A recent online article by a female Adventist pastor describes the goal of her congregation to become “a welcoming space for all . . . regardless of their race, background, gender, sexuality, socio-economic status, etc.” [1], basing this endeavor on God’s statement through Isaiah that “Mine house shall become an house of prayer for all people” (Isa. 56:7) [2].
Sadly, the author seems to overlook the limits of Biblical inclusiveness. In the first place, the reference to “all people” in the above passage—“all nations” in modern versions—reaffirms the collective witness of Scripture as to God’s offer of salvation to the whole human family, regardless of race or national origin (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 28:14; 60:3; 66:12,18-21; Matt. 8:11; 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 10:34-35; Rom. 10:12-13). Gender and social station are likewise included in the diversity God seeks from His followers, as evidenced by the following statement from the apostle Paul:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).
But nowhere in the Bible is sexuality—defined in the present context as sexual behavior—included among the diverse features found in God’s kingdom. Adultery and fornication are expressly prohibited among those choosing to join God’s covenant community (Ex. 20:14; I Cor. 5:9-13; 7:2; 6:9; Gal. 5:19), as is homosexual practice (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; I Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10). No unconditional welcome regardless of belief or lifestyle is extended by Scripture so far as inclusion in the community of faith is concerned. Those who indulge in sexual immorality as defined by the Sacred Text are as surely prohibited from participation in church fellowship as race bigots, spousal abusers, embezzlers, economic oppressors, and any number of others whose conduct violates the commands of God’s Word.
The goal of the Bible-believing Christian is not inclusion, but faithfulness to the written counsel of God (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). The author quoted above complains that “the Adventist church has had the habit of gatekeeping its worship services and events for those who ‘fit in’” [3]. (She isn’t at all clear what she means by this statement; as a lifelong fifth-generation Adventist I have never witnessed anyone being excluded from an Adventist worship service or social activity for any reason.) But attending a worship service or social gathering is entirely different from becoming a member of the faith community. All are invited to the former, regardless of faith or practice, but only those who relinquish known error and known sin, who “bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:8), can participate in the latter.
The Implacable Foe
But what is likely most significant about the article cited above is the three issues it perceives—correctly, in my view—to be interconnected: women’s ordination, sexuality, and Last Generation Theology.
The author writes at one point:
While the church says “All are welcome,” individuals who do not fulfill the strict standard of what a “good Adventist” should look like are met with stares of judgment, rude remarks, and at times, blatant discrimination. . . . Adventism upholds these “standards of perfection” and prioritizes them over “making room for individual[s] that did not meet [its] expectations.” I believe this disease of perfectionism stunts the growth of the church and contributes to its unnecessary decay [4].
Much could be said in reply to the above statement; for one thing, I’m happy to say that some of the most friendly, most welcoming congregations I have ever pastored or been associated with, maintain some of the highest standards of Biblical faith and lifestyle integrity. I’ll never forget one occasion while I was a member of a southern California church which many (including the one then serving as pastor) scorned as a nest of rigid legalists. A man with whom some friends of mine had been studying showed up visibly drunk one Wednesday night at prayer meeting. What embarrassed me was not his drunkenness—he wasn’t, after all, a church member, and everyone knew this was a problem he struggled with. Rather, what made me feel sorry for the fellow was the profuse outpouring of love he received from those present. I think he fully expected to be shunned instead of loved, and when he experienced the latter, it was probably a good deal more embarrassing than the former would have been.
But the jibe at so-called “perfectionism” in the above statement is really the most significant in the entire article. Whether doctrinal or behavioral, perfection theology is the mortal enemy of so-called “progressive” Adventism. Sometime ago, an article on the same website spelled out the logical tie between Last Generation Theology and the demand for doctrinal and lifestyle integrity by faithful church members:
An insistence on doctrinal purity manifests in disavowing alternative interpretations of the Bible or our doctrines. Doctrinal purists in the church define our beliefs in such detail and specificity as to close all “loopholes” that allow other understandings. The 2010 re-wording of our Creation dogma in Fundamental Belief #6 is an excellent example of this approach. After 2010, we are limited to the understanding that the universe was created “in a recent [euphemism for 6,000 years] literal six-days.” If this restrictive imagination of beginnings cause some to feel squeezed out of the church, that only proves the LGT (Last Generation Theology) point that those leaving were not pure enough….
But purity, whether in doctrine or lifestyle, is a “dog whistle” LGT advocates sound to mark doctrinal borders. What LGT supporters and hard-core conservatives are really getting at, when they prescribe purity as standard, is an attempt to narrow the Adventist spectrum. Their doctrinal goal is biblical literalism. As such, they see such books as early Genesis and Job only through that prism [5].
An editorial in another liberal Adventist magazine illustrated the same logical thought progression. Describing a previous discussion on the magazine’s blog site regarding creation and evolution, the editorial reported:
Person A was absolutely sure that science proved that life on earth was millions of years old, while Person B believed that life had been around for only thousands of years.
Neither side was convincing the other. So Person B said, “In the end it does not really matter what you believe in this area since we are saved by faith, not by knowledge. The important thing is that you have a relationship with Jesus and by faith have accepted His gracious offer of salvation [##6J. David Newman, “Science is Not Enough,” Adventist Today, Spring 2011, p. 3.##].
The editor, to his credit, lamented this response, yet appeared not to have considered the extent to which modern Adventist views of the gospel and salvation bear a direct responsibility for the presence among us of ideas and practices fundamentally hostile, not only to Adventism, but to the Christian faith itself. More recently, it appears that this editor and author—whose gospel theology is similar, if not identical, to that of more prominent critics of Last Generation Theology [##7|——”Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, Aug. 24, 2006, pp. 24-27.##]—has sufficiently weakened the imperative of doctrinal faithfulness in his own thinking so that supporters of an unscriptural view of origins could cite his thought as support for the legitimacy of their claim to be both Adventists and Christians. In his own, more recent words:
Doctrine does not save us. Jesus does. Doctrines are humans’ imperfect way of trying to understand God. There will never be perfect doctrine [##8|——letter to Proclamation! April, May, June 2011, p. 30.##].
Any number of Bible texts press to our minds which explode the above author’s notion of doctrinal truth being non-salvational (e.g., Hosea 4:6; Matt. 4:4; John 8:31; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:16; James 1:21)—though of course, as the Bible states elsewhere, doctrinal truth must be enshrined in the heart through conversion in order to do its saving work (Deut. 30:14; Psalm 119:11; Jer. 31:31-34; 2 Cor. 3:3; Heb. 8:8-10). But it should be clear to any thoughtful observer that the assumption that Christian behavior can’t be perfect this side of heaven easily and logically invites the parallel conclusion that Christian doctrine can’t be perfect this side of heaven either.
So if church members and scholars want to teach such heresies as theistic evolution or violate any number of lifestyle standards enjoined by the inspired pen, anti-perfection theology gives them the logic whereby such choices can successfully be rationalized.
Which is why the implacable foe of both evangelical and liberal theology in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the oft-repeated Bible doctrine that through heaven’s power, here on earth, perfection is both achievable and necessary (e.g. Psalm 4:4; 119:1-3,11; Zeph. 3:13; John 8:11; Rom. 6:14; 8:4; I Cor. 15:34; II Cor. 7:1; 10:4-5; Eph. 5:27; I Thess. 5:23; I Peter 2:21-22; 4:1; II Peter 3:10-14; I John 1:7,9; 3:2-3,7; Jude 24; Rev. 3:21; 14:5).
Conclusion: Three Issues
The connection between the crusade for women’s ordination and the push to tolerate homosexual practice in various denominations has been clearly established in observations by public media outlets, as the following statements bear witness:
For many evangelicals, the marriage debate isn’t really about marriage or families or sex—it is about the Bible itself. And that makes many evangelicals all the more uncompromising. The roots of the conflict are deeply theological. . . .
And there is another, just as fundamental, obstacle. So far no Christian tradition has been able to embrace the LGBT community without first changing its views about women. The same reasoning that concludes that homosexuality is sin is also behind the traditional evangelical view that husbands are the spiritual leaders of marriages and men are the leaders in churches. . . .
“It is not an accident that the women’s-liberation movement preceded the gay-liberation movement,” [Episcopal Bishop Eugene] Robinson says. “Discriminatory attitudes and treatment of LGBT people is rooted in patriarchy, and in order to embrace and affirm gays, evangelicals will have to address their own patriarchy and sexism, not just their condemnation of LGBT people” [##9|Elizabeth Dias, “A Change of Heart: Inside the evangelical war over gay marriage,” Time, Jan. 26, 2015, pp. 47-48.##].
More recently from The Atlantic, in response to the February 2019 decision by the United Methodists to reject gay clergy and same-sex weddings:
Conservative delegates argued that their position is a matter of biblical fidelity. “Traditional believers regard scripture as being the ultimate authority,” [Keith] Boyette said. “When it comes to something like our teachings on human sexuality and what the Bible spells out as the boundaries there, those are essentials.” Other delegates, however, argued that conservatives focus on this issue to the exclusion of others, such as divorce, and that conservative Methodists are perfectly willing to interpret the Bible’s teachings on other issues, such as women in ministry [10].
The fact that an Adventist congregation with two female pastors is openly advocating for LGBT inclusion within the church’s fellowship [11], offers one (among many available) pieces of evidence as to the compelling logic between these two issues. And the connection between both these issues and the rejection of Last Generation Theology is equally compelling. If perfection—whether doctrinal or moral—is viewed as impossible, neither Biblical gender roles nor Biblical sexuality standards are tenable any longer. If one is born with sexual urges which incline in a direction contrary to the Biblical order, if the meaning of certain Bible passages on gender authority are successfully muddied in certain minds, the no-perfection argument goes far in soothing the conscience.
The three issues, in other words, go together. And if the Seventh-day Adventist Church holds true to the Bible imperative of “salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (II Thess. 2:13), our stance regarding each of these issues becomes clear beyond misunderstanding.
REFERENCES
1. Tiara Best, “Women’s Ordination: Adventism’s Cold War?” Spectrum, July 12, 2024 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/womens-ordination-adventisms-cold-war/
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Matthew Quartey, “Embedding Last Generation Theology in Sabbath School Lessons,” Spectrum, Feb. 21, 2019 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2019/embedding-last-generation-theology-sabbath-school-lessons
6. J. David Newman, “Science is Not Enough,” Adventist Today, Spring 2011, p. 3.
7. ----“Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, Aug. 24, 2006, pp. 24-27.
8. ----letter to Proclamation! April, May, June 2011, p. 30.
9. Elizabeth Dias, “A Change of Heart: Inside the evangelical war over gay marriage” Time, Jan. 26, 2015, pp. 47-48.
10. Emma Green, “Conservative Christians Just Retook the United Methodist Church,” The Atlantic, Feb. 26, 2019 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/united-methodists-fracture-lgbt-plan-rejected/583693/
11. Best, “Women’s Ordination: Adventism’s Cold War?” Spectrum, July 12, 2024 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/womens-ordination-adventisms-cold-war/
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