grain of the violent picture of God that ancients and many moderns have held. The Bible is often more ambiguous than we would like. But ambiguity in our understanding of God is not a weakness, it is a strength, helping us to maintain humility, and humility is one of the core values of Loma Linda University.

This Fundamental Belief clearly soft-pedals the harsher aspects of how God’s judgments are sometimes portrayed, and the above examination of Exodus 34 is supportive of how the topic was handled. Adventism at its best has a beautiful picture of God.

My colleagues and I reflected on the sacrifice of Isaac and God’s strange request in that situation. Is it appropriate that a child suffer in behalf of another? Clearly God had no intention of Isaac ever being sacrificed, as he intervened the moment Abraham came close. But why then the experience? I sometimes wonder if Abraham might not have been more obedient if he had simply said “no” to God on this one. He certainly does something like that in debating with God over the fate of Sodom, and God seems to have approved of him doing so (Gen 18:25-26). Similarly, Moses argues with God in Exodus 32-34 that it is not appropriate for God to wipe out Israel and replace them with Moses and his descendants (Exod 32:11-14). Perhaps God would have been glorified even more had Abraham said no. He would be held up as an example of reasonable faith, a faith that trusts God enough to challenge what appears to be an irresponsible request. God is OK when His friends challenge Him.

Since Abraham said yes, God used the story as a beautiful illustration of how much He would be willing to sacrifice in order to win back the human race. In the prophets on the other hand, especially Ezekiel 18, we see a more straightforward sense that everyone is responsible for their own choices. So Israel’s understanding of God seems to have shifted by the time of the prophets, anticipating the enhanced revelation of the New Testament.

At Loma Linda University there is a strong focus on God as the creator and sustainer of the world. In the mission of healing, we are continuing the creative and sustaining mission of God, who experiences the pain of His creatures along with them. In the earthly experience of Jesus, that ministry of healing was most clearly seen. Many patients come to Loma Linda with a negative view of God as one who is punishing them for their sins with sickness, accidents or chronic disease. It is very healing for them to learn about the union of love and purpose between the Father and the Son. If the Father had come done to earth instead of Jesus, He would not have been any different than Jesus was. It is a healing theology that lays out the complete unity within the godhead, and the gracious character of the Father.

Much of my life I have had something of a good cop/bad cop view of God. The Yahweh of the Old Testament was tough, judgmental and often scary and intimidating. The Jesus of the New Testament was gracious, kind and accepting. The two views of God kind of played off against each other. But I realize now that that picture was based on a misreading of Scripture. Jesus came to show us what the Father is really like. And what the Father is like is Jesus. There is no difference between the two. That is a strong Adventist contribution to Christian theology.

SDA Fundamental Belief Number 2 (Trinity)

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. God, who is love, He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.)

With the exception of  some re-arranging of the Bible texts, the only change made to this fundamental in San Antonio was replacing “He” at the beginning of the fourth sentence with “God, who is love,”. There seem to be two motives for the change, inclusive language (“God” vs. “He”) and adding a reference to love in the statement on the Trinity.

After reading this statement and some of the texts connected with it one of the faculty playfully asked, “If I invited the Trinity to dinner, how many plates should I place at the table?” One response was, “Just one, we are monotheists.” Another suggested, “Three plates, but one chair, and serve three different types of foods.” The struggle to answer a simple question illustrates the difficulty people have had for centuries in articulating the Christian picture of the godhead. Christians are monotheists, which means they don’t believe in three gods (or Gods), yet there is more to be said than simply that God is one (Deut 6:4). If one approaches the issues psychologically one could say that God is one in mind, yet there is a sense of three “personalities” (an analogy that I don’t think the Bible itself actually makes). If God is absolutely one, was Jesus praying to Himself while He was on earth? There is clearly also a social side to the gospel, members of the Trinity (also not a biblical term) can somehow converse among themselves and direct one another.

The bottom line with the Trinity doctrine is that these huge themes can only be approached through metaphor. Everything that we can possibly say about God is inadequate in the ultimate sense. For me, the most important thing about God as three is that it makes eternal love possible. If God were one in the absolute sense, God could be many things but love would not be one of them. Love would not be part of God’s essence. Love, in that case, would be possible only after creation. It would be a quality that responds to the creation. So it is interesting that Muslims, who have an absolute view of monotheism, have ninety-nine names for God, but don’t usually think of God in terms of love. If God is Trinity, then love is essential to God’s nature from the beginning. It is not something that happens only on account of creation, unless the created  universe itself was as eternal as God. John 1:1 clearly states otherwise—at the moment when “all things” were created, the Logos and “God” were already there. As parents know, a couple’s love can be quite self-centered on their own, but with the arrival of a baby, true love becomes complete.

Is the Trinity present in the Old Testament or does only the New Testament point toward it (the word “trinity” and the explicit concept in the FB above are not directly expressed even in the NT)? In our discussion, Genesis 18 was suggested first; the three visitors that came to Abraham just before the destruction of Sodom. Genesis 1 also speaks of God in plural, “Let us make human beings in our image.” And even the very Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural. Also in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, when it says that “God is one,” the Hebrew word for “one” (echad) expresses a compound unity. So while it would be inappropriate to say that the Trinity is clearly expressed in the OT, the OT data leaves the way open for the idea.

Is there a Loma Linda perspective on this doctrine? How we understand Trinity is very important to our concept of God. The Bible is clear that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor 5:18-19). The cross of Christ does not occur to placate a wrathful Father or change His mind regarding the human race. God Himself provided the atonement because He loves us (John 3:16-17). All three members of the Trinity are involved in the work of reconciliation, in these matters, as Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). If you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father (John 14:9). So there is no wedge between the Father and the Son. If the Father had come down and lived on this earth as Jesus did, He would have looked and behaved no differently. There is perfect unity in the godhead.

SDA Fundamental Belief Number 1 (Holy Scriptures)

“The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history.” (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

As my colleagues and I looked at this fundamental, a number of things stood out. First of all, was the word “infallible.” For some of us, that suggested eerie echoes of the Papacy and the inerrancy positions of some of our Evangelical colleagues. But in fact, when this fundamental was voted (1980), the word was carefully chosen to be a step short of “inerrant.” Adventists wanted a more flexible approach to Scripture than that of “inerrancy in the original documents,” but they didn’t want to imply that the Bible was full of errors, either. There is a balance in the Bible between the divine and the human. While the “Word of God” would be infallible by definition, the Bible was written by human beings and exhibits human characteristics, cultural differences, and at times grammatical mistakes (Book of Revelation). If you’re not familiar with the last point, ask me about it.

In formulating our view of the Bible it is important not only to take into account the assertions about the Bible made by the biblical authors (such as the texts included with the Fundamental above), but also the evidence of the Bible itself. Whatever we mean by inspiration, it does not preclude inspired writers from disagreeing on the order of events in Jesus’ life, writing in different styles and quality of Greek, or emphasizing different metaphors of the atonement. In the Bible God meets us where we are and where we are is rarely the perfect venue for expressing the infinite truth of God. So we need to test our understanding of inspiration, not only against the statements of the Bible on inspiration, but also against the phenomena of how God chose to reveal Himself to human beings.

Example: I would not have expected, on the basis of this fundamental, for God to use an idol as a means of revelation. But then I read Daniel 2 in the original language! Nebuchadnezzar recognized the “image” (Aramaic: tsemel) as something that could and should be worshiped (see chapter 3—also tsemel). In the dream of Daniel 2, therefore, God described the future of the world by means of an idol image. God met Nebuchanezzar where he was in order to move him a step or two in the right direction. We would not expect that on the basis of an absolutist reading of Isaiah 8:20 or John 17:17.

Another important distinction comes in how we read the Bible. It is easy to say, “I take the Bible as it reads.” But then the question arises, “Whose reading is the correct one?” One common way of reading is to understand the Bible to be a static document. Every statement of Scripture expresses exactly what God would say in every other situation as well. In the static understanding, I just need to take the Bible at face value and apply my understanding everywhere. Some call this type of reading “literal,” taking the Bible literally, as if it was not given in a particular language, culture and historical situation. But if we insisted on taking the whole Bible literally, we would still have slaves today, we would execute our children for rebellion against their parents, and we would never wear clothing with a mixture of fibers (to list just a few examples). The reality is, no one takes the whole Bible literally. To read it literally means to pick and choose the texts you wish to emphasize and that is not really taking it literally any more. The texts you choose to emphasize determine the outcome of your study.

But if God meets people where they are, we would not expect the Bible to be static. We would not expect every statement of the Bible to be God’s absolute will for all time. Instead, we would expect to see God meeting people where they are and seeking to move them in the direction He wants them to go. For example, God chose not to confront the issue of slavery head on in the context of the brutal Roman Empire. But through Paul He taught people how to treat slaves the way God treated people in Christ (Philemon). That was a huge and revolutionary step that inevitably led to the recognition that if all people are equal at the foot of the cross, then slavery is not the will of God.

When Paul told wives to submit to their husbands, he was not endorsing spousal abuse, he was radically modifying the marital relationship in the light of the self-sacrificing love of Christ. Submit to a man who would be willing to die for you the way he submits to the Christ who died for him. While the language of the text adopts the common language of submission, it transforms that language in the light of Christ. If all are equal at the foot of the cross, then God’s aspiration for women may be higher than the direct statements of Scripture would suggest. God meets us where we are and seeks to move us toward a goal. This means reading the Bible as a dynamic text that enables our understanding of God’s will to grow along with our capacity to understand. As Jesus said, “I have many things to tell you, but you can’t handle them now.” (John 16:12, my translation)

Loma Linda University is certainly committed to the primacy of the Bible in determining what is truth. But it is also committed to the integration of all knowledge, and this can only happen when submitted human reason is carefully applied to the evidence of both Scripture and nature/science. As such, the Loma Linda perspective seeks to understand the Bible in its original context, and is observant of distinctions between poetry, narrative, history, prophecy and apocalyptic. It takes the Bible seriously as it reads, but as it reads in a whole Bible. The richness of Scripture is a continual source of developing truth.

But above all else, the Loma Linda approach to the Bible sees in it a “larger view” of God and the cosmic conflict that is an essential context for all 66 books of the Bible. This “larger view” was stimulated by broad reading of Ellen White’s books like Steps to Christ and the Conflict Series. Ellen White encourages the biblical reader to see the entire Bible in the context of the conflict between Christ and Satan. But this is not a reading imposed on the Scriptures. Through history, many great readers of the Bible have also seen this, from Origen, to Dante, to Milton to C. S. Lewis. While not always on the surface, the cosmic conflict is the essential undercurrent of Scripture, without which it addresses merely the human point of view on God and the problem in the universe. Seeing Scripture through the lens of the cosmic conflict is the reason Scripture at Loma Linda is seen more through a healing lens than a legal or punitive one. But the healing side of Adventism must not be used to negate the other (apocalyptic, end-time approach). They are rather like two sides of a coin. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

On the Preamble to the SDA Fundamental Beliefs

“Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.”

I understand that the original draft of this Preamble was written by Ron Graybill, in hopes of forestalling any trend toward a creed. Ironically, the Preamble is now being used to “tighten up” the wording of many of these Fundamentals to make them harder to “get around.” Concerns about development of a “creed” have grown in recent years. One of the SDA Church founders, James White, was afraid of putting beliefs on paper as the mere act of doing so would become a creed (like Loughborough’s comments in the previous blog). But here we are. The time has probably come for SDAs to consciously defend that what they have produced is not a creed, if in fact Adventists don’t want one.

What is the difference between a creed and a list of fundamental beliefs? For one thing, creeds are usually quite a bit shorter than the SDA Fundamentals. They usually express minimal expectations and are often intended for memorization and recitation in worship. The SDA Fundamentals are far from memorable, even a list of the 28 is difficult for most people to remember. In addition, a creed is something that doesn’t change. It expresses a point of view from a particular point in time. It may be interpreted in different ways, but the wording tends to be fixed. By all these definitions, the 28 Fundamentals probably do not qualify as a creed, at least not yet.

I remember an important conversation with a major church official ten years ago. Based on the Preamble, he stated his belief that the Fundamentals could grow or change, but they could never shrink. I protested that they were probably too long already and that some were more major than others and we should be open to the discovery that we could be wrong on one point or another. In looking at the Preamble, however, I can see where he might have gotten that perspective. The Preamble anticipates changes when a “fuller understanding” is developed or we find better language to express what is already there. I, on the other hand, would understand “fuller” to include subtraction as well as addition, if we decided that a certain concept might be true, but didn’t need to be elevated to Fundamental status. In my view, our understanding should become more accurate and complete, but not necessarily greater in quantity. But it is just such ambiguities in the current formulations that enable discussion and growth in understanding.

When it comes to statements of consensus, the more people that are involved the harder they are to achieve. What usually happens in large organizations is that a few strong leaders cast their vision of what should be, and they usually carry the day. But is that the way the Holy Spirit leads to consensus?

What is the relationship between Fundamental Beliefs and the Bible? A popular phrase, inherited from the Reformers, is “sola sciptura,” meaning roughly “The Bible Only.” But the meaning of that phrase today is often different than it was back then. The Reformers didn’t mean by this that all ideas had to be directly based on the Bible. There are many sources of moral and theological wisdom outside the Bible, and the Reformers recognized and used them. They meant, rather, that the Bible operates like a measuring stick, setting the basic principles and helping people distinguish truth and error in other sources of wisdom. To limit our understanding of theology to what is explicit in the Bible was never the Reformers intention.

A Loma Linda perspective on this Preamble would be to underline its openness to evidence and to science as a source of truth and wisdom. Adventists have never believed in a fixed creed. There has always been the sense that we know in part (1 Cor 13:9, 12), that there is more to learn (Prov 4:18) and that our knowledge will increase along with our effort and our capacity to understand (John 16:12). SDAs, therefore, have been remarkably open to theological and structural development in the past. We have changed our organizational structure at least four times (1861, 1863, 1901, 1903). We believed in a Shut Door (to salvation) at first, but now are an aggressive, worldwide evangelistic movement. We once thought Turkey was the key to understanding the end-time prophecies of the Bible, but we gradually abandoned that view after World War I. We “discovered” righteousness by faith in 1888 and still struggle to implement it in places. To be honest, most of the SDA pioneers (1840s and 1850s) couldn’t have signed on to all 28 of the current Fundamentals. So this Preamble is a nice statement of the “Adventist Spirit” of research, openness to new truth, and growth in understanding.

Reflections on Annual Council: Fundamental Belief 6

A number of changes in Fundamental number 6 (Creation) have been recommended by the Annual Council. This was in response to the action at the General Conference in 2010 to revise FB6 in light of the Affirmation of Creation document produces at the Science and Creation Conference of 2004 (Glacier View, Colorado). Among the changes is the adjective “recent” in relation to the creation of “the heavens and the earth.” The chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11 were added to the list of Scriptures because they offer the only basis for calculation of ancient biblical dates.

The new statement itself seems to me to support so-called young earth creationism (everything, including the rocks, was created in recent times), which is popular with some protestants outside the SDA Church. This is different from the “young life” position (earth may be billions of years old but life was a fairly recent creation) I generally heard in my years at the Seminary (Andrews University). The chair explained that the statement was intended to leave both options open. In his view, this was done by referencing Exodus 20 in the statement instead of Genesis 1. Exodus 20 does not refer to “in the beginning” but has to do with the creation of this earth only.

This stimulated a vigorous discussion in the Biblical Research Institute Committee (BRICOM). Many members are clearly uncomfortable with the “young earth” position. They note that the Institute for Creation Research (evangelical operation) goes so far as to state a “young universe” position (the entire universe, including galaxies, was created a few thousand years ago). The SDA statement must be worded in such a way that people don’t think it advocates young-earth or young-universe positions.

The chair of the FB committee (Angel Rodriguez) responded that the statement begins with “God created the cosmos,”and no reference to six days or recent history is made. Then the “six days” are brought in and Exodus 20 is quoted. The statement, to Rodriguez, is deliberately ambiguous on the creation of the universe and the physical planet earth. Room is left for theologians to discuss the details.

But some committee members were not satisfied. They noted that Exodus 20 is merely quoting Genesis 1 and that most readers of FB6 are likely to read “heavens” in Exodus 20 as the entire cosmos. Unless the statement is more nuanced, literalistic readers are like to attach the Seminary and other educational institutions simply for teaching what most Adventist creationists have believed for years.

This discussion was most interesting. Even in a group that is firmly committed to SDA beliefs and traditional readings of Scripture and science, there was considerable disagreement on just how FB6 ought to be worded. It was then reported that when the 27 Fundamentals were written up in 1980, not one of the original fundamentals was voted unanimously by the committee. The fundamentals should be understood as a statement of what most Adventists believe, rather than what all believe or should believe.

That raised the question of the purpose of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. In legal terms, are they prescriptive (indicating what everyone “should” believe) or descriptive (describing what most Adventists believe). The Preamble of the Fundamentals suggests they are descriptive. They are intended as a helpful resource for explaining what Adventists believe and inviting others to consider and embrace those beliefs. But more and more voices are treating the Fundamentals as prescriptive, spelling out exactly what people must believe. It seems to me that this is a dangerous turn, one that the early pioneers of the Church would have vigorously opposed.

The fact that the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists can be changed suggests that they are not a creed. But it is a strange thing to have changeable fundamentals and then enforce them. That suggests that early pioneers like James White and J. N. Andrews could be disfellowshipped today for not believing everything that is now present in the fundamentals. Are we moving toward a fixed creed that all must subscribe to? Or is it still true, as our pioneers said, that the Bible is our only creed? Do we submit our understanding to the Bible, or to our understanding of the Bible. There is an important difference. If the “biblical view” is not what is contained in the Bible, but is now what we think the Bible says, we have made a significant shift. In a very subtle way tradition begins to supplant Scripture. I hope we don’t go there.