 GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH | |
Seventh-day Adventist Identity: Two Approaches
Legislated identity versus a Historical-Theological approach
Presenter: Larry Kirkpatrick
Location: Internet
Delivery: 2006-01-08 16:58Z
Publication: GreatControversy.org 2006-01-08 16:58Z
Type: Document
URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/kir-sdaidentity.php
Within the ranks of “conservative” Adventism, two approaches to SDA identity create tension. One approach tends to make this determination on the basis of belief statement lists and documents voted at General Conference Sessions. The other says that what a groups stands for is a distillation of the theological and historical journey of the Seventh-day Adventist movement. For purposes of this essay, we designate these, respectively, as (1) Legislative and (2) Historical-Theological (HT) paradigms.
Belief lists can be formed on the basis of either, but those formed on the Legislative basis locate their formational authority chiefly in present church policy and administration, while belief lists formed with an eye to historical and theological considerations will center their content in lists where harmonization and advancement stresses continuity and primary value in the ideas, attitudes, and historically anchored theological foundations found in the beginnings of the movement.
Legislative Approach
The Legislative approach is a logical outgrowth of the fact that Seventh-day Adventist Church governance has been neither congregational nor papal, but representative in style. As the denomination has grown, committees and governing boards and bodies have increased considerably in size, so that every five years a General Conference Session assembles and some 2000 delegates along with tens of thousands of church members congregate together from all over the world while policy changes are voted.
Our form of church governance is modeled somewhat similarly to the government of the United States. The Unites States is neither a pure democracy nor a pure republic, but a representative democracy. Government is led by persons voted into office. There is regional representation in the form of states, and a separation of powers, with Legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
In a Legislative approach to church, ultimate belief statements are voted at GC Sessions, and each administration has opportunity to make its mark in terms of shaping the baseline doctrinal positions of the church by producing books such as Questions on Doctrine, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, etc., and by shaping ministerial minds by those who are placed at the Seminary, other SDA colleges and universities, or the Biblical Research Institute. (Because some such books have been negative in their impact upon the church historically does not mean that all such productions must be so.)
The weakness of the Legislative approach to Seventh-day Adventist identity is that an administration may venture into doctrinal revision as did that of G.C. president R. R. Figuhr with the book QOD, or introduce problematic innovations such as the year 2000 GC Session did with the Divorce and Remarriage decision. Revised belief statements can be legislated bearing little true relationship with statements that have gone before. Legislation can take place in complete independence from the historical and theological identity that has previously been manifest in making the community what it is.
Historical-Theological Approach
In contrast, if we view our identity as primarily mediated through the historical and theological journey of the movement, we can respect legislated decisions even as we ground our self-concept in the ideology of the movement. A Historical-Theological self-understanding is going to give first place to the theological sources of Seventh-day Adventism—biblical apocalyptic and the writings of Ellen G. White.
Theology is the study of the word about God to man. That study is rooted in the ultimate authority of the inspired writings. The Historical-Theological approach to identity will also be serious about the development of our self-understanding. For example, we will watch how God led our people, through Ellen White, to the discarding of the antitrinitarian position. We will also watch closely as our denominational views concerning a doctrine such as the atonement have shifted over the years—and so determine whether currently favored positions are harmonizible with our historic position.
Those holding to a Historical-Theological approach will look closely at the various monuments legislated or produced by the church. “Official” will always be counterweighted by the historical and theological. If all harmonizes, then fine. If there is a divergence between legislated and Historical-Theological visions, there will be friction.
Both Approaches Needed
Actually, each approach (Legislative and Historical-Theological) is going to include the other. Legislative approach people are unlikely to ignore the historical and theological underpinnings of Adventism, just as those who make their dominant approach the Historical-Theological have no need or intent to ignore voted statements. Yet the larger weight of determination will be on the basis of the fundamental viewpoint. The bottom line for the person operating under the Legislative approach will always be, “this statement was voted by the church,” while the determinative factor for the Historical-Theological person will always be “what do the inspired writings say, and is this a logical outgrowth of our historical journey as a people? Is there any artificial or inharmonizible aspect to it?”
An example of this collision between the Legislative and the Historical-Theological perspective is the publishing in 1957 of Questions on Doctrine. Here is a serious waymark in Adventist history. It was produced under the administration of General Conference president R. R. Figuhr. Without GC Session approval, Figuhr and the QOD authors produced and promulgated this book.
Although no changes in the then-present belief statement list were sought by the administration at that time, it was clear to the involved parties that they were embarked on making substantive changes. Indeed, the high profile that changes made via General Conference session would have had was not sought by those revisers. Instead, every attempt was made to reiterate that in making the changes, no changes were being accomplished.
Futures
Those who are driven by ideology but who make their dominant approach to Seventh-day Adventist identity the Legislative, will be disappointed when poor decisions are legislated. Such “forward motion” may be more apparent, more superficial, than real.
Because legislated change can (but should not be) accomplished in isolation from the Historical-Theological development of the movement, the addition of new ideas less carefully harmonized with the historic position and theology of the group may accelerate a situation of pluralism. Pluralism, in turn, creates barriers to meaningful reformation. Pluralism means new viewpoints standing side by side with other long-held viewpoints. New viewpoints may carry less validity if they are promoted in isolation from the Historical-Theological journey, but via pluralism they may appear to carry validity equal to views that long have harmonized with the origin of the group.
That is, if the new views are erroneous, then energy must be spent correcting them after energy has been spent erecting them. This energy might be spent more productively in reform. Further, one legislated solution may evoke other legislated positions no more prone to create consensus or to harmonize with views that are historically and theologically consistent than before.
By systematizing the submission of items for legislated change, a way forward for reform may be advanced or further hindered. For example, the 2005 General Conference session added a protocol for change (See Protocol Statement on Additions or Revisions to the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, accessed 2006-01-08 16:42Z). Time will tell whether this aids or impedes the progress of the church.
It is likely that the way forward will be through more mobile, more Historical-Theological mediated identity viewpoint groups operating according to the HT paradigm. These often will spend their mission energies in movements and new structures existing in cooperative parallel with the church. Ideological strength will always be carried mostly by those operating in the HT paradigm.
The Legislative paradigm, throughout the history of God’s people, has never been an effective conduit for successful truth transmission, effective torch-passing. It has a place, but its dominant feature tends to preservation of the status quo by current dominant influence groups. May God help us be led of Him so that our identity is the one He has sought for us, and not merely our own preference we imagine to be heaven ordained. GCO
© 2006 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.
