The notion of certain ones that Seventh-day Adventist workers have the right to deny one or more of their church’s Fundamental Beliefs while simultaneously keeping their jobs, continues to garner support from persons in our ranks who ought to know better.
The recent announcement of an Adventist pastor in Germany that he is bisexual, and the resulting tensions between his supportive local Conference and higher strata of denominational authority [1], have again brought this issue to the fore. One Adventist pastor in North America has written publicly of the alleged “right” of this German pastor—and by implication other denominational workers—to retain his position while holding beliefs clearly at odds with the stance of the worldwide body [2].
“Dismissal Due to Sexual Attraction”
The North American pastor quoted above claims that if the German pastor in question were dismissed, it would be due to his acknowledged attraction to persons of both the opposite and the same gender. In the North American pastor’s words:
The first precedent would be dismissal due to sexual attraction. One of the reasons given by the General Conference for why the pastor should be disqualified is that he “identifies” as a bisexual and promotes a bisexual “lifestyle.” Who he is attracted to—his sexual orientation—according to the General Conference, is enough for termination. But “bisexual” simply means that a person is attracted to people of both genders; it does not mean that the person is involved in a same-sex relationship. In Pastor Gunjević’s case, he has been open that he is not currently in a relationship. Therefore, his lifestyle is that of a single, Adventist pastor [3].
But the question of attraction and “orientation” is a false issue here. No denominational body has declared that the problem with the pastor in question is his attraction or orientation. Instead, the problem with this pastor is the peace he has made with the attraction he feels for the same gender. Had the pastor simply said that he feels, and wrestles against, these desires, it’s doubtful anyone would have objected.
But this pastor has stated the following, which makes the issue far greater than any feelings he may have or struggle with:
I hope that our churches become places where queer, gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, and intersex people can feel at home, loved, and accepted. Where we can openly live our partnerships, and dress and present the way we want, just as our heterosexual siblings are able to [4].
Obviously, this is about much more than attraction or orientation. It is about choices and conduct. This pastor wants the church to be a place where non-heterosexual relationships are welcome among those holding membership, in direct defiance of the teachings of Scripture in both Old and New Testaments (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; I Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10). Whether he is himself participating in such a relationship, now or in the future, is entirely beside the point. As a Seventh-day Adventist Church employee, he is obligated not only to live in harmony with the Bible-based teachings of the denomination, but to promote these teachings with conviction and instruct those under his charge to adhere to them.
“Ethical Dissent”?
The North American pastor cited above continues with the following observations:
The second precedent would be termination for ethical dissent. The Inter-European Division says Pastor Gunjević should be removed from office because he “openly promotes views that undermine and contradict the position of the church.” What the division is suggesting here is that no Adventist pastor has the right to ethically and conscientiously dissent on a point of doctrine.
What do I mean by ethical dissent? That a person who is loyal to the overall mission of the church becomes convicted by exegetical scriptural study, consultation with scientific research, and communion with the Holy Spirit that the denomination is in error on—or needs to grow in—a certain point of doctrine. That person should have the opportunity to put that conviction forward in consultation with their congregation and conference in ethical dissent to the established teaching of the church. To deny pastors that right is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set in a denomination that believes in progressive revelation and present truth [5].
A number of critical points are raised in the above statement. We will consider each of them.
First, as the mission of the church is defined by the Word of God, it is not possible for an employee or member of the church to be “loyal to the overall mission of the church” while differing with one or more Bible-based tenets taught by the church. Regarding the law of Ten Commandment, Scripture declares, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). We aren’t talking here about ecclesiastical governing policies of a strictly utilitarian nature. Whatever the church affirms from the Biblical consensus regarding faith or practice is non-negotiable.
Second, the Word of God is both superior to finite scientific research and functions as the transcendent measure whereby spiritual impressions are judged. The scientists of Noah’s day believed it couldn’t rain; thus they ridiculed God’s message for that time and perished in the great Flood. And the Holy Spirit never speaks contrary to the written Word, which is why the Scripture states: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20). The Berean Christians were praised by the apostles because they “searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). The Bible gives no license to Christians to disregard the Sacred Text on the basis of the Holy Spirit’s alleged impressions.
Ellen White is clear beyond misunderstanding on this point:
The Spirit was not given—nor can it ever be bestowed—to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the word of God is the standing by which all teaching and experience must be tested [6].
When the Savior imparts His peace to the soul, the heart will be in perfect harmony with the Word of God, for the Spirit and the Word agree. The Lord honors His Word in all His dealings with humanity. It is His own will, His own voice, that is revealed to them and He has no new will, no new truth, aside from His Word, to unfold to His children. If you have a wonderful experience that is not in harmony with the expressed directions of God’s Word, you may well doubt it, for its origin is not from above. The peace of Christ comes through the knowledge of Jesus whom the Bible reveals [7].
Third, what the above pastor calls “progressive revelation” and “present truth” can never contradict what God through His Word has already revealed. Progressive revelation can never become contradictory revelation; any other course leaves the faith community without a objective standard by which faith and practice can be judged (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). The written Word can indeed be clarified by further revelation which builds upon former revelation, as we see in such Biblical doctrines as the Trinity and the end-time resurrection of the dead. But no additional revelation can ever deny or annul a previous revelation. God never contradicts Himself.
Fourth, any church employee or member who experiences honest doubts regarding one or more of the church’s Fundamental Beliefs has the option of meeting with brethren and sisters of experience as a means of clarifying and sorting out issues. Ellen White gives the following counsel to those who entertain new doctrines or new understandings of the Bible:
There are a thousand temptations in disguise prepared for those who have the light of truth; and the only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment; for “in the multitude of counselors there is safety” [8].
Some might ask why the Protestant Reformers didn’t follow the above process. In a sense they did, because when the established church refused to recognize its unscriptural errors, the Reformers started a new movement. In reality, that is the most honest thing any pastor or lay believer can do when faced with fundamental doctrinal or moral differences between themselves and the church as a whole. Otherwise they are living a lie every moment they draw breath—claiming by their profession to adhere to beliefs they don’t believe. The only honest course for such persons is to withdraw voluntarily from employment and membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The North American pastor quoted above cites what he believes to be cases in Adventist history where prominent people allegedly differed with the official teachings of the church, and were allowed to remain within its fellowship:
Throughout our denomination’s history, we have had leaders devoted to the service of the Seventh-day Adventist Church challenge our current understanding of a particular doctrine of faith. Ellen White, Joseph Bates, Jones and Waggoner, and many more led us through significant revisions of our movement’s core doctrine. Ellen White was sent to Australia, but not kicked out of the church. People left the Advent movement over Bates’s call to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Jones’s and Waggoner’s righteousness by faith teachings were initially reviled by many, yet received a hearing.
Despite efforts made in the years following Glacier View to eradicate Desmond Ford’s reforming teaching on the Sanctuary message, Adventist pastors across the global field today preach his or similar understandings of salvation history from Adventist pulpits without any threat of disciplinary action by their conferences or unions. Our church has changed and grown because of ethical dissent. We will be better for it—if it continues to be allowed [9].
The above paragraphs perpetuate both urban legends and dangerous misguidance regarding the episodes they cite from denominational history. First of all, Ellen White was an inspired prophet; thus it was her responsibility to bring corrective instruction to the church regarding any number of important issues. In her words:
God has, in that Word (the Bible), promised to give visions in the last days, not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth [10].
Despite any number of false historical narratives fostered by theological liberals in the church, Ellen White’s prophetic counsels are fully faithful to the consensus of Scripture and fully consistent with themselves. Any doctrinal or moral correction she offered the church is entirely, internally harmonious, not at all an example of contradiction masquerading as “progress.” Moreover, Ellen White is the only Adventist pioneer gifted with prophetic inspiration. No other pioneer received that gift. Contradiction between the other founders of the Advent movement cannot therefore be used as a template for the church opening itself to doctrinal contradiction on a global level.
Ellen White wasn’t sent to Australia because of doctrinal dissent on her part from any of the church’s Fundamental Beliefs. And the teachings of A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner on righteousness by faith did not contradict any Fundamental Beliefs held by the church, even if their perspective on certain issues differed to a degree from that of some of their brethren. In substance, the 1888 controversy over righteousness by faith concerned only the scope of the law in Galatians, on which the church as a body had never taken an official stand, and which Ellen White conclusively settled by a post-Minneapolis testimony in which she stated that the law as described in the book of Galatians includes “both the ceremonial law and the moral law of Ten Commandments” [11].
Regarding Desmond Ford’s attack on our classic sanctuary doctrine, the pastor in question is employing a popular fallacy among so-called “progressive” Adventists—the fact that because many church pastors and teachers deny one or more of the church’s Fundamental Beliefs and standards, that therefore other dissenters should be tolerated because it would be too disruptive and painful to discipline them all. This argument might have made sense among Christian communities in the state of Indiana and elsewhere during the 1920s, when so many pastors and laity joined the Ku Klux Klan. Leaders in these denominations might have likewise wondered how to discipline those who had thus disgraced the name of the Lord, when so many had done so. (A newly published book titled, A Fever in the Heartland, by Timothy Egan, details in depth the extent to which Protestant Christianity supported the Klan during those years [12].) But neither a multitude of wrongs, nor a multitude of wrongdoers, make a right! Then or now.
“Christian” Bisexuality
To my knowledge, no one has yet identified what “Christian” bisexuality is supposed to look like, or what ethical or moral guidelines are perceived as governing such relationships. Much as the Bible forbids same-gender sexual intimacy of any kind, one can at least perceive a measure of logic in the choices of those who claim no attraction for the opposite sex and thus choose an intimate partner of the same sex for lifelong companionship. But what paradigm serves as a model for a “Christian” bisexual relationship? A lifelong union between two men and one woman? Perhaps two women and one man? Perhaps the option, if one grows weary of an opposite-sex partner, to switch to someone of the same sex?
How is this supposed to work? And what moral guidelines would apply to such arrangements? How could anything even close to Biblical fidelity be witnessed in romantic conglomerates like these?
Conclusion: Unethical Dissent
The apostle Paul was clear, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, that sexual immorality was not to be tolerated in the Christian community (I Cor. 5:9-13), admonishing his readers: “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (verse 13). The German pastor in question may not be presently living in an unscriptural relationship, but his public endorsement of such relationships makes him utterly unfit to stand in the sacred desk, or even to hold church membership. As an undershpeherd of the Lord’s flock, he is sacredly entrusted with the guardianship and guidance of those under his charge. Until and unless he wholeheartedly returns to the Biblical doctrine of human sexuality, pledging his influence and his life in adherence to the Sacred Text on this and every other subject, he should have the integrity to relinquish his pulpit and withdraw from membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The present course of this pastor cannot in any sense be labeled “ethical dissent.” Rather, it is unethical dissent. As the Word of the eternal God condemns the lifestyle in which he presently finds no fault, the church must admonish him to either repent of his heresies or find someplace else to work and worship.
REFERENCES
1. “Pastor Sasa Gunjevic First Adventist Pastor to Maintain Credentials After Coming Out,” Adventist Today, March 25, 2023 https://atoday.org/pastor-sasa-gunjevic-first-adventist-pastor-to-maintain-credentials-after-coming-out/?fbclid=IwAR1X7y3SFt476R6wgJ87uJkfJ9Px5rXYJFWddNuPJ9ZyzUoGwLAQr31RjXk
2. Todd J. Leonard, “Sexual attraction, ethical dissent, and the Adventist pastor,” Spectrum, April 11, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2023/sexual-attraction-ethical-dissent-and-adventist-pastor
3. Ibid.
4. “Pastor Sasa Gunjevic First Adventist Pastor to Maintain Credentials After Coming Out,” Adventist Today, March 25, 2023 https://atoday.org/pastor-sasa-gunjevic-first-adventist-pastor-to-maintain-credentials-after-coming-out/?fbclid=IwAR1X7y3SFt476R6wgJ87uJkfJ9Px5rXYJFWddNuPJ9ZyzUoGwLAQr31RjXk
5. Leonard, “Sexual attraction, ethical dissent, and the Adventist pastor,” Spectrum, April 11, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2023/sexual-attraction-ethical-dissent-and-adventist-pastor
6. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. vii.
7. ----From the Heart, p. 299.
8. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 293.
9. Leonard, “Sexual attraction, ethical dissent, and the Adventist pastor,” Spectrum, April 11, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2023/sexual-attraction-ethical-dissent-and-adventist-pastor
10. White, Early Writings, p. 78.
11. ----Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 233.
12. Timothy Egan, A Fever in the Heartland: The Ku Klux Klan’s Plot to Take Over America and the Woman Who Stopped Them (New York: Penguin Random House, 2023).
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