STATEMENTS ON
THEOLOGY AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Adopted by the 1987 Annual Council
Executive Committee, General Conference
of Seventh-day Adventists
104-87GN A
STATEMENT ON THEOLOGICAL AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND ACCOUNTABILITY
VOTED, To adopt a position paper consisting of two documents: A. A Statement on Theological Freedom and Accountability, and B. Academic Freedom in Seventh-day Adventist Institutions of Higher Learning, as follows:
A STATEMENT ON THEOLOGICAL FREEDOM AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
The Church and Its Institutions
Freedom for the Seventh-day
Adventist pastor/worker, hereinafter referred to as worker, is based on the
theological premise that God values freedom and that without it there can be no
love, truth, or justice. Love asks for
affection and commitment to be given without constraint; the acceptance of
truth requires a willing examination and reception of evidence and argument;
justice demands respect for personal rights and freedom. The presence of these elements within the
Church nurtures the spirit of unity for which our Lord prayed (John 17:21-23;
of Psalm 133).
Seventh day Adventists have derived
their distinctive worldview from the Old and New Testaments. They believe that Biblical truth and freedom
of conscience are vital issues in the great controversy between good and
evil. By it's very nature evil depends
on deception and falsehood, and sometimes force, to maintain itself. Truth thrives best in a climate of freedom,
persuasion, and a sincere desire to do God's will (John 7:17; Psalm 111:10).
Consequently, it is consistent with
Adventist administrative practice to recognize the worker's privilege to study
the Bible for himself in order to "prove all things" (1Thess.
5:21). It would be inconsistent for the
Church to preach that truth and freedom cannot exist without each other and
then to deny its workers the right to freely investigate all claims to
truth. This means, therefore, that the
Church will not obstruct the quest for truth but will encourage its workers and
constituents to engage in serious study of the Scriptures and to appreciate the
spiritual light they disclose (Psalm 119:130).
Although the worker is free to
pursue his studies, he may not assume that personal, limited perspective does
not need the insights and corrective influence of the Church he serves. What he thinks to be truth may be regarded
by the larger community of believers to be error. And workers and members are called upon to be in agreement on
essential points "that there be no divisions" in the body of Christ
(1Cor 1:10).
Freedom for the individual Christian
grows out of his belonging to the community of Christ. No one is free in the Biblical sense who is
out of relationship with God or others.
Theological truth, therefore, is affirmed by community study and
confirmation. One person may stimulate
the community to study a question, but only God's people and church as a whole
can decide what is or is not true in the light of Scripture. No member or worker can ever serve as an
infallible interpreter for anyone else.
Inasmuch as deceptive teachings,
harmful to the eternal welfare of souls, may at times arise from within the
Church itself (of Acts 20:29-31; 2 Peter 2:1), its only safety is to receive
and to foster no new doctrine or interpretation without first submitting it to
the judgment of experienced brethren, for "in the multitude of counselors
there is safety" (Prov 11:14).
Even a genuine insight into truth
discovered by a worker may not be acceptable to the corporate body upon first
exposure to it. If such a teaching is
divisive, it should not be taught or preached until evaluated in the manner
described above. The apostle themselves
provide an example of this approach (of Acts 15:2, 6; Gal 2:2). It would be an irresponsible use of a
worker's freedom to press a viewpoint that would endanger the unity of the
church body which is as much a part of truth itself as are the formulated
statements of doctrine (See Phil 1:27; Rom 15:5,6).
Furthermore, workers should
distinguish between doctrines that cannot be comprised without destroying the
gospel in the framework of the three angels' messages and other beliefs that
are not church supported. An example of
this distinction may be seen in the Jerusalem Council's decision (Acts
15). The Apostle Paul's concern was to
establish the truth of Christian liberty in the gospel for the Gentiles. Once that principle was accepted by the
Church, he was willing to make concessions on matters of a principle or a new
truth time to translate itself into the daily life of the Church shows respect
for the integrity of the body of Christ.
But where shall the line be drawn
between freedom and responsibility? An
individual entering into employment with the Church is expected to assume the
privilege of representing God's cause in a responsible and honorable
manner. He is expected to expound the
Word of God conscientiously and with Christian concern for the eternal welfare
of the persons under his care. Such a privilege precludes the promotion of
theological view contrary to the accepted position of the Church.
Should a worker violate this trust,
the Church must move to maintain its own character (Act 20:28-31) inasmuch as
the community of faith stands to be divided by the promulgation of divergent
doctrinal views. The worker's
privileges consequently stand in jeopardy.
This is particularly so because the worker, being in the service of the
Church, is accountable for the preservation of its order and unity (of Mark
3:24, 25; Eph 4:1-3; 1 Peter 5:1-5).
In the interest of genuine progress
in spiritual understanding (2 Peter 3:18), the Church will arrange for a
worker's divergent views, if he believes them to be new light, to be examined
by a competent committee. Listening to alternatives will always advance
truth. Either the alternatives will
strength and enlarge upon the truth, or it will stand exposed as false, thereby
confirming present positions.
To ensure fairness and a mature
assessment, therefore, the following guidelines are to be followed by the
administrations concerned when dealing with a worker alleged to hold
conflicting views on doctrine.
Disciplining of Dissidents: Churches,
Conferences,
The Church reserves the right to
employ only those individuals who personally believe in and are committed to upholding
the doctrinal tenets of the Church as summarized in the document,
"Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists" (1980). Such individuals are issued special
credentials by their respective church bodies identifying them as continuing
workers in the Church.
As Church members, employees
continue to be subject to the conditions for church membership as stated in the
Church Manual. This document also
relates to employment as salaried workers.
It is understood that the
disciplining of such a church employee who persists in propagating doctrinal
views differing from those of the Church is viewed not as a violation of his
freedom, but rather as a necessary protection of the Church's integrity and
identity. There are corporate church
rights as well as individual freedoms.
The worker's privileges do not include the license to express views that
may injure or destroy the very community that supports and provides for him.
In spite of a careful process of
screening and selection, there still may be occasions when a worker's
theological views are brought under critical review. If a hearing is necessary, the following process is recommended:
1. Private
Consultation between the Chief Executive Officer and the Worker. Consultation should be in a spirit of
conciliation allowing the worker every opportunity to freely express his
convictions in an open and honest manner.
If this preliminary conversation indicates that the individual is in
advocacy of doctrinal views divergent from accepted Adventist theology and is
unwilling to refrain from their recital, the chief executive officer shall
refer the matter to the conference/institutional executive committee, which
will then arrange for a select committee to review the situation with the worker.
At the time of consultation between
the chief executive officer and the worker, the officer's perception of the
point in question and the worker, the officer's perception of the point in
question shall determine the administrative options that shall be pursued.
a. If the worker voluntarily initiates a
consultation and informs the chief executive officer of his theological
uncertainties, and if his attitude is open to counsel without compulsion to
promulgate his doubts and views, the following course of action is recommended:
1) The worker will continue to function at
his post and will render a written report of his position before the end of six
months.
2) If within that period the matter is
satisfactorily resolved, no further action is necessary.
3) If the matter is not resolved, the
executive committee of the conference/institution in which the worker is
employed shall arrange for a hearing before a review committee. (See below for
its composition and function.)
b. If the worker actively promotes his
divergent doctrinal opinions and his chief executive officer is obligated to
initiate the consultation, the following course of action is recommended:
1) The worker, at the discretion of the
conference/institutional executive committee, shall either remain in his
position with express instructions to refrain from private or public
presentation of his views or shall be placed on administrative leave during the
period of the hearing.
2) The executive committee of the
conference/institution in which the worker is employed shall arrange for a
hearing before a review committee. (See below for its composition and
function).
2. The
Review Committee--Its Composition and Function.
a. The Review Committee, including peers chosen by the conference/ institution executive committee with the concurrence of the next higher organization, shall give hearing to and judgment upon the doctrinal issue.
b. The doctrinal views of the worker shall
be submitted by him to the review committee in writing previous to the
meeting. At the time of review he shall
be available for discussion with the committee.
c. The review committee shall conduct its
business with serious purpose, complete honesty, and scrupulous fairness. After a careful adjudication of the points
at issue, it shall give a detailed, written report of the discussion with its
recommendations to the conference/institutional executive committee. If agreement is not reached within the
committee, a minority report shall also be included.
d. If the review committee finds that the
views of the worker are compatible with the Fundamental Beliefs of the Church,
no further action will be necessary.
However, if the worker's theological position is at variance with
Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, the review committee shall discuss its
conclusions with the worker and advise him:
1) To restudy his theological position in
the hope that this will eliminate his theological divergence.
2) To refrain from the promulgation of his
divergent doctrinal views.
e. If the worker is unable to reconcile
his theological views with the denominational positions and also feels
constrained by his conscience to defend his views both privately and publicly,
the review committee shall recommend to his executive committee that his
credentials be withdrawn.
f. If the worker has discovered a new
position that is accepted as valid by the review committee, his view shall be
studied by the union conference officers (in the case of a division/General
Conference) and, with appropriate recommendations, shall be referred to the
Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference for final disposition.
3. Provision
for Appeal.
a. The dissenting worker may make an appeal and appearance before an appeal committee of seven members appointed by the union executive committee (or the division committee in the case of a division/General Conference institution). This committee shall be chaired by the union conference president or his designate and shall include the ministerial secretary of the union, two representatives named by the division/General Conference executive committee, the conference/institutional chief executive officer, and two of the worker's peers selected from among five names submitted by him.
b. Any recommendations of the union
conference (division, if in a division institution) appeal committee shall be
referred to the union conference (division) executive committee. The union conference (division) officers
through their chief executive officer shall notify the worker of their
collective decision.
c. Any recommendations of the union
conference (division) executive committee shall be referred back to the
conference/institutional executive committee for final action on the worker's
employment.
d. A last appeal may be made by the worker
to the executive committee of the division of the General Conference in which
he resides. Their decision shall be
final and shall be communicated to the executive committee of the employee's
conference/institution.
e. During the period of hearing, review,
and appeal, the worker shall refrain from public discussion of the issues
involved.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
All learning and all teaching take
place within the framework of a worldview of the nature of reality, man,
knowledge, and values. Roots of the
Christian university are found in a principle that has long undergirded the
development of all higher education--the belief that the best education is
attained when intellectual growth occurs within an environment in which
Biblically based concepts are central to the aims of education. This is the goal of Seventh-day Adventist
education.
In the Seventh-day Adventist college
and university, as in any institution of higher learning, the principle of
academic freedom has been central to establishing such aims. This principle reflects a belief in freedom
as an essential right in a democratic society, but with a particular focus in
an academic community. It is the
guarantee that teachers and the students will be able to carry on the functions
of learning, research, and teaching with a minimum of restrictions. It applies
to subjects within the professor's professional expertise within which there is
a special need for freedom to pursue truth.
It also applies to the atmosphere of open inquiry necessary in an
academic community if learning is to be honest and thorough.
For the church college or
university, academic freedom has an additional significance. It is more
important than it is in the secular institution, not less, for it is essential
to the well-being of the Church itself.
This places a responsibility on the Christian professor to be a
self-disciplined, responsible, and mature scholar, to investigate, teach, and
publish within the area of academic competence, without external restraint, but
with a due regard for the character and aims of the institution which provides
him with credentials, and with concern for the spiritual and the intellectual
needs of his students.
Seventh-day Adventist colleges and
universities, therefore, subscribe to principles of academic freedom generally
held important in higher education.
These principles make possible the disciplined and creative pursuit of
truth. They also recognize that freedom
is never absolute and that they imply commensurate responsibilities. The following principles of academic freedom
are stated within the context of accountability, with special attention to
limitations made necessary by the religious aims of a Christian institution.
1. Freedom
of Speech. While the right to private
opinion is a part of the human heritage as creatures of God, in accepting
employment at a Seventh-day Adventist college or university the teacher recognizes
certain limits to expression of personal views.
As a member of a learned profession,
he must recognize that the public will judge his profession by his
utterances. Therefore, he will be
accurate, respectful of the opinions of others, and will exercise appropriate
restraint. He will make it clear when
he does not speak for the institution.
In expressing private views he will have in mind their effect on the
reputation and goals of the institution.
2. Freedom
of Research. The Christian scholar will
undertake research within the context of his faith and from the perspective of
Christian ethics. He is free to do
responsible research with proper respect for public safety and decency.
3. Freedom
to Teach. The teacher will conduct his
professional activities and present his subject matter within the worldview
described in the opening paragraph of this document. As a specialist within a particular discipline, he is entitled to
freedom in the classroom to discuss his subject honestly. However, he will not
introduce into his teaching controversial matter unrelated to his subject.
Academic freedom is freedom to pursue knowledge and truth in the area of the
individual's specialty. It does not
give license to express controversial opinions on subjects outside that
specialty nor does it protect the individual from being held accountable for
his teaching.
Just as the need for academic
freedom has a special significance in a church institution, so do that
limitations placed on it reflect the special concerns of such an
institution. The first responsibility
of the teacher and leaders of the institution, and of the Church, is to seek
for and to disseminate truth. The
second responsibility is the obligation of teachers and leaders of the institution
and the Church to counsel together when scholarly findings have a bearing on
the message and mission of the Church.
The true scholar, humble in his
quest for truth, will not refuse to listen to the findings and the advice of
others. He recognizes that others also
have them and actively seek their counsel regarding the expression of views
inconsistent with those generally taught by his Church, for his concern is for
the harmony of the church community.
On the other hand, church leaders
are expected to foster an atmosphere of Christian cordiality within which the
scholar will not feel threatened if his findings differ from traditionally held
views. Since the dynamic development of the Church depends on the continuing
study of dedicated scholars, the president, board of trustees, and Church
leaders will protect the scholar, not only for his sake but also for the cause
of truth and the welfare of the Church.
The historic doctrinal position of
the Church has been defined by the General Conference in session and is
published in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook under the title,
"Fundamental Beliefs." It is
expected that a teacher in one of the Church's educational institutions will
not teach as truth what is contrary to those fundamental truths. Truth, they will remember, is not the only
product of the crucible of controversy; discretion in presenting concepts which
might threaten church unity and the effectiveness of church action.
Aside from the fundamental beliefs
there are findings and interpretations in which differences of opinions occur
within the Church, but which do not affect one's relationship to it or to its
message. When expressing such
differences, a teacher will be fair in his presentation and will make his
loyalty to the Church clear. He will attempt to differentiate between
hypotheses and facts and between central and peripheral issues.
When questions arise dealing with
matters of academic freedom, each university and college should have clearly
stated procedures to follow in dealing with such grievances. Such procedures should include peer review,
an appeal process, and a review by the board of trustees. Every possible care should be taken to
insure that actions will be just and fair and will protect both the rights of
the teacher and the integrity of the institution. The protection of both is not only a matter of justice but on a
college or university campus it is also a matter of creating and protecting
collegiality. It is also a protection
against the disruptive, the servile, and the fraudulent.
It is recommended that the above
Statement on Academic Freedom be presented to each university/college faculty
and board by its administration to be used as a basis for the preparation of the
in institution's academic freedom statement.