Advent Christian Identity: We Don’t Need To Be Milquetoast
Two years ago, Tom Loghry wrote the most critical work for Advent Christians in the last several years, which sought to charitably and winsomely articulate an accurate identity for those who claim our name. The article, Advent Christian Identity for the 21st Century sets out several marks that identify Advent Christians. These marks include belief in (1) The Statement of Faith, (2) Believer-Baptism, (3) Remembrance Communion, (4) The Rule of Scripture, (5) The Rule of Charity, (6) Adventism, (7) Christian Materialism, and (8) Conditionalism. Of these marks, Loghry, accurately in my experience, reveals that Christian Materialists and Conditionalists aren’t most common among congregants but “the following would enjoy broad approval: the Statement of Faith, Believer-Baptism, Remembrance Communion, the Rule of Scripture, and the Rule of Charity.”
Loghry further states that Advent Christians should at least believe in Adventism– “Advent Christians understand the hope of the Christian faith to be bound up in Christ’s return, the resurrection of the dead, and the establishment of New Heavens and a New Earth.” (Loghry, 2021) Conversely, Loghry answers a natural question regarding conditionalist beliefs, “Can a person be identified as an Advent Christian without being a Conditionalist? I would say, “Yes, but an impoverished one.” Although Tom’s efforts are admirable and conclusions largely accurate based on anecdotal evidence, missions have historically served as a greater unifying belief among Advent Christians, and missions should be given higher priority because our Statements of Faith and Declaration of Principles are not a current or past requirement for admission into the Advent Christian Church.
The DoP’s Role
In David A. Dean’s popular work, Resurrection His and Ours, he points out that the earliest form of the Declaration of Principles “summarized the views which were commonly held among Advent Christians.”[1] As supporting evidence, Dr. Dean quotes the chairman of the first DoP committee, E.P. Woodward, “Do not forget that this is not a creed. It is simply a statement of what the denomination, as a whole, believes… ‘Christian character’ is our only test of church fellowship, and members are frequently received assent to all the points in this ‘Declaration.’”[2]
For the reasons stated by Dean and Woodward, the Advent Christian Church has historically and practically accepted members and ministers of all theological tribes, including those outside the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy, such as non-Trinitarians, modalists, arians, and more. As recently as the 2017 ACGC Triennial Convention, the issue of non-Trinitarianism became the major touchpoint. Although a strict Trinitarian statement was adopted overwhelmingly (over 85%) there was a vocal minority that sought not to exclude non-Trinitarians from the Advent Christian Church because they believe our Advent Christian heritage of anti-creedalism stands above our desire to align more closely with the historic Christian faith.
To Tom’s point, Advent Christians overwhelmingly took a stand against heresy. However, practically speaking, the Dop and SoF are paper tigers. The Advent Christian is ready to say, “This is what we believe, but you do not need to believe it to join our network.” In other words, the DoP and SoF are statements that Advent Christians overwhelmingly affirm but functionally have no expectation that anyone would believe it to be true within our churches. In essence, our doctrinal documents serve as a signpost, on the one hand, with a covenant to agree to disagree on all matters found therein on the other. As these hands clasp together, we become the most doctrinally generic group of people possible.
The Advent Christian Tent
To Dean’s point, Clyde E. Hewitt writes that the early Adventists included faithful members from a myriad of denominations, including Methodists, Baptists, Congregationislts, Christian Connexion, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Dutch Reformed, Lutherans, Quakers, and more.[3] Historically speaking, the only doctrinal point that brought Advent Christians together was the imminent return of Christ. Advent Christians could hold onto their sincerely held beliefs according to Scripture and their conscience even when those beliefs were a minority among other Advent Christians.
A Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran walk into a tent meeting. What do they all have in common? Each of these theological traditions holds to historic Christian orthodoxy (ecumenical creeds) and the imminent return of Christ. These traditions have some form of Confession of Faith and hold to the early ecumenical creeds. They disagree on the mode and method of Baptism, Communion, Salvation, and most biblical form of church governance.
Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans all believe in infant baptism but for different reasons. Lutherans and Methodists believe baptism is necessary for salvation as part of their basis for baptizing infants. Presbyterians, however, believe that children of believing parents are part of the New Covenant, so they baptize those children as a sign and seal of God’s promise to save them. The early Millerites set aside their theological differences because they believed that Jesus’ Second Coming was imminent. However, the denomination known as the Advent Christian Church was formed as a reaction to the Millerite’s expulsion from their previous churches. This reaction necessitated an agreement to disagree on critical doctrinal matters to worship and work together in missions and evangelism.
Interestingly, a significant shift occurs between the 1881 and 1900 versions of the Declaration of Principles. 1881 has many more articles and is more inclusive. The statements on Baptism make a significant change: “We believe the Bible teaches that pardoned sinners should be ‘buried with Christ in baptism,’ this showing their faith in his resurrection and in the resurrection of the dead” (1881). “We believe the only ordinances of the Church of Christ are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; immersion being the only true baptism” (1900). Interestingly, the Declaration of Principles takes a firmer and narrower stance on baptism than the nature of God. This implicitly declares it is more important to be baptized by immersion than in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Renewing What Truly Unifies Advent Christians
From the beginning of the Millerite movement, the mission of evangelism has been as central to the church as it’s been since the Ascension of Jesus. Mirroring the early church who sold their possessions to care for the poor and carry on the mission of the Apostles, as did the early Adventists who volunteered and sold their wealth to further the Gospel message.[4] Acts 4:32-37 demonstrates the generosity common to all Christians as they see needs in their communities. Considering the tremendous physical and spiritual needs of the world, it should not be a peculiar event when Christians sell property or donate sacrificially to meet those needs. Such was the case among the earliest Adventists, who believed in Christ’s imminent return and saw their possessions as temporal and easily given to support the spread of the Gospel.
Despite the challenges of doctrinal fragmentation and disunity, Advent Christians have remained faithful in their mission to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matt 28:19-20, ESV) If we are to remain doctrinally ambiguous, then we must renew our commitment to the Great Commission. Practical considerations abound, such as: how egalitarians and complementarians can ordain one another, can paedobaptists and credobaptists serve alongside one another in a local church, and should we hold to multiple views of communion. However, the possibility can exist where we show great charity within our network as we band together to send out missionaries in North America and abroad.
Conclusion
Readers familiar with my work will be surprised by the above words. Am I, not the same person who continues to advocate for stricter enforcement of our doctrinal standards? Isn’t Erik Reynolds the one who has continuously brought up his issue with our broad theological tent? I assure you that I’ve not been overtaken by aliens or held hostage. There is no gun to my head, and I’ve not changed my views. Instead, I think we can narrow our tent a little by strengthening our SoF and prayerfully winning our non-Trinitarian members over to biblical orthodoxy. At the same time, we can show great charity in many of the things that Tom Loghry says that make us distinct. Let’s welcome the Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Episcopalian brothers and sisters who share a common cause of preaching Christ and him crucified. To unite as a people, we should unite around our shared mission to seek and save the lost with the imminent return of Christ to fuel our evangelistic engines while agreeing on primary theological issues like the nature of God.
Though I would struggle to plant a church with an egalitarian because we’d fundamentally disagree on who is called to be an elder, so I won’t plant a church with egalitarians. However, I can cheer them on as they spread the Gospel in their community. There is a significant difference between those doctrines that we historically view as essential to the Christian faith (deity of Christ, Trinity, and more) and those secondary doctrines that are still important. As Advent Christians, we’ve generally agreed to enjoy fellowship with one another while being broad on secondary doctrines and prioritizing missions based on the imminent return of Christ. One problem is that we’re functionally broad on issues of first importance as well.
[1] David A. Dean, Resurrection His and Ours (Advent Christian General Conference of America, 1977). 15.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Clyde Hewitt, Midnight and Morning (Advent Christian General Conference of America, 1983). 211-212.
[4] Ibid., 125.