Am I Still A Conditionalist?
On November 25th I published an article Christ-Centered Preaching where I wrote the following, “A robust Christology is important to every pastor and theologian, even if theologians have unduly drawn criticism in our circles.” The link included in that statement goes to a recently published article by Jefferson Vann, fellow pastor and writer in the Advent Christian Denomination. This drew inquiries from two other pastors in the Advent Christian Denomination as they were both concerned that my statement, which was a subtle jab at Vann’s article, was an admission that I’m no longer a conditionalist. Further, one of these pastors shared a concern he’s heard that I and others are trying to push Advent Christian distinctives and those who hold them out of the denomination.
In what follows I’d like to address those concerns as a good faith attempt at clarifying my personal beliefs for those who follow my blog posts, podcasts, and other works. I recognize that as a pastor of an Advent Christian Church, Vice President of the Eastern Regional Association, member of the Heritage Advent Christian Conference, Ministry Training Institute Staff, and BICS faculty that my theology is of great importance. About two years ago my good friend and former boss at MTI, Dr. Matt Larkin resigned from ACGC, accepted a call to a non-conditionalist Baptist church, and shared that he was no longer a conditionalist. Naturally, the two brother pastors, mentioned above, might’ve thought “AGAIN?!”
What is my issue with Vann’s article?
Here are a few quotes from the article cited above. I encourage you to read the article and decide for yourself if my concerns are valid:
“Many of these words have been called on for centuries by theologians to defend the pagan doctrine of innate immortality.”
This article does not differentiate or specify the theologians he is criticising. Publishing work or even making statements through social media open each person up to critique, and rightly so. This is how we grow intellectually and move forward on important matters. The quoted statement makes a claim but offers no evidence to support that claim.
“The theologians have also told us that good people go to heaven when they die, but bad people go to שְׁאוֹל. They got that one wrong, too.”
Another claim without evidence because he doesn’t identify specific theologians or cite their works, Vann leaves the reader to trust him based on nothing more than his reputation. I read and practice much theology. There is much to criticize in my stream of theology such as the abuses of complementarianism influencing some in their reading of the Trinitarian nature of God. However, I’m unaware of popular historically orthodox theologians who claim that people are saved according to their works. William Perkins makes a good case in A Perfect Redeemer that works justify Christians but they are the works "performed by Christ–namely the works of obedience in satisfying and fulfilling the Law.” (2024, 14)
If that’s what Vann means then count me as one who he believes to be wrong!
Just as problematic is if he is referring to all ECT theologians because if that’s the case then it violates the 8th Commandment. Most theologians I follow are ECTers. Never not once have one of those people declared that good people or good works is the cause of salvation (apart from the example above).
“Theologians have spent more time corrupting the teachings of the New Testament than they have spent on these texts."
Vann wrote the 4-volume An Advent Christian Systematic Theology. Does he do theology? Am I not someone who does theology? Don’t you do theology? Your pastor? If so, why is Jeff, myself, you, and your pastor corrupting New Testament teachings?
Taking these statements into consideration leaves readers to assume theology and theologians are dirty words. Theology is the study of God. It’s a good and valuable endeavor. For one to defend conditionalism they need not resort to strawmen and fearmongering. I encourage everyone to read things they disagree with and engage by building a steelman–that is to argue against its strongest case and arguments.
As you can see, the comment in my article was meant to draw attention to the unwarranted attacks by Vann against theology and theologians. It was not a statement tipping my hand on whether I remain a conditionalist.
Do I identify as a conditionalist?
Yes. I’ve been a convinced conditionalist since 2016. With the aid of Edwin K. Gedney and a couple other notable authors who drew my attention to biblical text, I was reasoned to this conclusion. I don’t talk about or preach on conditionalism unless it appears in the text I’m teaching because I believe my sermons should be Christ-centered and expository.
How important is conditionalism to me?
Some commenters on this blog site find conditionalism to be of first-tier importance. In a three-tier system of doctrine I rank it of third-tier importance because I don’t believe it to rise to the level of Christology or the nature of God. First-tier doctrines are those beliefs so central to the Christian faith that to deny them is to deny the faith. Considering Advent Christians sit under such a broad theological tent, it boggles my mind that some consider conditionalism first-tier.
Am I Trying To Push Out Advent Christians?
Not at all. One of the friends who contacted me about my previous article claimed there seemed to be an ongoing effort to push out of the denomination those who maintain historic Advent Christian beliefs. He didn’t clarify if that meant only conditionalism or cultural values of Advent Christians. Assuming the former, that’s a simple “no.” If he or anyone else believes the latter, then it might depend. I don’t have the ability to push anyone out of anything other than my kid out of a canoe. However, I do think we are in the midst of a cultural shift; see: Adventism Confronts Metamodernity: Theological Retrieval In The Advent Christian Church. In that article I highlight the theological and departmental changes among Advent Christians. I see these changes as a positive move towards greater hopefulness and expectancy in God’s work among Advent Christians.
Personally, I remain committed to our broad theological tent approach to denominational unity. Although certain theological and biblical beliefs are necessary, I do not believe we need to be so narrow as to exclude fellowship with ECTers.
Closing Thoughts
I am grateful for Jefferson Vann. He’s an accomplished missionary, fellow pastor, and fervent defender of conditionalism–a doctrine we hold in common. Most importantly we are brothers in Christ. With that in mind, we need avenues for thoughtful and serious discussion on matters of theology, ministry practice, and denominational life. We need to raise the bar on expectations in these matters. Let’s attempt to be as precise as possible and welcome critique. Let us also reject the idea that critique is a rejection of the person.
