I’ve recently been asked questions regarding Seventh Day Adventists (SDA), and whether they’re Christians or not, if they’re a cult, and so on. I am not a member of an Adventist church, so I’m a little reluctant to get into too much detail, but I am a member of traditionally evangelical denomination and I think there are certainly some areas of concern with SDA teaching, so I will try to address those here for those who have asked. This might get a little long because of definitions and history, so enter at your own risk.
ARE THEY CHRISTIAN?
To start, I think we need to be cautious about saying who is or is not a Christian. This is basically the same trap the Pharisees fell into, putting up qualifications for who’s in and who’s out, and I think we’d be wise to not be too quick to say someone isn’t part of Christ’s family.
That said, I do think we have some pretty clearly defined boundaries about what orthodox Christians believe (see my rambling series on the Creeds for details), so I think we can look to those to see if Adventists line up with them. Basically, we can say whether a particular belief is “orthodox” but not whether or not a particular person is a Christian. So, while I will try to address some of the beliefs of SDA here, it may be that individual SDA members have a little different experience.
HOW DID THEY START?
It’s important when looking at any belief system to check out why it started in the first place. In the case of Adventists, we can trace their origins back to William Miller in the 1800s. Miller prophesied that Jesus would return to Earth in 1844, and many Christians were convinced and quit their jobs to wait for Jesus on hillsides. When he failed to appear, a great many people went away baffled, and the event has been called “the Great Disappointment.”
As the Millerites wrestled with what had happened, several different “sects” or denominations were founded out of his teachings, including Seventh Day Adventists. (Jehovah’s Witnesses are also sometimes traced to Millerism, though there is controversy about this.). In the case of the Adventists, a woman named Ellen G. White became influential through her teaching and especially through repeated visions/dreams.
Ellen White is a very central figure to the history of Seventh Day Adventism, because at times she has been considered a prophet who spoke for God on many issues (she wrote 40 books and hundreds of articles). I can’t speak for everyone, but in my experience, I have found Adventists very divided on her. Some seem to teach that “if she said it, it’s true,” while others seem to more view her as a gifted teacher, but not authoritative.
You will often hear Adventists called a “cult” because they depend so much on White, and depending on one teacher to the exclusion of others is often a hallmark of cultism. However, from the beginning of SDA the leadership has maintained that they respect, honor, and talk about White’s visions, but belief in them in not mandatory for joining an SDA fellowship. So while I do have my misgivings about so much emphasis on one person, it does seem like the SDA in general is aware of that danger, and tries to mitigate it (at least at a leadership level).
AREAS OF AGREEMENT
The big question is if SDA is a “Christian” denomination, and here I think the best thing to do is to look at the historic Creeds as a way to understand how we define “Christian.” For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses are generally considered unorthodox or a cult of Christianity because they deny the idea of the Trinity. In the case of SDA, are there similar concerns?
Well, the big test is always the Trinity, and to my knowledge, SDA doctrine confirms all the major points of the Creeds. They believe in a Triune God, that Jesus was God and Man, that the Holy Spirit is a personal being, that Jesus was incarnate with a virgin birth, that Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and so forth. They also share many Protestant beliefs regarding Justification by Faith Alone, Salvation by Grace alone, and others. They also view the Bible as the authoritative Word of God (that is, they don’t believe “other” revelations supersede the Bible).
Thus I would say that at least in the basic ways we can check, the Seventh Day Adventist Church is orthodox and not really a cult in the way that we normally think of it.
AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT
However, I do think there are some areas of concern, and especially when it regards evangelical doctrine. That is, historically, Christianity is often subdivided between Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox; then Western between Catholic and Protestant; then Protestant between Modernism and Fundamentalism; then Fundamentalism divided between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, and so forth. So, while I think SDA checks most of those boxes, they are going to have some disagreements with most of the people in my circles (evangelicals).
THE SABBATH
The most obvious difference is the day of worship for SDA is Saturday rather than Sunday. For most other Christian groups, this is not that big of a deal and they usually just shrug and say “whatever. Meet on Saturday then.” (some evangelical churches have Saturday services in addition to Sunday services anyway).
However, my concern here is not the meeting itself, but rather the emphasis that SDA puts on it. That is, meeting on Sunday is often referred to as the “mark of the beast,” either right now or they say it will “become” the mark of the beast in the future. I have been in conversations with SDA members who get really aggressive on this point, for instance suggesting that parents who allow their kids to participate in Saturday sports are risking their souls.
In my opinion, this goes against the teaching of scripture in Romans 14 (we’ll come back to this several times) – “In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. Those who worship the Lord on a special day do it to honor him.”
I think this is fairly clear that it’s fine for one person to be strongly convinced that the Sabbath should be Saturday, but it is not keeping with Paul’s teaching to demand that of others. We are all honoring God, and we should love each other in our differences on this issue.
HELL
Another big area of disagreement is the issue of hell. Now, it is true that teachings on hell vary from denomination to denomination, so it’s hard to say “this is what Christians believe.” However, I will say the SDA teaching is not in line with most Protestant churches today.
SDA teaches a concept known as “conditional immortality,” which is basically that not everyone is immortal. So, for example, most Protestant churches teach that we are ALL immortal, and the only question is where our immortal soul will spend eternity. On the other hand, SDA teaches that only those judged worthy will be given eternal life, and those who aren’t “die.” This is referred to an annihilationism, the belief that “sinful” souls do not spend eternity in hell, but rather are “annihilated” or destroyed.
Coupled with this is the idea of “soul sleep.” This is the idea that when you die, you do not go to heaven immediately, but rather are in a state of “sleep” until the resurrection. Like the teaching on hell, this is not the belief of the majority of Christian groups.
For myself, I would argue this goes against Jesus’ speaking to the thief on the cross, when he says “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” I would argue that his emphasis on “today” indicates that the thief’s soul is not sleeping or waiting somewhere. Additionally, Paul tells us that to be “absent from the body is present with the Lord.” This seems to indicate that there is no waiting period.
DIETARY/HEALTH
A third area of concern is the dietary teachings of the SDA, and I’ll group this more with a general concern.
Ellen G. White (again note the importance) was a believer in vegetarianism and the teaching has been fairly strong in the SDA ever since its founding. To my understanding, it is not a requirement of fellowship, so I’m not going to put too much emphasis on it.
However, the bigger concern is the “why” behind the vegetarianism. There are two points I think need to be addressed.
Number one, there is a strong emphasis in the SDA on the clean and unclean food divisions even if they are not full vegetarians. That is to say, you will frequently find SDA believers that do eat pork or shellfish or other “unclean” foods. The basic argument is that the division of clean/unclean happened before God gave Israel the Law, so those guidelines still apply.
My concern with this is that God specifically told Noah that he (God) was giving him all the animals for food: ‘Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.’ (Genesis 9:3) Additionally, both Jesus (Mark 7:19) and Acts 10 indicate that the unclean rules do not apply, as well as the four rules that the Church recommended for Gentile believers.
Therefore, I would argue the continuous teaching of the New Testament is that the Old Testament dietary laws no longer apply to Christians today. And again, I don’t think it’s a problem for particular believers to believe that, but it is a problem when it taught or emphasized as “more holy.” To refer to Romans 14 again:
“For instance, one person believes it’s all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don’t. And those who don’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them… Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God.”
Number two, the issue of vegetarianism is also important because the SDA is very focused on personal health (not a bad thing necessarily). I’ll quote here: “Both mental and spiritual vigour are in great degree dependent upon physical strength and activity; whatever promotes physical health, promotes the development of a strong mind and a well-balanced character.”
Now, a lot of other Christians might say the same thing; but here’s the issue. If you say that spiritual health is dependent on physical strength and activity? What about the disabled? More importantly, how do you reconcile Paul’s teaching on “in my weakness He is made strong”? I am not against a healthy lifestyle, or eating well, or exercising. I am however against raising those to the level of Church teaching.
For me, I believe that such an emphasis on the Old Testament Law can lead easily to “ranking” other believers by holiness, and can also lead to a sense of pride that “I” am serving the lord better than they are. I do not think this approach is in keeping with the idea of giving grace to each other and Biblical diversity.
PERFECTIONISM
Perfectionism is the teaching that, through the Holy Spirit, we can lead sinless lives. The usual way I hear it argued is “Can you go one second without sinning? Then you should be able to go five seconds. Can you go one minute? Then go twenty minutes. Can you go an hour? Then go for a day.” In other words, there is the possibility that we can live without sinning.
Now I do agree that we should “pursue” perfection, as Christ commands us, but I think it can be dangerous to put that as an expectation on people. Paul himself argues that he cannot live without sinning (and he’s frustrated by it): “The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate… I want to do what is right, but I can’t. I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway… I have discovered this principle of life—that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong.”
You will hear the argument that “yeah, we can’t, but the Holy Spirit living in us can.” I would say that Paul is not speaking in the past tense here. He is not saying “I used to do these things,” he is saying “I can’t do it now.” Unless we’re going to argue that Paul was not living with the Holy Spirit, I think we see a person struggling to do what’s right here, not a model of perfectionism.
The bigger issue is putting this expectation on people can lead to guilt about how terrible we are. Moreover, people can eventually decide “well, I clearly can’t remain perfect, so I’m either not saved, or none of this is true.” I think both of those are dangerous outcomes of this teaching.
OTHER CONCERNS
THE GREAT CONTROVERSY
The Great Controversy is both a book and a teaching. I won’t get into all the details here, but the general teaching (again, from Ellen White) is that there was a contest or challenge in heaven, and now Jesus and Satan are in a “fight” to determine who will win, with Jesus working to save people and Satan working against it.
I mention this because I think this is a misunderstanding that I think we need to be careful of (with some echoes of Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism). The world is not a testing ground for good versus evil. Jesus is not fighting Satan; Satan is utterly defeated. It is not a fight or contest or struggle; Jesus is the Eternal Victor. I think we need to be cautious about putting Satan on an even playing field with Jesus.
MICHAEL AS JESUS
I hesitate a little to mention this one, because the teaching has ebbed a little in SDA circles, but in the early days of SDA, there was a teaching that I’ve heard sometimes repeated, that Jesus and Michael are the same person. This is similar to the Jehovah’s Witness teaching, with the difference being that SDA still teach that Michael/Jesus are divine and part of the Trinity. Essentially, the idea is that “Jesus” is his human name, and “Michael” is his Heavenly name. I won’t get into it all hear, but again, the is obviously at odds with most Protestant teaching.
MUSIC
I’ll just quote here: ““Great care should be exercised in the choice of music. Any melody partaking of the nature of jazz, rock, or related hybrid forms, or any language expressing foolish or trivial sentiments, will be shunned by persons of true culture.” I think this is remarkably ethnocentric and cultural, and denies the principle of diversity outlined in Scripture. Again, I’ll just mention the idea in Romans 14 that different expressions of worship should probably not be elevated to such a high command. (of course, I was a rock worship leader, so my judgement on this one may be off 😊 )
SUMMARY
So, what’s the verdict? Are Seventh Day Adventists Christian? My answer is “yes,” but I think we should recognize they are not part of the evangelical church tradition, and have some doctrines that may be of concern. In particular, I would be fairly hesitant to have a SDA in charge of a ecumenical teaching situation. That is, if there are multiple denominations present in a teaching or ministering environment, I would be cautious about having a member of the SDA in a leadership role. Not because they aren’t Christian, but because so many of the doctrines are “fringe” or “borderline” issues, I think it would create a lot of confusion and disagreements.
However, I do want to end with a couple of notes.
Number one, this does not mean I do not think SDA are Christians – as I said at the outset, that’s not for me to decide.
Number two, I think there is a lot of variation within the church over how hard to push some of these doctrines, so individual SDA members may feel more or less strongly on some of these.
Number three, I think there is enough agreement that we can work together on humanitarian projects and other social items.
I think we have enough in common that we don’t need to create more friction than necessary. We should have grace with one another, and as we all pursue Christ, our love for each other can cover over a multitude of disagreements.