A Basis of Unity? Reflections on the 2026 Declaration of Principles
I read the proposed 2026 Declaration of Principles with interest and acknowledge the thoughtful and extensive work involved in creating this proposal. Upon reflection I have three areas of observation (including concerns in each): scope, historical discontinuity, and content.
The Scope
The request for a revision of the Declaration of Principles which came to the 2023 General Conference resulted from a decade-long process. It began first in 2017 as a motion to amend the Declaration to affirm explicit terminology for the doctrine of the Trinity. This motion was withdrawn as not being in accordance with the guidelines for modifying the Declaration of Principles. The COVID epidemic delayed the presentation of a revision to the By-laws for a streamlined method of modifying the Declaration. This process was framed in the context of the desire to bring the document into explicit reflection of the belief in the doctrine of the trinity among the vast majority of Advent Christians. Since the Principles reflect what the majority of Advent Christians believe, it would be appropriate to revise the document to reflect that current majority position. So, the delegate body adopted a clear process to amend the Declaration of Principles.
To my surprise the Declaration was amended not only pertaining to the doctrine of Trinity, but was also so completely rewritten as to maintain minimal continuity with the current Declaration. As the Quarter 1 Bulletin states, “A whole cloth replacement, the proposed DOP is more theologically robust and precise than the current version.” I questioned the use of a provision to revise as an excuse to jettison the current Declaration in favor of something dramatically different.
The 2026 Declaration of Principles reflects substantial divergences from the intended scope (revision of the DOP) of intention of the delegate body – at least, what I understood the intent of the motion for revision to be (and that’s why I voted in favor of the motion). I see this proposal as diverging in two ways and these are distinct and I find deeply disconcerting.
Nature of the Document
Since the Advent Christian denomination adopted the first Declaration of Principles in 1881 in Worcester, MA, and revised it in 1900, the Declaration has been a descriptive document. Its purpose was to state those doctrinal points which bound us together and in honor of our commitment to the sole sufficiency of Scripture as our authority for faith and practice, the DOP was not binding as a standard of membership or fellowship. Therefore, the Declaration of Principle was a consensus document.
For over a century and a half the Declaration has been a descriptive document. It stated the views that the majority of Advent Christians (or at least Advent Christian clergy) held on our core beliefs pertaining to the Bible, God, Salvation, sleep of the dead, conditional immortality, the new Earth, Christ’s return, and the church. The Declaration permitted diversity within a common framework.
This replacement document changes the scope of the Declaration of Principles itself from descriptive to proscriptive. Thus, the proposed 2026 Declaration of Principles is not a description of what Advent Christians believe but a statement of what Advent Christians (at least Advent Christian clergy and church and conference leaders) must believe. This was never the intent of the Declaration of Principles.
This is a separate and distinct issue from the content of the document. According to appropriate parliamentarian practices (Robert’s Rules of Order) a motion should contain one central issue. To have two components causes confusion and actually diminishes the prospects of passage. This proposed Declaration has two distinct issues: Changing the declaration from descriptive to proscriptive, and the content of the 16 principles. A person can be in favor of changing the intent, and yet disagree with some aspect of the contents. Likewise, a person can be in favor of the content and yet disagree that the document should become proscriptive. Both, for radically different reasons, will vote against the 2026 Proposed Declaration of Principles. It would be prudent to divide the question and consider the issues separately.
This expansion of scope in the proposed 2026 Declaration of Principles produces a major conundrum! Part of which is combining two distinct changes into a single document. The issue of should the Declaration be proscriptive? and should we accept the wording of the various particular principles? are two separate issues and considering them together complicates the consideration. It also complicates the prospects of approval. Some people may approve of making the Declaration proscriptive, but disagree with how the principles are formulated. They would have no option but to vote, “no.” Likewise some may agree with how the principles are formulated but reject the change to making them proscriptive. They, too, would need to vote against the proposal. This is the rationale for Robert’s Rules of Order’s insistence on keeping separate issues separate when it comes to motions. Combining distinct issues into a single motion diminishes the possibility of adoption because it increases the points of disagreement on a single issue.
An additional part of the conundrum of the scope is the extensive changes and addition of new principles; there are so many particulars to consider. The changes are so extensive that the Executive Council stated that it presented a whole cloth revision. Let’s be honest: it is difficult to get Bible students to agree on what essential doctrines are and how they are expressed. Therefore, the more changes presented in the proposed Declaration, the greater the chance for disagreement. This requires careful principle-by-principle examination and discussion, especially since the intent of the proposal is to delineate requirements for ordination and membership of churches and conferences in the denomination. Every delegate must examine the document carefully as any point of disagreement may result in exclusion from the denomination.
Because we are evaluating a new document, one upon which there is no existing consensus, the process for developing consensus must include the opportunity for ACGC delegates to consider each principle separately and amend it as the entire delegate body desires. Otherwise, a person (such as myself), who agrees with the first principle and disagrees with the second, must either reject the entire proposal or face disqualification for ministry. How much better to build consensus and allow the delegate body to determine the actual wording of the document. Thus, to require the consideration of this as one unit drastically diminishes the possibility of passage as well as minimizes the role of the delegate body as the policy making body for the Advent Christian Church.
Even before addressing the particulars of the documents, I cannot in good conscience support this document due to its radical deviation in scope from the original intent of the motion.
Drastic Deviation from Historic Advent Christian Belief
The preamble to the proposed Declaration states that the proposed principles reflect the historic theological stance of the Advent Christian Denomination. This is both incorrect and misleading. The proposed document dramatically deviates from the historic theological stance of the denomination in two ways.
NO CREED BUT THE BIBLE
In this document the Advent Christian denomination is asked to redefine its core nature. For almost two centuries (dating back to the Millerite movement) Advent Christians have espoused the supremacy of scripture as our only rule of faith and practice. This orientation is summarized in the slogans: “No creed but the Bible,” “Character as the only test of fellowship,” and “Bible terms for Bible doctrines.” Although not technically a doctrine, the commitment to non-creedalism is the essential framework of Advent Christian theology. There is no way to construe a document which establishes a doctrinal basis for ordination and for membership within the denomination as remaining in the framework of our historic theological understanding.
This concept is expressed in two places in the 2026 DOP: the preamble and the second proposed declaration, which undermines the historic stance of our denomination as well as contradicts the first principle, which states that the Word of God is “the only divine standard of faith and practice.” Yet the new principle states that after Christians study God’s word they should, “seek to be of one mind in the Spirit and uphold such teachings as authoritative” [emphasis mine]. It is contradictory to claim that the Bible alone is our standard and at the same time hold that any system of teaching drawn from the Bible is authoritative. If the intent of the preamble is upheld and Article II is adopted, I could not in good conscience endorse the 2026 Declaration and therefore would be ineligible to be an ordained Advent Christian minister.
Why do I feel so strongly? First, while the intent is to support the trinitarian doctrine and its affirmation by the historical understanding of the church, to support the authority of church teaching undercuts a primary underpinnings for our distinctive doctrines of the nature of people, conditional immortality, and the sleep of the dead. On what basis do we as Advent Christians hold these doctrines when the teaching of all three major branches of Christianity (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) reject them? How can we with integrity state that we believe these distinctive doctrines (not because they are popular but because the Bible, not due to the acceptance the human teachings of the church) because that is what the Bible teaches? Human understanding and church teaching must have a standard by which they are judged. That standard is the Bible. As an Advent Christian, I cannot endorse a Declaration of Principles which elevates human teaching to authoritative.
While the first principle asserts that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice, adopting this proposed DOP de facto makes the General Conference the authority on matters of faith.
NO LONGER CONGREGATIONAL IN GOVERNMENT
The second equally egregious deviation from historic Advent Christian theology is the evisceration of our understanding of the church and the nature of congregationalism. The current DOP states: “that local church organizations should be independent of outside control, congregational in government, and subject to no dictation of priest, bishop or pope.” The 2026 DOP removes the concept of congregational in government and replaces it with “local churches are governed under the authority of Christ, with congregational involvement and biblical patterns of leadership such as elders and deacons” [emphasis added]. Since our historical theological perspective includes congregationalism, how can anyone assert that the proposed DOP “reflects our theological heritage”?
Even more outrageous is “We deny that the liberties and prerogatives of the local church would preclude cooperation with a denominational body in maintaining such freely agree-upon standards of membership.” This is an outrageous violation of congregationalism. The delegates to the Advent Christian General Conference cannot tell congregational churches that we’ve decided you must cease to be congregational. ACGC receives its authority from delegates from churches and conferences. It cannot force churches to surrender their congregationalism.
This modification also undermines the clarity of principle one which states that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice. It makes the General Conference the authority for the practices of the churches.
The stated purpose as presented in The Bulletin (2026 first quarter) is “Unity in mission requires that Advent Christians know who we are as a people.” But the only unity under consideration is a unity based on doctrinal conformity. The Advent Christian church grew out of the Millerite movement. The unity was the action of proclaiming the soon return of Christ, not a doctrinal confession. Sadly, a result of adopting the 2026 Proposed DOP would be to shatter the unity of the Advent Christian denomination and forcing ministers like me, who hold to the historic core of Advent Christian stance on non-creedalism and/or congregationalism, out of the ministry, solely for being loyal to their heritage.
CONTENT CHANGES TO THE DOP
The prior rubrics pertain to global concerns with the nature of the revision and its relationship to historic Advent Christian understanding; I now present concerns with the particulars of the changes. While the preceding points preclude my support of the proposal, I feel impelled to mention some particular issues. As Advent Christians with our non-creedal heritage, we have no experience with creating a document which is intended to exclude people who disagree. It is prudent that we as a people examine all statements to ascertain not only if the doctrines are correct, but also as to whether the majority of Advent Christians actually believe these points. We must remember that disagreement with any one point results in disqualification from membership.
WHAT IS MISSING
There are several aspects of the current DOP which are missing from the 2026 proposals.
It is missing the Father and the Holy Spirit. In the current DOP, number 2, we have concise statements concerning the person and work of each member of the triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Surprisingly in the proposed DOP the statements on both the Father and the Spirit are missing. I heard Dr. David A. Dean remark several times that the 1900 DOP was trinitarian in form but not in content. The proposed DOP is trinitarian in explicit content, but essentially unitarian in form, only explicitly describing the character and work of the Son. This is a serious oversight.
The current DOP number 5 is a concise statement on salvation and such a statement is missing from this proposal. Although there are scattered allusions to salvation, the robustness of the current DOP is missing. We have lost a concise statement on Salvation.
In the current DOP number 7 we have both a commitment to and passion for prophetic study. This is a historic understanding and the basis for an expectation of Christ’s return. The proposed DOP makes no reference to prophecy other than to disavow setting dates. Our presentation of belief in the return of Christ needs to be grounded in scripture as well as a great sense of expectancy, which I find lacking in the proposal.
As I mentioned in the previous rubric, this proposal is missing our affirmation of congregationalism.
Some of the clarity regarding our distinctives is lacking in the proposed document. The current principle number four says, “the wicked will be ‘punished with everlasting destruction;’ suffering complete extinction of being.” This precisely describes our position. The proposed principle number 8 used this phrase, “will perish in the lake of fire.” Since the vast majority of evangelicals believe perish means to burn eternally in hell, we are not as precise as we should be. For the sake of clarity, we need to define what the word ‘perish’ means. The denial statement, although true, is not the heart of what we believe as Advent Christians. “We deny that anyone condemned to this final punishment will be given another opportunity for salvation.” No additional opportunity to repent after being thrown into the lake of fire is a consequence of being burned up and ceasing to be. We should state what is central, not what is secondary.
From our inception, Advent Christians have held strong reservations about war. This is clearly stated in the current principle 11 where it states: “We believe that war is contrary to the spirit and teaching of our Lord…” This concept is missing in the proposal, which changes the emphasis of that principle to a concept of government. Christ’s final command to his disciples was to make disciples. War results in the death of many, who then no longer have an opportunity to respond to the gospel.
One of the distinctives of the current DOP is that it demonstrated our commitment to submitting to the Bible as our only rule of faith and practice. This current DOP was intentionally framed to reflect that commitment. Thus, the document is saturated with biblical terminology. As much as possible the framers of the current DOP utilized the words of Scripture to describe what we believed. The proposed DOP replaces the preponderance of biblical allusions with precise theological terminology. Although this is not a critical deficiency, the proposed DOP does reflect a loss of continuity with our heritage as Advent Christians. That is a heritage worth preserving.
WHAT WAS ADDED
The proposed DOP added principle 2, which is an elaboration of the concept of the Bible as “the only divine standard of faith and practice.” I feel there is no need to elaborate what that phrase means and as stated in the prior rubric is actually a limitation of the “only” standard of belief when the proposed DOP says that we should consider the teaching of the church “as authoritative.”
The addition of “We deny” statements present a negative and divisive tone. The declaration has always been a statement of belief, not a statement of disbelief. These are reminiscent of the anathemas of the church councils and are intended to exclude. The addition of continual negative assertion detracts from what we believe. As a denomination, I believe we need to present a positive statement of what we believe.
The proposed DOP added a disproportionate number of statements about the deity of Christ. We went from a DOP with zero allusions to the trinity or Christ’s deity to a document which contains (by my count) nine allusions. It appears that both the Father and Holy Spirit are referenced only in relation to Christ as the central figure. For example, the phrase: “that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father” places the Son as the subject. It would be far more appropriate to express the concept as “the Father eternally begot the Son before time began.” Since the proposed DOP does not include a concise statement on the Father, there is no description of the Father of whom the Son is begotten.
The proposed DOP adds some terms which are unusual, controversial, or extraneous. In a document which requires clarity and consensus these are inappropriate terms.
“Eternally begotten” – This concept was recently introduced to Advent Christian ministers at a leadership conference with the offering of a book, Simply Trinity by Matthew Barrett. In it he asserts that modern evangelicalism has strayed from the historic position of the church and teaches a trinity without the belief in the Son as eternally begotten. He admits that many evangelicals believe it and presents a case for his view. He asserts that the only way to fully understand this doctrine which is alluded to in scripture is to study the “Grand Tradition” of theological teaching of the church, because just relying on the Bible alone is narrow biblicism and to be rejected. In response I observe that if Barrett’s thesis is correct, creedal belief has not protected modern evangelicalism from (what he understands to be) heresy. Second, it is possible to hold variations to the understanding of the trinity. Barrett equates the teaching of the trinity with the concept of eternal generation of the Son, so that to deny the doctrine of eternal generation is to not only deny the trinity but to deny the basis of salvation. This is an extreme view and only recently introduced to Advent Christian theological discussion. The first time the term appears in AC publications should not be in a proposed DOP. Why do I believe that the Son is eternal? Because as a well-known hymn says, “The Bible tells me so.” I believe because: 1) the Bible teaches that God is eternal; 2) the Bible teaches there is one God; 3) the Bible teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. Since Jesus Christ is God his is therefore eternal. The Son is not eternal because He is generated by the Father. He is eternal because He is God. But using the phrase “eternally begotten” is stating that there is one particular form of trinitarianism which is acceptable and Advent Christians should believe that form. A much more appropriate (and biblical) expressions is “only begotten.” Otherwise, not only would this proposed DOP exclude non-trinitarians, it would exclude trinitarians who don’t have the “right” type of trinitarianism.
Another peculiar expression in the proposed DOP is “eternal life with God” found in both principle 5 and a similar expression in principle 9 “live eternally with God.” This is very peculiar and open to misunderstanding. From this expression, it is possible to assume that one could have eternal life without God. But the heart of our belief as conditionalists is that there is life only in Christ. Neither of these “with God” phrases add anything to the principles. The meaning remains clear without them. Take the first one: “that God created human beings as creatures with mortal natures who could yet receive and enjoy eternal life.” If a modifier is needed, then “in Christ” or “through Christ” is far more appropriate. Why should we add unnecessary and redundant words to our statement of belief?
There is a widely extraneous expression in the proposed 7th principle which states “that the belief in the sleep of the dead, historically held by Advent Christians, is within sound biblical reason” [emphasis mine]. The DOP is supposed to be a statement of what we believe the Bible teaches, not what the Advent Christian church has historically believed. There is absolutely no need for this phrase. And the phrase “is within sound biblical reason” misrepresents our position. We believe in the sleep of the dead not because it is reasonable, but because it most accurately represents the biblical evidence. A further consideration. Why the appeal to the view that Advent Christians have historically believed here on the sleep of the dead and not explicitly stating that making the DOP a standard for membership and limiting the congregational authority of congregations does not reflect the views historically held by Advent Christians.
The denial statement regarding the church is confusing and susceptible to multiple interpretations. “We deny that the liberties and prerogatives of the local church would preclude cooperation with a denominational body in maintaining such freely agree-upon standards of membership.” This contains a double negative “we deny” and “preclude.” That is confusing grammatical structure. Also, the “freely agreed upon” is capable of at least two interpretations. One is that if the ACGC delegate body agrees to the 2026 DOP the requirements for membership is binding on all Advent Christian churches. Another possible interpretation is that if a church declines to affirm the 2026 DOP they have not “freely agreed upon” the standard and therefore are not bound to enforce it. If this is approved by the delegate body, would it also apply to those church which did not have a delegate at the 2026 General Conference, and therefore did not “freely agree” to the DOP?
Conclusion
It is obvious that a great deal of thought and consideration was expended to present this revision to the Declaration of Principles. It is a good start, but after reviewing the proposed 2026 Declaration of Principles, I find that the issues that we as a denomination must examine before approving this are far-reaching and substantial. I hope that the delegate body will be provided the opportunity to thoroughly discuss and modify the proposal as needed. When considering adopting the NAE Statement of Faith in 2017, the question-and-answer period was divided into three simultaneous sessions. The adopting of this proposed 2026 DOP has such massive ramifications we must have a full and open discussion involving the entire delegate body to hear all the considerations pro and con to the adoption. We cannot – we must not – stifle full participation and thorough deliberation before adopting such a radical change to our denominational culture. How else can we provide an accurate summary of what most of us, as Advent Christians, believe.