Labels, though usually inadequate, are nevertheless unavoidable in human discourse. But in order to avoid needless misunderstanding, it is best for those employing labels to define them before using them. Without such definition, confusion rather than clarity is the likely result.
In contemporary Adventism, as in contemporary America, certain labels are being popularized, not only without definition, but in a manner that compromises many of the principles held dear by those flinging these labels about.
Creeds and Creedalism
A number of years ago I wrote an article on this site titled, “The Red Herring of Creedalism” [1], which explained how so much of the “creedal” bugaboo in certain Adventist circles fails to define what is meant by this often-noxious term. The aforesaid article noted that if the word “creed” is meant to describe a set of beliefs to which contradiction is disallowed in the faith community, there isn’t anyone—no matter how liberal, conservative, or some point in between—who isn’t in fact a creedalist. This reality would quickly be demonstrated if a professor on an Adventist campus were to publicly embrace, for example, anti-Trinitarianism, the denial of our Lord’s virgin birth, or the notion that humans of non-Caucasian heritage were somehow inferior in spiritual or intellectual capacity to Caucasians. Few if any would be heard mouthing the term “academic freedom” if an Adventist professor employed by the church were found promoting any such ideas.
The real issue, then, is not whether the church upholds what can fairly be called a creed, but what in fact such a creed contains. The opposition of early Adventists to the idea of a creed was not directed at the concept of a statement of incontrovertible beliefs, but rather, to a man-made belief statement reliant on human tradition rather than the objective Word of God [2]. One would be hard pressed to find any contemporary Adventist of any persuasion who wouldn’t adhere to, and require other co-religionists to adhere to, a particular statement of beliefs. The question that lingers is what in fact should be included in such a statement.
Cancel Culture
This label has become especially popular among political conservatives, in particular conservative Christians of various stripes, including some Seventh-day Adventists. It is usually heard in denunciation of institutions, congregations, and others who refuse to allow speakers of a particular ideology to occupy their public platforms. When such a speaker gets invited in such a context, and then experiences cancellation, the speaker is often depicted as victimized by “cancel culture.”
However, one must ask if those hurling this label would not themselves insist on the canceling of various speakers in certain settings whose convictions don’t comport with their own. If one of our colleges or universities were to invite a speaker promoting theistic evolution or the acceptance of those practicing the LGBTQ lifestyle into church fellowship, many if not most of those objecting to “cancel culture” would insist that such a speaker be disinvited—“cancelled,” if you will—from the educational platform in question.
Where the problem arises most often is when those protesting so-called “cancel culture” are found practicing such a culture themselves, especially when they fail to define their standards and terminology. Unfortunately, through much of modern and postmodern Adventist history, those calling for “academic freedom” in Adventist educational settings usually refer to freedom for those challenging distinctive Adventist beliefs, and are often found denying such freedom to those defending these beliefs. During the past few decades, for example, certain institutions and organizational segments within the church have been caught forcing the cancellation of speakers who oppose women’s ordination to the gospel ministry or who support various aspects of the doctrinal construct known as Last Generation Theology. Yet in any number of these same settings, persons opposing the thrice-voted stance of global Adventism relative to women’s ordination, who oppose Ellen White’s doctrinal authority as defined by our 28 Fundamental Beliefs, or advocate acceptance of the LGBTQ lifestyle within the church, have been welcomed to public platforms.
The U.S. Senate Filibuster
We see a similar gyration of priorities in the ongoing debate in American politics over the use of the filibuster in the United States Senate. This uniquely American parliamentary device, which requires a super-majority (60 votes) to choke off debate on a particular issue and consequently force a vote on the matter, has often prevented controversial ideas from being enacted. But as with creeds and cancel culture, it is usually a question of whose proverbial “ox” is being gored.
The U.S. Senate filibuster is not, of course, in the American Constitution, but many on both sides of the partisan/ideological divide in America have cherished this tactic as a means of requiring a broader consensus relative to one issue or another. Many who might appreciate the ability to more easily pass legislation to their liking have opposed abolition of the filibuster because of its usefulness in preventing the enactment of legislation not to their liking. One is therefore skeptical as to whether this uniquely American parliamentary ruse will ever be eliminated.
Conclusion
The two key principles in all these disputes are definition and consistency. When it comes to creeds, a general dismissal of the idea makes no sense, for the simple reason that everyone agrees there should be limits to those ideas and conduct allowed to persons choosing to be part of a given faith community. On that basis, those permitted to occupy denominational platforms can rightly and fairly be expected to conform to these standards. (We won’t take a position here on the wisdom or lack thereof in the U.S. Senate filibuster; it only serves as an illustration as to how attitudes toward the contours of debate and the principles of governance can be affected by varying convictions.)
Definition and consistency matter not only for the smoothness and efficiency of statecraft, be it sacred or secular. They also matter for the purpose of sustaining respect for an institution’s public witness. Especially does this matter in the sacred realm, as the witness of the faith community for the principles of God’s Word will be taken far more seriously if that witness is more easily understood and faithfully applied.
REFERENCES
1. Kevin Paulson, “The Red Herring of Creedalism,” ADvindicate, Sept. 16, 2018 https://advindicate.com/articles/2018/9/16/the-red-herring-of-creedalism
2. Ibid.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan