Author’s Note: The following article, which complements Julius Nam’s article last week about the preamble to the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, was originally written as an editorial for the South Pacific Division Record. It was reprinted in One Thing I Know—and Other Stuff I Strongly Suspect (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald, 2003)

Some time ago, I heard a speaker say, "if a denominational worker doesn’t believe every one of the Adventist Church’s Twenty-Seven Fundamental Beliefs, that person is being dishonest in accepting his pay check."

At first blush, the statement seems the epitome of orthodoxy. After all, if the Twenty-Seven Fundamental Beliefs are the agreed-upon beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, church employees certainly should be stalwart supporters. And the same principle applies to all who take the name Seventh-day Adventist. However, the foregoing statement actually runs counter to our statement of beliefs—unless it’s carefully qualified!

The preamble to the Twenty-Seven Fundamental Beliefs states: "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 teachings 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."

The preamble may well be the most important component of our statement of belief—because it lays down the ground rules. And if I understand it correctly, as Adventists, we believe it highly significant that we haven’t followed many other Christian bodies in writing a creed.

Since we believe in progressive revelation, and since we recognize human frailty, we don’t want the current description of our commonly held beliefs to be set in concrete. We want to allow for clearer understanding, for clearer expression. Thus, we have opted for a "statement of belief" instead of a "creed."

This concern to safeguard the potential for change is crucial. But we must be careful on at least three fronts.

First, we must guard against becoming holier-than-other-Christians by reading more than is warranted into the distinction between a "creed" and a "statement of belief." My dictionary defines creed as "any formula of religious belief."

Those Christian groups with long-established creeds could just as easily be said to have a "statement of belief" (however set in concrete it may be). And Adventists could accurately be described as having a "creed"—it’s just one that’s subject to revision. In short, the terms don’t indicate as much as we’ve often assumed. What really counts is the practice.

Second, we must guard against letting our statement of belief turn into a creed that’s set in concrete. And statements such as the one from the speaker I quoted at the beginning help make that very thing happen. That statement inadvertently precludes the possibility of change. Let me illustrate.

If our statement of belief were ever to be changed, the thinking of a majority of the voting participants at a General Conference session would have had to change first. And it would probably have been a slow change over a period of years. Does this mean that those who felt convicted that the statement needed changing were dishonest in accepting their pay checks or in calling themselves Adventists before the change took place?

And what about those who disagree with a change that has just been approved by the majority at a GC session—those who prefer the statement the way it was? Do they arrive at the session as loyal members, yet leave disloyal?

Third, having emphasized that we must be open to change (which implies tolerance and room for a degree of individuality), we must be careful that we not use our personal freedom as license to promulgate every belief we might happen to hold.

Some of our church’s greatest pioneers had idiosyncrasies when it came to belief. But most also had an overriding loyalty that sought the good of the body rather than the right to ride a hobby horse. Thus, I would suggest, loyalty is a far more crucial consideration than full agreement with the choice of every word in our statement of beliefs.

As with all aspects of religion, balance is the key. Too much emphasis on the need for agreement with our statement of belief can, by default, create a creed. And too light a view of the statement’s importance creates anarchy. But a balanced view creates an atmosphere of both fellowship and ongoing discovery.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE