Uncovering the Origins

of the Statement of Twenty-seven

Fundamental Beliefs
By Fritz Guy

n 1861, when Seventh-day Adventist m inisters in the

I state of Michigan gathered in Battle Creek to consid­

er the prospect of adopting a formal organizational
structure, James W hite introduced the idea of a “church
covenant/’ It would simply say, “We, the undersigned,
hereby associate ourselves together, as a church, taking
the name Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep
the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus
C hrist.”1 So the total content of this “covenant” would
consist of the proposed denominational name and the
words of a favorite verse of Scripture (Rev. 14:12). But
to some in the group even this brief, innocuous state­
ment sounded suspiciously like the beginning of a
“creed,” and thus a step toward “becoming Babylon.”
John Loughborough was blunt: “The although he gave a different reason. “Making
first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, a creed,” he said, “is setting the stakes, and
telling us what we shall believe. The second barring the way to all future advancement....
is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The Bible is our creed. We reject everything
The third is to try members by that creed. in the form of a human creed. We take the
The fourth is to denounce as heretics those Bible and the gifts of the Spirit; embracing
who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to the faith that thus the Lord will teach us
commence persecution against such.” from time to time. And in this we take a posi­
White responded by explaining that he, tion against the formation of a creed.”2
too, was opposed to forming a creed, Whatever the reasoning, the common

www.spectrummagazine.org BELIEFS 19
Adventist conviction was that formulating a creed would he need for some kind of declaration of
be dangerous to the spiritual and theological health of the
fledgling community of faith. But eventually the doubters
were persuaded that a “covenant” would not be a “creed,”
and the proposed covenant was adopted unanimously.
T Adventist belief was recognized several years
before the meeting that adopted the church
covenant and the denominational name, and there has
been a long series of them since.
The reluctance to have anything like a creed has been The first one usually cited was an informal statement
explained by Walter Scragg: by James White in 1853, composed in reply to a query from
an official of the Seventh-day Baptist Central Association,
The early [Adventist] leaders came out of bodies that who had been directed “to correspond with the Seventh-day
they felt had calcified their beliefs in .. .creedal state­ Advent people, and learn of their faith.” White replied with
ments, and [hadj fought to defend those statements a brief review of the gradual acceptance of the Sabbath by
rather than embark on fresh searches for biblical “that portion of the Second Advent people who observe the
understanding and truth. The Reformation remained fourth commandment,” and then explained:
incomplete because it was held back by creeds. They
also feared that such statements might become a rival As a people we are brought together from divisions
to the freedom of the Spirit that they saw operating in of the Advent body and from various denomina­
their midst, both in the work of Ellen G. White, and tions, holding different views on some subjects; yet,
in their various study conferences at which they thank Heaven, the Sabbath is a mighty platform on
sought to find answers to perplexing Bible questions.3 which we can all stand united. And while standing
here, with the aid of no other creed than the Word
More than a century later, some of the spiritual of God, and bound together by the bonds of love—
descendents of the early Adventists had similar misgiv­ love for the truth, love for each other, and love for a
ings about the idea of revising the official statement of perishing world— which is stronger than death, all
Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. One of party feelings are lost. We are united in these great
my most respected friends called from halfway across the subjects: Christ’s immediate, personal second
continent to express disappointment that I was involved Advent, and the observance of all of the command­
in such a project. He argued that the whole endeavor was ments of God, and the faith of his Son Jesus Christ,
a bad idea because of its huge potential for misuse. as necessary to a readiness for his Advent.4
Unintentionally echoing both W hite and Loughborough,
he insisted that it would inhibit creative thinking and be Later that year, W hite published in the Advent Review
used as a disciplinary device to keep people in line. It and Sabbath Herald a series of four editorials on “Gospel
would, in other words, be treated like a creed. Order,” by which he meant church organization; but he
Both in 1861 and in 1980, the skeptics were right in insisted that this did not include formulating a creed: In
their predictions but wrong in their reasoning. They were the first editorial he said, ‘W e want no human creed; the
right in their predictions because in spite of a very strong Bible is sufficient. The divine order of the New Testament
and consistent Adventist bias against creedalism, we find is sufficient to organize the church of Christ. If more were
ourselves today with something that functions very much needed, it would have been given by inspiration.”
like a creed. Our present statement of Fundamental Beliefs In the second he reiterated his conviction
can be, and indeed has been, misused. But neither the dan­
ger nor the actuality of abuse negates the value of having that the church of C hrist.. .is provided with a creed
such a statement and using it properly. Like the tradition that is sufficient. All scripture is given by inspira­
of which it is the most current authoritative expression, it tion of God.’... Let the church of Christ take the
can function not as a stockade to imprison our thinking, Bible for their only creed, believe its plain teaching,
but as a platform on which to build. obey its injunctions, and for them it will accomplish
In this discussion I want to do three things: first the very work for which it was designed... .While
describe briefly the historical predecessors of the current we reject all human creeds, or platforms,.. .we take
statement, then describe what we might call “the saga of the Bible, the perfect rule of faith and practice,
the twenty-seven,” and finally offer some reflections on given by inspiration of God. This shall be our plat­
both the process of revision and the product. form on which to stand, our creed and discipline.5
 Nevertheless, in August 1854 the first issue of vol­ In the meantime, in 1894 the Battle Creek Church, the
ume six included in its masthead a list of five “Leading most prominent Adventist congregation at the time, pub­
Doctrines Taught by the Review,” placed immediately lished a church directory that included a statement titled
below the identification of James W hite as editor, who “Some Things Seventh-day Adventists Believe.” It con­
was presumably responsible for the list: tained thirty items, preceded by this explanation: “The
Seventh-day Adventist people have no creed or discipline
The Bible, and the Bible alone, the rule of faith and duty except the Bible but the following are some of the points of
The Law of God, as taught in the Old and New their faith upon which there is quite general agreement.”10
Testaments, unchangeable. In 1931, a statement of “Fundamental Beliefs of
The Personal Advent of Christ and the Seventh-day Adventists” appeared with twenty-two sec­
Resurrection of the Just, before the Millennium. tions. It had been requested by the General Conference
The Earth restored to its Eden perfection and glory, Committee and was submitted by a four-person group
the final Inheritance of the Saints. including C. H. Watson, president of the General
Immortality alone through Christ, to be given to Conference, and F. M. Wilcox, editor of the Review and
the Saints of the Resurrection.6 Heralds According to one version of the story, Wilcox
did the actual writing, which was then accepted by the
This brief doctrinal summary continued as part of others;1" but according to another account the initial
the Review masthead for seventeen subsequent issues, drafting was done by F. D. Nichol, the thirty-four-year-
and then disappeared.7 old associate editor of the Review}3
A more elaborate statement, evidently the work of However it originated, “realizing that the General
Uriah Smith, appeared in 1872 and was entitled ‘A Conference Committee— or any other church body—
Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and would never accept the document in the form in which it
Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists.” This was pub­ was written, Elder Wilcox, with full knowledge of the
lished unsigned as a pamphlet and contained twenty-five group, handed the Statement directly to Edson Rogers,
propositions. The introduction read in part: the General Conference statistician, who published it in
the 1931 edition of the [Seventh-day Adventisf] Yearbook,”14
In presenting to the public this synopsis of our This statement, which began, “Seventh-day Adventists
faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that hold certain fundamental beliefs, the principal features of
we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline, which.. .may be summarized as follows,” was reprinted
aside from the Bible. We do not put forth this as each year in the Yearbook, and, beginning in 1932, in the
having any authority with our people; nor is it Church Manual by vote of the General Conference Execu­
designed to secure uniformity among them, as a tive Committee. In 1946, the General Conference session
system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is, in Washington, D.C., voted that the Church Manual could
and has been, with great unanimity, held by them.8 be revised only at a General Conference session— that is,
not by the Executive Committee. Although the 1931 state­
This statement was reprinted several times— in Signs ment had thus become “official,” it was still “not, however,
o f the Times in 1874 and 1875, in Advent Review and Sabbath considered a creed.”15
Heraldin 1874, and as a pamphlet in 1875, 1877-78, 1884, All of these earlier formulations—James W hite’s infor­
and 1888— always introduced by a statement that mal statement in 1853, the five items in the Review mast­
Adventists “have no creed but the Bible, but they hold to head in 1854, the “church covenant” of 1861, Uriah Smith’s
certain well-defined points of faith, for which they feel pre­ “Declaration of Fundamental Principles” in 1872, the
pared to give a reason.” It was revised and expanded to Battle Creek congregation’s “points of faith” in 1894, and
twenty-eight sections in the 1889 denominational Yearbook, the statement of “Fundamental Beliefs” in 1931— were
then disappeared for fifteen years, but was reprinted in the intended to be descriptions of an existing Adventist con­
Yearbook annually from 1905 to 1914, and in the Review sensus rather than prescriptions of a theological obligation.
and Herald in 1912, where it was designated “Fundamental
Principles” and described as “by the late Uriah Smith.” It
was also reprinted in pamphlet form, with an additional,
twenty-ninth section on religious liberty.9
 n 1976, two concerns converged to provide an incen­ revisions in the interest of clarity and consistency

I tive for a revision of the 1931 statement. On the one

hand, some General Conference officials expressed
an interest in revising the paragraph on “the Holy
Scriptures” to include an explicit assertion that “they
were not covered by the above declaration. Then
that light dawned. Many pages of editorial emen­
dations were accepted and eventually presented to
the 1975 session of the General Conference in
give the authentic history of the origin of the world.” At Vienna. Because of the official reluctance to change
the same time, the Church Manual Committee felt a need a jot or tittle of the Manual, I had refrained from
for the coordination of three different statements it con­ including the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs in
tained: the Fundamental Beliefs, the Doctrinal Instruc­ the initial editorial suggestions.
tion for Baptismal Candidates, and the Baptismal Vow. After the 1975 session, however, the time
The Church Manual Committee recommended the seemed ripe for attention to the Fundamentals.
appointment of an ad hoc committee to consider both— They seemed surrounded with an aura of untouch-
namely, the coordination of the three statements and also ability, and the secretary of the committee [that is,
“the preparation of an additional ‘Fundamental Belief’ state­ Elder Seton himself] seemed to be the only one
ment to deal with the Doctrine of Creation.” In response, the convinced of the need for revision. He, therefore,
General Conference Administrative Committee voted that produced a complete but cautious revision for pres­
its chair, F. W Wernick, and the president of the General entation to the chairman of the committee and at
Conference, appoint the committee, which he did. Its chair an early date to a subcommittee that was appointed
was W Duncan Eva and its secretary was Bernard Seton.16 on the chairman’s initiative. W ith the initial one-
At this point the story is illuminated by Seton’s man revision as its base, that subcommittee spent
detailed personal recollections of the process. Although many hours producing a revision for presentation
his account does not agree completely with the official to the full Church Manual Committee.
history, it throws interesting additional light on the At every step, however, it was dogged by the
developments and the dynamics: tradition of untouchability concerning the
Fundamentals. Indeed, there appeared to be an
In 1965 I wrote from Berne [Switzerland]] to the aura of inspiration that hamstrung most sugges­
General Conference administration and expressed tions for refinement and improvement of each
my conviction that our Statement of Fundamental statement. If that aura could have been laid to rest,
Beliefs needed revision from both a theological and the way would have been open for a much more
a literary point of view. The administration’s reply effective revision. Under that mighty handicap, the
revealed that no such need was felt at the General subcommittee revised the original statement pre­
Conference, so the matter was dropped. sented to the full committee for its reaction.
In 1970 I became an associate secretary of the An ad hoc committee was then appointed with
General Conference, and I found that one of my the specific task of preparing a document that via
duties was to serve as secretary of the Church the Church Manual Committee would prepare a
Manual Committee. It became clear that the statement for presentation to the 1980 session, and
Manual needed revision. It had grown like Topsy, that ad hoc committee was commissioned to work
with additions being made in random fashion by within the framework of minimal revisions, in defer­
individuals and groups as they became aware of ence to the idea of the sacrosanct nature of the
deficiencies in the original statement. The 1967 edi­ Manual and the sensitivities of the church member­
tion revealed the patchwork nature of the volume ship respecting any change that might appear to
and cried out for editorial attention. But on page 22 touch the doctrinal beliefs of the church. Once again
it was recorded, “All changes or revisions of policy the brakes were on, and revision had to be carried
made in the Manual shall be authorized by a out on a very limited basis.17
General Conference session” [1946[j. This quota­
tion proved to be a roadblock in every effort to The ad hoc committee did not complete its work
revise any part of the Manual. until August 1979, when a draft was distributed to
It took several months of interpretive endeavor General Conference officials. In a cover letter, Eva “noted
to convince the committee that editorial, literary that [both[ formal and substantive changes had been
made. Formally, the sequence of topics had been altered The University’s action accomplished what a timor­
and paragraph headings had been inserted. Substantively, ous interpretaion of Church Manual procedure had
the sections on the Trinity had been expanded from two failed to effect. Hindsight suggests that it would
paragraphs to four, and sections had been added con­ have been wise if the Church Manual Committee had
cerning angels, creation and the fall, the church, unity in worked more closely with Andrews theologians
the body of Christ, the Lord’s Supper, Christian mar­ from an early date, but the traditional reticence to
riage, and the Christian home and education.” touch the Manual would probably have made that a
Eva “also said that before the new statement would be too revolutionary suggestion.21
submitted to the full Church Manual Committee, it would be
presented to certain professors at the Seminary with whom
we will meet in September.’ After the Church Manual com­ hat had gone on at Andrews, however, was as
mittee gave its approval, the statement would proceed to
the [General Conference]] officers, the union [[conference]]
presidents, the Annual Council, and finally to the General
Conference session in Dallas [[the following April]].”18
W straightforward as it was unexpected. The uni­
versity president appointed the vice president for
academic administration, the dean of the Seventh-day Adven­
tist Theological Seminary, and eight members of the Semin­
Here, again, Seton’s recollections are interesting: ary faculty to meet with Eva, with two additional faculty
members added later.22 However, none recalled instructions
When that further limited revision was completed I that we were to make “only comments and emendations.”
ventured to suggest that it would be wise to submit On the contrary, it seemed to many of us that
the document to our professional theologians on the although on the one hand “in general the statement pre­
basis that it would be better to have their reactions pared by the ad hoc committee in Washington was a gen­
before the document went further rather than await uine improvement over the 1931 statement.” On the other
their strictures on the session floor. There was some hand, it “was uneven in its organization and style.. .with
hesitation, but eventually the suggestion was accepted mixed terminology, a lack of balance with regard to
and the document went to Andrews University with length of individual sections, differences in the way docu­
the request that it be studied, that comments and mentation was handled, and a general administrative con­
emendations be referred back to the ad hoc commit­ cern with events and behavior rather than meaning.”23
tee. Those terms of reference did not register, for the Perhaps Eva’s communication with the Andrews group
University prepared its own set of Fundamentals.”19 was so gentlemanly and respectful that we failed to
understand its precise intent. In any case, we decided
Scragg, who was president of the Northern almost immediately that what was needed was not more
European Division, later reported, “W Duncan Eva has editing but a complete rewriting.
described to me his surprise when he received back from So we went to work, deciding what should be included
[the Andrews scholars]] not a reworking of the material and assigning various sections to different members of the
submitted but a completely rewritten document.” But in committee. For example, Lawrence Geraty produced the
spite of this surprise, the Andrews document original draft of section six, “Creation”; Ivan Blazen drafted
section twenty-three, “Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly
became the basis of the one recommended by the Sanctuary”; and I drafted sections two, “The Trinity,” and
1979 Annual Council to the 1980 General Conference three, “The Father.” Of course, many minor and some
Session... .To one used to the workings of denomina­ major changes were made not only by the faculty group
tional machinery it is nothing less than staggering but also by later committees at the General Conference
that the church could in 1980 meet the challenge of headquarters and at the General Conference session, so the
the 1946 action which put a protective mantle over final content and wording cannot properly be attributed to
the 1931 statement, and not only reconsider the state­ this initial drafting. New materials beyond the 1931 state-
ment, but actually act as if it did not exist and create
new language, new articles, new scripture references,
and then have the new document voted.20

Seton similarly observed,

ment included the sections on creation and family life. This was merely a plausible, traditional structure,
As it finally turned out, the statement had a deliberate certainly not the “right,” “holy,” or “God-given”
structure; it was not just twenty-seven beads on string. structure.25 There are many different ways in which the
Indeed, it reflected a very traditional theological pattern:-4 theological pie can reasonably be cut.
The number twenty-seven was a fairly arbitrary ini­
[Prolegomena] tiative of mine. As secretary of the group, I was given the
Preamble task of recording and organizing the results of our delib­
erations. Since there was no predetermined number of
[W ord of God[| sections, we could have come out with twenty-six or
1. The Holy Scriptures twenty-eight; but I preferred twenty-seven. Twenty-six
seemed (to me) to be a dull, uninteresting number; twen-
[G od] ty-eight seemed better because it was four times seven,
2. The Trinity the arithmetical product of two numbers prominent in
3. The Father the Book of Revelation.
4. The Son Twenty-seven seemed more interesting still: it was
5. The Holy Spirit three to the third power, three times three times three.
Given the importance of the Trinity (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor.
[Creation] 13:13 [14]), and the threefold praise of the angels, “Holy,
6. Creation Holy, Holy” (Isa. 6:3), the other numbers didn’t have a
7. The Nature of Man chance: twenty-seven it would be. During the subsequent
discussion at the General Conference, the number of sec­
[Salvation] tions was increased to twenty-eight, but subsequently
8. The Great Controversy reduced again to twenty-seven.20 So twenty-seven it
9. The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ remained, and the statement is sometimes identified infor­
10. The Experience of Salvation mally as “the twenty-seven.”
Some other details may be of interest although they
[The Community of Faith] are not significant enough to have been included in the
11. The Church historical record of the project.
12. The Remnant and Its Mission The group invested the most time and effort on sec­
13. Unity in the Body of Christ tion twenty-three, “Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly
14. Baptism Sanctuary.” Because exegetical and experiential questions
15. Lord’s Supper had been publicly raised about the traditional doctrine of
16. Spiritual Gifts and Ministries the sanctuary in heaven and its “cleansing,” we tried to
17. The Gift of Prophecy construct a cautious statement that would fairly represent
what we understood to be a broad consensus of the church
[Life in Christ] membership.
18. The Law of God The group decided not to include a section on
19. The Sabbath Christian education after all, on the grounds that if we
20. Stewardship thus highlighted the work of one of the church’s major
21. Christian Behavior organizational departments, we would in fairness have to
22. Marriage and the Family highlight others as well (Sabbath School, health care,
youth ministry, and so forth), and that would make the
[Consummation] statement too much like an organizational chart.
23. Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary Section fifteen, “The Lord’s Supper,” evoked consider­
24. The Second Coming of Christ able debate over the participation of children. In spite of
25. Death and Resurrection the Adventist tradition of open communion, some mem­
26. The Millennium and the End of Sin bers of the group were convinced that only children who
27. The New Earth had been baptized should be permitted to participate;
others were equally convinced that a child who was old
enough to know what the symbols meant should be able to that this is also a very unfortunate statement.
participate. We reached an impasse we could not resolve, so I can understand how individuals far removed
this issue was not (and is not) mentioned in the statement. from where some of these things are being studied,
But most important was a sense of excitement, and and who may not themselves have been asked to par­
an awareness of the importance of the task. We were try­ ticipate in a restudy or refinement of wording, might
ing to be both descriptive (expressing beliefs of our com­ feel that there is something very sinister, mysterious,
munity of faith) and instructive (leading the community and secret going on that will suddenly confront us,
of faith to greater perception and clarity). Had we been and that it may contribute to the ultimate detriment
writing our own personal statements of belief, each of us and demise of the Seventh-day Adventist Church... .1
would have written somewhat differently, reflecting our assure you that no one who has been struggling with
individual backgrounds, perspectives, and understandings. some of these matters has any such intention.
There are others who think they know why this
is being done. They believe it is being prepared as a
hen came the wider discussion. The proposed club to batter someone over the head, to try to get

T revision went back to the General Conference,

where it was modified slightly by the Church
Manual Committee and approved in principle at the
Annual Council in October 1979. It was published in the
people into a narrow concept of theology, not leav­
ing any opportunity for individual interpretation of
prophecy, or any individual views with respect to
theology or certain areas of doctrine. This also is
Review in February 1980, with a request for comments unfortunate, because this never has been and is not
from readers around the world.27 the intention of any study that has been given to
There were many suggestions, ranging from the super­ the Statement on Fundamental Beliefs.
ficial to the extremely thoughtful; probably the most thor­ Some academicians, theologians, and others have
ough examination was given by the religion faculty at expressed the fear that this statement was being
Pacific Union College. Further discussions between General developed so that the church could confront them
Conference officers and the Seminary group and subse­ with a checklist to determine whether they should
quent major revision at the General Conference produced be disqualified from teaching in one of our institu­
significant modifications.28 Finally the statement was pre­ tions of higher education. It is very, very tragic
sented for consideration by the 2000 delegates to the fifty- when these kinds of rumors begin to develop.
third session of the General Conference in Dallas in April.29 I fully recognize, and am very willing to admit,
The discussion in Dallas began with extensive intro­ that we do need to use extreme care, including a
ductory comments by President Neal C. Wilson, includ­ wholesome variety of minds with training and back­
ing the following: ground, to provide input on this kind of statement.
However, I do not think anyone should become
For some time we have been considering a refine­ frightened when the wording of such a document is
ment of our Statement on Fundamental Beliefs.... studied. Perhaps I should go one step further and
No doubt you have done both some studying and say that the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not
some praying. have a creed as such. Nothing set in concrete in
We have heard a variety of interesting rumors. terms of human words. The time never comes when
Some, it is said, understand that the church leaders any human document cannot be improved upon. We
want to destroy completely the foundations of the feel that every 20, 30, or 50 years it is a very good
church and set the church on a course that would be thing for us to be sure we are using the right termi-
un-Biblical, contrary to the tradition of the past and nology and approach... .Certain terms mean today
to historical Adventism. My fellow delegates, there what they did not mean 50 years ago... .It is
is nothing that is further from the truth. extremely important that we should understand
We have also heard that any time we touch the what we believe and that we should express it sim­
Statem ent on Fundam ental Beliefs we would ply, clearly, and in the most concise way possible.30
be introducing the Omega, the final confusion
of theological and doctrinal positions of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church. I suggest to you
 Thus the process of discussion, further revision, and the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as
final approval of “the twenty-seven fundamentals” began. set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding
As Geraty observed, “The process undertaken in and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision
Dallas was more helpful for those who participated in it of these statements may be expected at a General
than it was for the product.”31 Recalling the aphorism Conference session when the church is led by the
that a camel looks like a horse designed by committee, Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth
anyone can recognize that a committee of nearly two or finds better language in which to express the
thousand members is not an ideal group to revise any teachings of God’s Holy Word.35
document.32 But it was certainly good that a General
Conference session, the most authoritative structure of The last sentence encompasses Wilson’s introductory
the church, spent much of a week talking about the observation that “we should understand what we believe
beliefs that give us our theological identity, not simply and.. .express it simply, clearly, and in the most concise

Creedal in flexib ility...w as not only a positive evil but also denied the fact th a t
th e church had a livin g Lord who would continue to lead them in to tru th .

about church structures, policies, and procedures. way possible,” and goes beyond it to reflect the important
An example of the adjustments that occurred in but too-often-overlooked emphasis of Ellen W hite that
Dallas is paragraph seventeen, “Ellen G. White.” Some we have noticed previously: “Whenever the people of God
delegates wanted to enhance the affirmation of her are growing in grace, they will be constantly obtaining a
authority, so where the original draft read, “Her writings clearer understanding of His Word. They will discern
provide the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and new light and beauty in its sacred truths. This has been
correction,” the revision read (with a grammatically dan­ true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it
gling modifier), “As the Lord’s messenger, her writings will continue to the end.”36
are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which Unfortunately, this preamble has also been often
provide the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and overlooked. The book Seventh-day Adventists Believe, pub­
correction.” Then, lest this change be misunderstood as lished in 1988 by the General Conference Ministerial
putting the Ellen W hite writings on the level of Departm ent, ignored the preamble completely. So did
Scripture, a further clarification was added: “They also a series of Sabbath School lessons devoted to the
make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all Fundamental Beliefs in the last two quarters of 1988,37 as
teaching and experience must be tested.” well as a similar series of articles in Ministry in August
Perhaps as important as the revisions that were made 1995.38 Perhaps this repeated omission is understandable:
were the revisions that were not made. These included a the preamble is different in content and intent; it is not
number of suggestions for greater specificity regarding the about the substance of the Fundamental Beliefs, but about
days of creation week, the beginning of the Sabbath, the their status. Perhaps also the authors of these various
place(s) of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, ways interpretations of the current statement disagreed with
of supporting the church financially, and proscribed behav­ the preamble’s explicit relativizing of any particular for­
iors such as card-playing, theatergoing, and dancing.33 mulation of belief.
One extraordinarily good thing occurred at the Dallas Whatever the reason, however, disregarding the pre­
session, even as the committee of two thousand was design­ amble is unfortunate, because it ignores one of the most
ing its theological camel: the addition of the preamble, basic elements in authentic Adventism— namely, its com­
the most im portant sentences in the whole document. mitment to “present truth,” to a progressive understanding
Unofficially known as “the Graybill preamble” because it was of Scripture, of God, and of ourselves in relation to God.
initially drafted and proposed by Ronald Graybill, it reads:34 Fortunately, however, in his brief history of Seventh-
day Adventist theology George Knight refers to the pre­
Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their amble as “the all-important preamble” and comments,
only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be “That remarkable statement captures the essence of what
James W hite and the other Adventist pioneers taught. of certain essential dimensions of spiritual life— forgive­
Creedal inflexibility, as they saw it, was not only a positive ness, for example, and prayer. The explanation, which does
evil but also denied the fact that the church had a living not satisfy everyone, is that it is intended to be a statement
Lord who would continue to lead them into tru th ... .The of Adventist beliefs, not a description of Adventist spiritu­
concept of progressive change stands at the heart of ality, any more than it is a description of the Church’s
Adventist theology.”39 organizational structure. One can of course reply that
Adventists in fact believe in forgiveness and prayer.
Sometimes the notion of “twenty-seven fundamental
inally we can reflect on the process and the prod­ beliefs” has seemed like an oxymoron: if there are twenty-

F uct. The input into the process was good, but still
not ideal. For the first time, a formal statement of
Adventist beliefs was not the work of a single person or a
seven of them, how can they all be “fundamental”? There
are two answers to this question. The first is that the
word fundamental is relative: some things are more funda­
small group. There was an intentional inclusion of schol­ mental than others. Among the things Adventists believe,
ars in theology and biblical studies, and an attempt to for example, the Sabbath is important; indeed, it is essen­
include the church membership at large. But more could tial; but the truth that God is unconditional love, and that
have been done, and should be done the next time. Jesus of Nazareth is the supreme revelation of that love,
First and foremost, there should have been far more are even more important, more fundamental in Adventist
participation by women, who comprise well over half of theology and life.
the Adventist membership but who were not named to The second answer is that, as statements of belief go,
any of the committees involved in the process. Their offi­ the number twenty-seven is not unusually large: in the
cial participation was therefore limited to the discussion Anglican tradition there are the famous “Thirty-nine
on the floor of the General Conference session, and the Articles of Religion”; and in the Lutheran tradition the
result is an essentially male statement.40 Augsburg Confession contains twenty-eight articles,
There should also have been provision for wide par­ some of which are several pages long.41
ticipation by church members who were not sufficiently So is it a “creed” after all? In one way it certainly is: it
fluent in English to read the draft statement published in is a formal, official, and therefore “authoritative” statement
the Adventist Review. This was in part the result of the of belief. This is true in spite of the fact that the opening
draft’s relatively late publication. lines insist that “Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible
The discussion at the General Conference session as their only creed,” and in spite of Wilson’s assurance to
should have included more scholars. Blincoe was there as the General Conference delegates that “the Seventh-day
dean of the Seminary, and Geraty was there as the elected Adventist church does not have a creed as such.” So claims
representative of the Seminary faculty; both were mem­ that it is not a creed may seem somewhat strained.
bers of the editorial committee and Geraty was actively On the other hand, however, there may be no other
involved in the discussion. But surely Raoul Dederen, who statement of belief in Christian history that begins with
as chair of the Seminary’s Department of Theology was an explicit expectation that it may be changed “when the
arguably the Church’s most significant theologian, should church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding
have been invited, as well as Kenneth Strand, the Church’s of Bible truth or finds better language in which to
leading church historian, and many of the Church’s other express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.” Anyone who
religion scholars in various parts of the world. thinks of the Fundamental Beliefs statement as a “creed”
In spite of these and other imperfections, however, must recognize that it is a very unusual one that breaks
the product is a useful document and an improvement the historic mold.
over its predecessor. Although the statement as a whole Of course, like all statements of belief, this one is sub­
was quite well received, there were, inevitably, some nega­ ject to misuse and abuse. The preamble notwithstanding, it
tive reactions and questions. can be regarded as absolute rather than relative, and thus
Some, particularly in Australia, were dismayed by stifle rather than stimulate theological thinking and con­
section twenty-three, “Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly versation. It can be interpreted rigidly rather than flexibly,
Sanctuary,” which they regarded as “watered down” and
even “a sellout.”
A different sort of criticism has concerned the absence
and used to discourage creative thought about the meaning ijGod’s^j Word” and for “discerning new light and beauty
of Adventist faith. But church people who abuse others in its sacred truths,” it will be an example of what it means
with a creed would probably abuse them without a creed. to be authentically Adventist in the twenty-first century.
Furthermore, in spite of their potential and actual mis­
use and their understandably bad press, “creeds” can be
useful. A creed can be appropriately “authoritative” in the Notes and References
sense of representing the church family as a whole and 1. “Doings of the Battle Creek Conference, Oct. 5 & 6, 1861,”
expressing its theological consensus. A church needs to Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Oct. 18, 1861, 148.
define itself theologically; this is a matter not only of iden­ 2. Ibid.
tity, but also of “truth in advertising.” Persons interested in 3. Walter R. L. Scragg, “Doctrinal Statements and the Life and
becoming part of a particular community of faith deserve Witness of the Church,” unpublished paper presented at workers’
meetings in Vasterang, Sweden, and Manchester, England, between
to know what they are getting into; and journalists who
Aug. 24 and Sept. 4, 1981.
write about such a community ought to have access to a
4. James White, “’’Resolution of the Seventh-day Baptist Central
reliable description of what its people generally believe.
Association,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Aug. 11, 1853, 52.
Yet there is an ironic moral to this story. As a com­ 5. James White, “Gospel Order,” Advent Review and Sabbath
munity of faith grows, the need for organization becomes Herald, Dec. 20, 1853, 173, 180.
increasingly obvious, and so does the need for theological 6. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Aug. 15, 1854, 1.
self-definition. The world in which we live and serve, and 7. See ibid., Dec. 26, 1854, 137, 145.
to which we witness, needs to know who we are and what 8. A Declaration o f the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced
we believe. Oncoming generations also need to know who by the Seventh-day Adventists (Battle Creek, Mich.: Seventh-day
we are and what we believe. So it is not only legitimate Adventist Publishing Association, 1872), 3; quoted in Seventh-day
Adventist Encyclopedia, 2d rev. ed., 2 vols. (Hagerstown, Md.: Review
but valuable to have statements of belief, especially as the
and Herald, 1996), 1:465.
community becomes more diverse—-ethnically, culturally,
9. SDA Encyclopedia (1996), 1:465-66.
educationally, and theologically.
10. Membership o f the Seventh-day Adventist Church o f Battle Creek,
But— and here is the irony—with the growing and Michigan, As It Stood April 16, 1894, 12, quoted by Scragg, “Doctrinal
obvious need for such statements, there also conies a Statements,” 9.
growing and much less obvious danger inherent in them. 11. According to Lawrence Geraty, ‘A New Statement of
As soon as we produce a statement of belief, some people Fundamental Beliefs,” Spectrum 11.1 (July 1980): 2, the other members
will stop thinking, stop asking questions, and stop grow­ of the committee were M. E. Kern, associate secretary of the General
ing. And some people will use the statement to judge oth­ Conference, and E. R. Palmer, manager of the Review and Herald
ers, and to try to exclude from the community those who Publishing Association.
12. See ibid. 2-3; Scragg, “Doctrinal Statements,” 15.
don’t measure up, and to inhibit creative thinking within
13. Raymond F. Cottrell, oral statement at a meeting of the San
the community. Loughborough may have been too pes­
Diego Adventist Forum, Apr. 8, 2000. The two accounts are not nec­
simistic in 1861, but he wasn’t entirely wrong when he
essarily incompatible; it is possible that Nichol prepared an initial draft
warned against developing a creed that would tell us that was reviewed and perhaps reworked by Wilcox, and then submit­
what we must believe, making it a test of fellowship, try­ ted to the other three members of the committee.
ing members by it, and denouncing as heretics and perse­ 14. Gottfried Oosterwal, “The Seventh-day Adventist Church in
cuting those who do not affirm it. Mission: 1919—1979,” unpublished paper cited by Geraty, “New
To be sure, this twofold danger is not an Adventist Statement,” 3.
monopoly; it occurs in every community of faith. But it is 15. Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.:
especially significant for Adventists, because the spirit, the Review and Herald, 1976), 396. In the second revised edition, (1996),
1:465, the corresponding sentence omits the explicit rejection of the
geist, the ethos of Adventist theology is an openness to and
notion of a creed and reads simply, “It was considered to be a summa­
quest for “present truth”— an openness and quest that
ry of the principal features of Adventist beliefs.”
“will continue until the end.” This is why the preamble is
16. Minutes of the President’s Administrative Committee
so important. To stop thinking, to stop asking questions, (PREXAD), Mar. 18, 1976, and the President’s Advisory Council
to stop “seeking a fuller understanding” is to betray our (PRADCO), Mar. 24, 1976. According to the Seventh-day Adventist
Adventist heritage. It ought to be literally unthinkable. Encyclopedia (1996), 1:465, the ad hoc committee was appointed by the
To put it positively: to the extent that a congregation chairman of the Church Manuel Committee, but this is not supported
is a context for “obtaining a clearer understanding of by the PRADCO minutes.
 Eva was a vice president and Seton an associate secretary of the Hammill, vice president of the General Conference (chair); Maurice
General Conference. Other members of the ad hoc committee were all Battle, associate secretary of the General Conference and secretary of
General Conference personnel: Willis Hackett, Richard Hammill, and the Church Manual Committee (secretary); Thomas Blincoe, dean of
Alf Lohne, vice presidents; Clyde Franz, secretary; Charles Bradford, the Theological Seminary; Robert Brown, director of the Geoscience
associate secretary; Gordon Hyde, general field secretary; N. R. Research Institute; Duncan Eva, vice president of the General
Dower, Ministerial Association secretary; and Arthur White, secretary Conference; Lawrence Geraty, representative of the Seminary faculty;
of the Ellen G White Estate. W Richard Lesher, director of the Biblical Research Institute; James
17. Bernard Seton to Lawrence Geraty, transcribed from audio- Londis, pastor of the Sligo Church in suburban Washington; Robert
tape recording of presentation by Geraty at meeting of San Diego Olson, secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate; Jan Paulsen, president
Adventist Forum, Apr. 18, 2000. of Newbold College; G. Ralph Thompson, vice president of the
18. Geraty, “New Statement,” 3. General Conference and chair of the Church Manual Committee; and
19. Seton to Geraty. Mario Veloso, director of the temperance and youth department of the
20. Scragg, “Doctrinal Statements,” 21. South American Division. See “Seventh Business Meeting,” 14.
21. Seton to Geraty. 33. See Geraty, “New Statement,” 10.
22. According to Geraty,- “New Statement,” 13, n. 5, the group 34. Graybill, an assistant secretary of the Ellen G. White estate,
named by Joseph G. Smoot included Richard Schwarz, professor of had written about the historic Adventist aversion to creedal statement
history and vice president for academic administration; Thomas under the pseudonym William Wright. See ‘Adventism’s Historic
Blincoe, professor of theology and dean of the Seminary; Ivan Blazen, Witness Against Creeds,” Spectrum 8.4 (Aug. 1977): 48-56.
professor of New Testament; Raoul Dederen, professor of theology; 35. As reported in “Session Proceedings” for Apr. 24, 1980, 9:30
Lawrence Geraty, professor of Old Testament; Roy Graham, professor a.m., Adventist Review, Apr. 27, 1980, 13, Graybill’s original wording was
of theology and provost of the university; William Johnsson, professor substantially the same as the final form. The principal difference is a
of New Testament and associate dean of the seminary; Hans slight softening of the language regarding revision. Whereas Graybill’s
LaRondelle, professor of theology; Gottfried Oosterwal, professor of proposal said, “These formulations can and should be revised,” the final
mission; and William Shea, professor of Old Testament. Kenneth version said, “Revision of these statements may be expected.”
Strand, professor of church history, and I were subsequently added, 36. Ellen G. White, “The Mysteries of the Bible a Proof of Its
making a total of twelve. I served as secretary of the group. Inspiration,” Testimoniesfor the Church (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific
23. Ibid., 3-4. Press, 1948), 5:706.
24. The structure given here was essentially established by the 37. Erwin R. Gane, J. Robert Spangler, and Leo R. Van Dolson,
Seminary faculty group; the terminology is that of the final version God Reveals His Love, Adult Sabbath School Lessons, July-Sept. and Oct.-
adopted by the General Conference session. See Adventist Review, May Dec. 1988.
1, 1980, 23-27; SDA Encyclopedia {1996), 1:465-70. 38. The presented comments generally followed the order of the
25. See, for example, Karl’s Barth’s scheme for his projected but statement itself: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 7, 25, 8, 23, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
never-finished five-part theological system, Church Dogmatics 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27.
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936—58): Word of God, God, Creation, 39. George R. Knight, A Searchfor Identity: the Development of
Reconciliation, Consummation. Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald,
26. See Geraty, “New Statement,” 6, 8. 2000), 2002.
27. “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists,” Adventist 40. According to the official record of the discussion (see refer­
Review, Feb. 21, 1980, 8-10. ences in n. 30 above), at least 120 men and only 6 women participated
28. For examples see Geraty, “New Statement,” 8. in the discussion— a ratio of 20 to 1.The gender differences in the
29. The discussion of the proposed statement of Fundamental experiencing of humanness, God, selfhood, and the community of faith
Beliefs occurred April 21-25, 1980. For personal observations and are indisputable grounds for the active and validated involvement of
interpretation of selected elements of the discussion, see Geraty, “New women, not only in pastoral ministry but also in the development and
Statement,” 8-13. For the complete official record of the discussion, articulation of the Church’s theology.
which occurred April 21-15, see “Session Proceedings” in General 41. See “Articles of Religion,” in The Book of Common Prayer and
Conference Bulletins 5—9, Adventist Review, Apri. 23, 1980, 8—11, 14; Administration o f the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies o f the
Apr. 24, 1980, 18-23, 28-29; Apr. 25, 1980, 16-20, 31; Apr. 27, 1980, Church (New York: Seabury, 1979), 867-76; “The Augsburg Confes­
14—18; May 1, 1980, 17-18, 20-22. sion,” in The Book o f Concord: The Confessions o f the Evangelical Lutheran
30. “Seventh Business Meeting, Fifty-third General Conference Church, ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), 27-96.
session, April 21, 1980, 3:15 p.m.: Session Proceedings,” Adventist
Review, Apr. 23, 1980, 8—9. Fritz Guy is professor of theology and philosophy at La Sierra University.
31. Geraty, “New Statement,” 13.
32. The document was not, however, amended directly from the
floor. Wilson appointed a twelve-person editorial committee of admin­
istrators and scholars to provide wording for changes: Richard