By Marcel Schwantes

David Pendleton was raised in a devout Adventist home in Hawaii, where he graduated from Windward Adventist School and Hawaiian Mission Academy. He earned a B.A. in history and political science from La Sierra University, where he was student body president, and an M.A. in religion from Loma Linda University.

In 1993, Pendleton also completed a law degree from the University of Southern California law school and passed the bar examinations in Hawaii and California. In 1995, he returned to Hawaii to practice law and eventually enter public service.

Beginning in 1996, at age 29, he won election to the Hawaii House of Representatives, where he rose to become the youngest Minority Floor Leader in Hawaii’s history, received the Legislator of the Year award from the Hawaii Medical Association, and served four terms. In late 2004, the Governor invited him to join her staff, where from 2005-2006 he served as her senior policy advisor, crafting her legislative package and advising her on all public policy issues. In 2006, the Governor appointed him and the Senate confirmed him to a ten-year term as an administrative law judge serving on the Labor Appeals Board, where he presides over trials adjudicating workers’ compensation appeals.

Pendleton also served the Hawaii Conference of Seventh-day Adventists as religious liberty director and as a pastor until the end of 2004. In early 2007, after a number of years of soul searching and study, he informed the Conference Office that he was turning in his ordination credentials. While he had much aloha for the denomination in which he was raised, there were doctrinal issues which prevented him from being able to carry ordination credentials. In early 2008, Pendleton was received into full communion with the Catholic Church.

His wife Noemi was appointed by Hawaii’s Governor to serve as the Director of Hawaii’s Office on Aging. They have four children. His wife and children remain active members of the Kailua SDA Church.

Adventist Today online editor Marcel Schwantes reveals a man's faith journey in this candid and thought-provoking interview conducted over several weeks.

Pendleton: I am not seeking any publicity. C.S. Lewis spoke of "anonymous Christians." I would aspire to those words. I'm not interested in critiquing the Adventist Church, reforming the Adventist Church, changing the Adventist Church, or causing others to reconsider their attendance in the Adventist Church. I have a lot of aloha for the Adventist church. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is where I was baptized, where I first learned to pray, to search the Scriptures, to preach sermons, and to bear witness of my love of and commitment to Jesus Christ. It is where I first heard the Good News and became a Christian. Its schools educated me from kindergarten through graduate school. Its medical centers cared for my ailing mother and welcomed the birth of my children. Many of my dearest friends are Adventists.

I’m happily married to an attractive, brilliant, and loving Adventist woman, Noemi, and our kids are of course Adventist.

No one has treated me poorly. I am not leaving because of heresy, hypocrisy, or harassment on anyone’s part. It’s not like I’ve found the “perfect denomination” and am leaving the Adventist Church to unite with that “perfect denomination.” As long as human beings are involved in a particular institution, it’s going to be less than perfect, even the Church.

The truth is that my personal theological views changed, and the proper thing to do was to inform the denomination. I transitioned out of employment with the Hawaii Conference at the end of 2004, more than three years ago now, and that was because I was asked by Hawaii’s Governor to become one of her senior policy advisors. That position was full-time, so that’s why I made the move from full-time denominational to full-time governmental employment. This was an opportunity to be a Daniel and a Joseph, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity! Every lawyer dreams of being asked to advise a Governor and get paid to do it.

Over a period of years, beginning in 2004 or thereabouts, I began reading just for the fun of it – church history, Scripture, the creeds, the writings of the church fathers. And I studied a great deal also to settle some longstanding questions I had about my own theology. Since I was no longer a denominational employee by late 2004 and early 2005, I had the freedom and time to think out loud, to ask questions, to explore doctrine, to evaluate my assumptions, etc. There was no intention to change my mind about anything. I never anticipated the paradigm shift I would be making.

As I mentioned to the conference office when I informed them over a year ago about my turning in my ordination credentials, I had doubts not about the core of Christian doctrine but rather about some of the distinctive beliefs Adventists held. That was a year ago.

I was baptized in 1975, and my baptismal certificate had a listing thereon of core beliefs. By the time 2005 rolled around, and I was working as a policy advisor to Hawaii’s Governor, the list had grown to 27 and now 28 Fundamental Beliefs – this in a Church wary of the term fundamentalist and adamantly opposed to any creed.

The beliefs included those I had questions about. The honest, transparent thing to do was to tender my ordination credentials. I never anticipated it going further.

But after further reading, thinking, praying, and reflecting, in December of '07, I made a further decision. I informed the Conference Office that I was entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. That's where my theology led me.

Some ask how can a thinking, reading, praying SDA sincerely “convert” to Roman Catholicism. First, “convert” is probably not the appropriate word, because per Catholic belief my baptism was valid, I was a faithful follower of Christ, and there was no need for me to transition from Adventism to Catholicism. One does not convert from one Christian communion to another Christian communion. One converts from unbelief to belief in Christ, from an unbeliever to being Christian. It was NOT a matter of salvation.

Protestants, including Adventists, are “separated brethren,” but brethren nonetheless. Protestants are no less followers of Jesus and sheep in God's fold. We – Adventists and Catholics – are all Christians. Every Catholic priest I've spoken with shared this view. None urged me to enter into full communion. They did urge me, however, to pray about it and to consider the impact of the change on my family and our becoming an interdenominational family. I appreciated that counsel and respected that approach.

AToday: What message did you give your employers upon choosing to leave?

Pendleton: As I indicated earlier, by the time I made the decision to transition from Adventist Christianity to Catholic Christianity I had not been employed by the denomination at that point for several years, about three. It was in late 2007 that I made the decision -- after much careful study, fervent prayer, and painstaking reflection -- to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church. This was and remains a personal decision. I had to be transparent, honest, and upfront about the state of my own theology. Sharing the core was not enough when I had doubts about the distinctive Adventist beliefs.

The Adventist church is not a social club, where it is enough to feel comfortable with the culture. There is a set of defined Fundamental Beliefs, adherence to which is not just requested but is required. I couldn’t just keep my theological concerns to myself, tucked away in the privacy of my mind.

I noted to the Conference officials that when John Henry Newman, Malcolm Muggeridge, John Richard Neuhaus, journalist Robert Novak, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair all made their decisions to leave Protestantism and to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church they were careful in their choice of leave-taking words so as not to be seen as critical of or disparaging toward a church family which they had cherished for so long.

I sought to follow that wise example and only added that this is a transition which I did not take lightly and a decision which I was fully aware may have personal consequences and public ramifications. I sincerely prayed and continue to pray that the Lord continue to lead and to guide in this time. I ardently prayed furthermore that the Lord persist in richly blessing the Seventh-day Adventist Church, from which I had received so much and for which I have so much continuing aloha.

AToday: How has your decision impacted your relationship with your family?

Pendleton: My family – my wife and kids – will continue to be active members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and I am fully supportive of them continuing so. I attend services along with them. From the day my wife and I were first married, we committed to the spiritual care of our children. At the time we had no kids yet, and we certainly did not see this transition coming, but it is a commitment we want to keep.

Church on any day of the week is a good thing. Going to church as a family is a blessing. So long as Adventist churches permit Catholics like me to visit, I intend to do so. My wife is terrific. She teased me that all my law school classmates are running out buying red sports cars and this is what I do?

As I said earlier, when I shared with a Catholic priest friend my decision, he raised the fact that we would become an interdenominational family and that I needed to consider the stress, strain, and cost of that. I did. But the alternative was to keep my theological concerns in my head and to myself. That would not have been honest.

Many of my dearest friends are Adventists. I have no doubt that the Adventist Church will continue to conscientiously nurture and steadfastly support my wife and our children in their Christian walk. For this, I extend my continuing gratitude to our Adventist ohana (Hawaiian for "family").

In Michael Ondaatje’s novel, Divisadero, a protagonist named Anna makes a poignant observation: “Everything is collage, even genetics. There is the hidden presence of others in us, even those we have known briefly. We contain them for the rest of our lives, at every border that we cross.” For me this passage reminds us of the connectedness and interdependence of the human family. I have been so blessed to have studied under the finest theologians and church historians in our denomination. I’ve had the privilege of ministering alongside some of our veteran preachers. The hardest thing for me has been dealing with their disappointment. Adjusting to changes among a circle of friendships, and the personal relationships involved, is never easy. And it’s all the more difficult under these circumstances when you are dealing with our most important and cherished beliefs about reality. It is not my wish to discredit them or make them uncomfortable at all by my change in theological views but to extend my thanks for the positive role they’ve played in my life and to say that I continue to share our devotion to Jesus Christ as Lord of our lives.

Pendleton being sworn in as administrative law judge for the Labor Appeals Board in the state of Hawaii. Left to right: Chief Justice Ronald Moon, Pendleton, Governor Linda Lingle, Labor Appeals Board Chair Roland Thom, and Lt. Governor Duke Aiona.

AToday: Are there instances you can pinpoint as the "breaking points" that sent you packing?

Pendleton: Let me try to answer your question this way. First, I would distance myself from the use of words like “breaking points,” because the fixed versus broken terminology doesn’t do justice to my experience. I went through a period where my reading, reflecting, study, and prayer life led me to reassess my assumptions and to understand more explicitly my deeply-held theology. Part of it was articulating with greater specificity what I actually believed at the time. For example, at the 30,000 foot elevation level, it’s not that easy to make out the individual trees down below, they all look alike. But when you are on the ground hiking through the valley, you can readily tell the difference between, say, a monkey pod tree and a mango tree. Over time, I came gradually to a more explicit understanding of my theology and determined it did not comfortably fit in the Adventist theological system.

Second, the use of the term “packing” emphasizes leaving. Just as I have always been legislator first and a member of a particular political party second in priority, so too I have always first and foremost been a Christian and only secondarily a member of a particular Christian denomination. For me, at the core of Christian faith is Jesus Christ Himself – and loving God with all my mind, heart, and soul, and loving my fellow human beings as myself. Along with that core I believe are the deep-rooted and long-standing creeds, the Nicene Creed, the Apostles’ Creed, etc., those summations of what Christians early on concluded about our faith. The incidental culture connected with a particular expression of the Christian faith is not identical with, and is therefore different from, the core of that faith we call Christianity.

To use the “castle” and “keep” analogy, the keep is a strong central tower which is used as a fortress. The keep is the most defended portion of a castle and contains the armory, provisions, and the main water well, which would maximize chances of survival in a siege. The keep is what is at the very center. My keep, my center, remains the same, including the bedrock doctrines long-articulated in these ancient Christian creeds. It’s what’s outside of the keep, yet still in the castle, that we are talking about.

So I’m not leaving faith in Christ. I’m transitioning from one particular expression of the Christian faith to another.

To put this in context, there are about 2.2 billion Christians in the world. Just over a billion are Catholic Christians. About a quarter of the remainder are Orthodox Christians, and about three-quarters of a billion are Protestant Christians. According to Church historian Martin Marty, among the Protestant Christians there are a dozen or so major and more than 30,000 smaller Protestant Christian denominations, one of which is the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

We are all Christians, yet clearly reasonable minds can differ as to the interpretations of Scripture and to the particular expression of Christianity to which we are respectively called. My point is that we Christians can disagree without being disagreeable. My changing my mind does NOT mean that my Adventist wife is “wrong.”

I have tried my hand at oil painting. A less than perfect analogy might be that theology is to God as a painter is to a landscape. It’s not the same thing. Some may paint in the realist style of a Manet, someone else may paint in the impressionist style of a Monet. To say one is “right” and the other “wrong” might not recognize the nuances and complexities involved. That’s not to say there is no absolute truth. There is. Truth doesn’t change, but our understanding or expression of it may. We are finite humans trying to understand an infinite God and to put that understanding in words with the inherent limitations of human language.

A wise Christian once said, “In essentials let there be unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” As Rodney Dangerfield once quipped, “I resemble that remark.” Or at least I aspire to.

Convincing other sincere Christians to change denominations is not something I believe in any longer. I participated in a number of Adventist evangelistic crusades overseas, where we took devout Christians of another Christian denomination and made them Adventist Christians. That's no longer part of my Christian life. I have moved from a model where success was defined by numbers (of baptisms, tithe dollars received, evangelistic crusades conducted, cell churches formed) to where success is defined by faithfulness to the person of Jesus Christ (rather than denominationalism), a personal commitment to the Christian walk, and witness to one’s own family not through theological propositions but through love, grace, peace, and mercy.

My mission field is my wife and kids, and I just want to love them as Jesus loves them. Changing their theology is not central to that. I am committed to praying that all Christians simply love and serve Christ more faithfully from within their own various Christian communities, whether Protestant or Catholic.

There is an ancient prayer attributed to St. Anselm, and it means a lot to me: “Lord, I do not presume to fathom the depths of your truths, for my understanding is not equal to the task. Nevertheless, I desire to learn Your truths in some measure ….”

Salvation is not to be found in theological precepts. We're not going to heaven because we have sophisticated theology or nuanced doctrinal understanding, or the most elegant dogmas. We're saved by Jesus. Not Jesus plus being in the right, correct, true, or remnant denomination. If salvation was based on that, then how could Philip justify baptizing a government official shortly after witnessing to him, without much more Scriptural instruction than that?

I'm Catholic because that's where my theology fits. I continue to keep the Sabbath as a way to support my wife and kids, not because I believe the world was literally made in seven days, or because I believe refraining from employment on a given day is at the heart of the Sabbath commandment. The notion of Sabbath rest is much richer than that.

As important as setting aside a day for worship is, for me I strive to sacramentalize all seven days. I look at the trajectory of that teaching. Just as the commandment against adultery can be broken by simply having lust in one’s heart or the commandment against murder is violated by hating one’s fellow man, so too with the Sabbath. All that I do, I do prayerfully. Church attendance for me is a pleasure, not an obligation. We’ve got such a short time on this earth, living for Jesus in and through our various vocations is a joy, not a requirement.

I continue to cheer and rejoice at the commonality between the two denominations, and I continue to pray that we all together grace and bless the world in which we co-exist.

Truly God is far above and beyond any denomination. Our finite words cannot fully express/describe the Infinite. To think so is arrogance. We will all learn things about God on the other side of eternity. And I’m sure there will be some surprises for all there who behold the Beatific Vision on that great day.

God forgive us our sins, and perhaps forgive us our theology most of all.

AToday: Many evangelical Adventists would argue that the "love, peace, grace and mercy" you sought could have easily been found in spirit-filled, "new covenant" driven churches and member communities who do not agree with all the "distinctives." There are many examples of faithful Adventists separating themselves from "denominationalism," and starting their own groups without leaving the denomination. How do you respond?

Pendleton: Not only can one find love, grace, peace, and mercy in the Adventist Church, I found it. It was there in abundance. I did not transition from Adventism because there were not loving people who were grace-oriented and sincere followers of Jesus. The Adventist church, like other denominations, is being used by God to change and transform lives for the better. There is much truth and much charity among its members and its institutions. It is a wholesome lifestyle, and gets the core of Christianity right.

I transitioned from Adventism because my theology on issues distinctive to Adventism changed. I could have kept that to myself – not being an employee of the denomination. I could have just said, why worry. My own views are my views, and so long as I’m not publicly questioning church doctrine, why make a big deal of it. I could have said that.

I turned in my ordination credentials over a year ago because I did not believe it right to hold on to such credentials while doubting some of the distinctive beliefs of Adventism. I asked to have my membership status changed for the same reason late last year.

My point is not that people should leave the Adventist Church. I'm not asking others to view things the way I do, I’m not suggesting to others to reconsider their membership. My wife and I differ on those nonessentials, which happen to be distinctive, unique beliefs within Adventism. They aren't matters of salvation. But they are matters of membership.

Our evening family worships consist of reading Bible stories, singing hymns, and reading the Gospels. We don’t get into the state of the dead, eschatology, or the interpretation of Matthew chapter 16. Jesus didn’t spend a lot of time in his preaching/teaching on those things, so we’re going to focus on the same things Jesus did spend a lot of time on – loving God and loving your fellow man.

AToday: What elements of Roman Catholic belief or practice were most important in your decision to join its communion?

Pendleton: Let me begin by saying that learning theology is good; knowing God is what matters most. You've asked for theological positions on issues which caused me to embark on this journey. I'm happy to answer. But let us be clear at the start: neither Adventist theology nor Catholic theology, nor a sincere adherence to either, is going to save you. We are not saved by our theological propositions. Jesus saves.

Psalm 95 calls us to listen and hear his voice and not harden our hearts. Sometimes a hardening can occur when we too stridently and too zealously assume that our view, our perspective, or our proposition is the only right, true, correct or conceivable ones.

The Adventist position may not be the one I hold today on various issues, but that does not make it therefore improbable, irrational, or wrong. It's just not my position today. But since you asked, here are a few issues which were of concern to me.

Origins. I do not believe Genesis 1 and 2 are primarily concerned with the literal, historical, or scientific facts of the creation of the world. Genesis is about the theology of Creation – all that is, seen and unseen, has its origin in God’s creative work. We are not here by accident, chance, or dumb luck. We are the handiwork of the Creator. Genesis is true in the most important and richest sense. There is nothing that scientific research has uncovered or can uncover in the future that can render the truth about God the Creator as questionable. Catholics leave the mundane historical details of our world’s origins to biologists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. The world may have indeed been created in seven literal 24-hour periods, but the text does not require that view. That’s my position. I think the Catholic Church learned from the mistakes made during Galileo’s situation: don’t over-read the text, don’t read into it more than is there. Adventists feel compelled to hold to the literal seven 24-hour periods in order to have the Sabbath anchored. But it is not necessary. The truth of the Sabbath rest is so much more than refraining from employment for a 24-hour period, whether we attribute it to a historical creation week or to the commemoration of leaving Egyptian slavery. Pope John Paul II has said that certain forms of theistic evolutionary theory are consistent with Genesis chapters 1 and 2. I concur.

I’m not saying that my position is the only logical, rational, or correct interpretation of the truths God has revealed on this point. But I am saying that my position is sincerely held, is contrary to the Adventist position, and yet is not inconsistent with the Catholic position.

Scripture/Tradition. Adventists don’t believe in tradition but as Protestants hold to sola Scriptura (that is, Scripture alone). Yet sola Scriptura appears nowhere in Scripture. Believing that all Scripture is inspired is not the same thing as saying only Scripture is inspired. Decades passed after the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. The word of God was there present in their preaching and teaching long before it was committed to writing. Christ came to found a church, not enumerate what texts would constitute Scripture. He founded a church rather than defined a canon. He left that to future generations to determine under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Interestingly, for Adventists the writings of Ellen White function the same way within Adventist theology as the writings of the church fathers, the creeds, and the documents of Vatican II function within Catholic theology. Try to establish Adventist eschatology without reference to Ellen White. In a sense, Catholics read Scripture through the lens of the history of the church and through the creeds and the important church documents not unlike Adventists read Scripture through Adventist history, the commentary of Ellen White and her writings. Tradition means handing down, and I believe God can speak to us through oral transmissions as effectively as through written transmissions. And the Holy Spirit is capable of safeguarding both. Now I need to also clarify that I’ve since gotten email from Adventist ministers on both sides of the issue. On the one hand, they’ve told me that tradition is of the devil. On the other hand, they’ve told me that Adventists believe in tradition; look at the church manual, so one does not have to leave Adventism in order to believe God can inspire tradition. The out-of-print volume of Questions on Doctrine has made clear that the Protestant position on Scripture is the position of the Adventist Church.

Creeds. The Creeds are another fine example of church tradition. If we don't believe that God worked in the early church and through the difficult times when we labored against Arianism, Gnosticism, Docetism, then what are we to make of some of the most important doctrines which are not explicitly in Scripture? The Trinity, the nature of Christ, the role of the Holy Spirit, etc. These were not found fully developed in Scripture. They had roots in Scripture and were fleshed out by the leading of the Holy Spirit over time. That is tradition. The selecting of what circulating texts constituted Scripture – that is tradition. There’s no list in Scripture of what books are to be accorded status of Scripture. And you can’t just assume the texts are self-authenticating. All the books that didn’t even make it into the Apocrypha because they were Gnostic or Docetist in nature claimed to have been composed by disciples, apostles, or other followers of Jesus. The very process of the church defining the body of the canon of sacred Scripture is tradition.

I believe the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed are the heart of Christian theology. They were early on the consensus of believers and they focus on the essentials. Adventists are wary of the Nicene Creed because of the word “catholic” which appears therein. But that word at the time meant, and continues to mean when spelled with a lower case “c,” universal or worldwide. The 28 Fundamental Beliefs function as a creed in Adventism, though most Adventist preachers argue that Adventists have no creed but the Bible.

Apocrypha. The New Testament quotes from the Apocrypha. Jesus was familiar with the Apocrypha, and he quotes it. Ellen White quotes from the Apocrypha. The difference between the Hebrew version of the Old Testament and the Greek version of the Old Testament are these books which Protestants call the Apocrypha. Some say they are fanciful, but they are no more fanciful than, say, the book of Jonah. Some might say the accounts in the New Testament where handkerchiefs and shadows of Apostles heal the sick reads fancifully. That doesn’t make it any less Scriptural. If we assume that the Greek version cannot be the right collection of Old Testament Scripture solely because it is a Greek translation rather than a Hebrew language collection, that’s putting too much weight on the language, for the Holy Spirit can inspire named, pseudonymous, or anonymous writers to write in Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic or even English. Catholics have a Hierarchy of Truth. All truth is true, but some truths or expressions of truth are more central/important than others. They are organically linked. In a service, for example, Catholics stand for the reading of the Gospels; we sit for a reading from the Old Testament. That posture illustrates that not all Scripture is given the same prominence. The Apocrypha was not called into question until the Reformation, 1,500 years after Christ. Saying only the Hebrew version of the Old Testament constitutes Scripture is to confer undue deference to the Jewish community, the very community that doubts the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. Why would we rely on non-Christians to determine what constitutes Old Testament Scripture for Christians?

Real presence. The real presence in the communion service is another issue. Protestants like Zwingli (but not including Luther who believed sola Scriptura indeed supported belief in the real presence) saw communion as symbolic, representative, and figurative. If we believe in the Incarnation, then we believe that it is not impossible for divine to take on form, for the infinite to assume the finite, for the immaterial to take on matter. So the real presence in communion is not physically impossible. When you look at the texts, Christ says, "This is my body,” and “this is my blood." And it is reported several times. In one reporting, John chapter 6, it was the reason some believers left, because it was a HARD saying of Jesus. That would have been the opportunity to say, "No, it's just a symbol. Please don't leave for that."

So for ontological and linguistic reasons I think a reasonable position to take is that somehow God is present in a real way in communion, just as Jesus said. We don’t understand how it is possible anymore than we understand how the Incarnation was possible. It’s a mystery, but some of the most profound truths are mysteries.

Finally, in the New Testament we read a warning against taking communion in an unworthy manner. That warning is especially poignant when viewed in light of the early understanding that Christ was somehow truly present in the bread and the wine.

Do I think the Real Presence is proven beyond reasonable doubt? Do I think that this is the only logical conclusion? No and No. Reasonable minds can differ. But I do believe that, given the evidence, if I am going to err one way or another, I'm going to err on the side of belief in the real presence. If I'm wrong, then no harm, no foul. Christ nowhere said that our view on this issue was decisive for one’s salvation.

Second Coming / Return of Christ. I believe Christ can come at any time and that we need to be ready. With other Catholic theologians, I believe Christ could come tomorrow. The conditions precedent to the Parousia found notably in Matthew 24 have all been fulfilled. As an Adventist, I could not believe that. Adventist eschatology holds that before Christ comes the Catholic Church will join with “apostate Protestantism” in a conspiracy with the United States government to enforce a nationwide (or worldwide?) Sunday law, thereby promoting and establishing Catholic faith through the exercise of coercive government power. Ellen White’s The Great Controversy is cited for this proposition – a proposition which is featured prominently in overseas evangelism.

Any reader of U.S. Constitutional law or the documents of Vatican II knows that such action would require both a Constitutional amendment creating a statutory exemption from the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment AND would require the Catholic Church to repeal and abrogate a key Declaration of Vatican II. The Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) as promulgated by Pope Paul VI On December 7, 1965, during Vatican II, expressly forbids the action Adventists believe must occur prior to the Second Coming of Christ. That document reads, in pertinent part, “a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community. All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a definite community.”

A Declaration is not a mere personal opinion of a Pope. It constitutes significant canon law, which cannot be simply ignored by the Catholic Church. Its terms are imperative, not suggestive. It’s not wishful thinking but is absolutely binding.

So Adventists believe that Christ cannot come until the Catholic Church in effect repeals this important piece of church legislation and the United States repeals a central amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Ironically, as a Catholic I can believe in the soon coming of Christ – perhaps tomorrow. Adventists who profess the soon coming of Christ and adhere to this unique view of end time events expect a lot of things – time-consuming, labor intensive things – to happen before Christ comes. This belief is grounded not in Scripture but in the writings of Ellen White and her unique interpretation of Scripture.

Vatican II took five years to come up with that Declaration. Does one sincerely believe it will take any less time to undertake the traumatic action of declaring an earlier Declaration to be in error? Now that will take time – perhaps longer than it would be to amend the Constitution. I can’t speak for the U.S. government, but I can speak as a Catholic. There is no Catholic today who is calling for a repeal of this Declaration on Religious Freedom. Some might say that Adventists need to revisit exactly what Jesus’ own preaching on eschatology was. I would only urge Adventists to emphasize not the when of Christ’s coming but the assurance of Christ’s coming. Adventists have a tremendous truth to share – not regarding the timing of the coming but the trust we can place in the reliability of Jesus Christ.

Sabbath. The Sabbath doesn’t save. The Lord of the Sabbath saves. The Ten Commandments don’t save but are the fruit of a saved life. They are not cause but are the consequence of salvation. I just happen to view the Ten Commandments in an expansive fashion.

Christ did not come to abolish or repeal the law but to fulfill it. Fulfill is more than simply repeating, reemphasizing, or reiterating. He came to make it more complete.

Christ expounded and built upon the law, not just the 600 plus Jewish laws but the Ten Commandments and especially the two which summarized all the teaching of the law. He spent his time teaching us that idols in our lives can be more than just statues of stone, metal, or wood which are worshipped. Idols can be career, money, cars, and reputation – anything which takes precedence over our fidelity to Jesus Christ. Murder is not just taking human life but can be committed when we hate others. Adultery can be committed with lustful thoughts. Lying is wrong even when we are not under oath in a courtroom and even where there are no perceived victims. The Sabbath is about much much more than refraining from employment activities one particular day of the week – but rather is about living a life resting in Jesus Christ, dedicating every moment to his sovereign will for my life, surrendering all time to God the Creator of time. Martin Luther in his famous hymn sings, “Lord Sabbath is His Name.” Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law, not reiterate the legalistic perspective of the Pharisees regarding Sabbath observance.

I don’t conduct trials on Sabbath, and so some Adventists since my transition have written and said, “Dave you still keep the Sabbath since you don’t work on Sabbath.” But that is a far cry from truly reaping the rich gift of a Sabbath rest. Jesus’ own life shows he was trying to get the Jewish leaders to re-conceive of their Sabbath-keeping practices. If anyone “pushed the envelope” on Sabbath observance, it was Jesus Christ. If anyone was a “progressive” on the doctrine of Sabbath keeping, it was Jesus Christ.

Catholics have a lot to learn about the gift of the Sabbath. But it’s not to be found in the Adventist list of kosher activities from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. In my travels for the church in various countries, I saw heartbreaking situations. Adventists pastors, lovingly and sincerely, teach that hikes are okay, swimming is not okay, bird watching is fine, snorkeling and watching fish is not fine, reading Adventist Review is okay, but reading the local newspaper is not okay, soccer is okay if no score is kept, unless you are in North America where the sport on Sabbath is verboten. Too many of our young people think of Sabbath in terms of permissible or impermissible activities. That is a shame. Christ is just as concerned with what we do the other six days of the week!

Sanctuary. When Jesus Christ said on the cross that it was finished, he meant it. Jesus Christ never preached that one had to believe that he proceeded from one compartment to another on October 22, 1844 in order to be saved. That is Hiram Edson speaking, not the Bible.

That doctrine, by the way, may be true, but it can’t be essential if Jesus didn’t spend any time preaching it. The doctrine requires passages from Daniel, Hebrews and Revelation to be connected in a unique way, read and interpreted in a unique way, a way that Christians prior to 1844 didn’t. It also means that there are truths that are defining but not mentioned by Jesus himself. It further means that Jesus could not have come before 1844, though the early witness was that it was possible that Jesus could return while some of the early Christians were “still alive.” Finally, 1844 as a date depends on extra-canonical sources to establish the start date. 457 B.C. isn’t in the text. We have to rely on historical accounts to establish that date. All this from a Bible that says no man knows the hour of Christ’s return.

I believe Hebrews wants us to have the assurance that Christ has not forgotten us. He continues to minister on our behalf and is actively seeking our salvation. Hebrews is not about the timing of when Christ ambulates from one apartment to another, and how that unique doctrine provides the raison d'être for the Adventist Church. It certainly explains the disappointment that was experienced. But if Jesus didn’t preach about it, how important can it be to one’s salvation?

Church organization. The Catholic church and the Adventist church both have structures. The Catholic church points to Matthew chapter 16 and John chapter 21 and indicates that the current arrangement is a development of what was in Scripture. The Holy Spirit guided over the centuries to the point where we are today. There were smart and foolish men who served as pope, just as there were both saints and grievous sinners who held the office. That fact doesn’t call into question Matthew chapter 16 any more than does the fact that Peter denied Jesus at the time it mattered most. The Adventist church doesn’t believe in tradition per se, so how it arrived at presidents, divisions, unions, local conferences, etc. cannot be from sola Scripture but is, surprisingly, built on the church’s evolving and longstanding practice (tradition?) and the endorsement of Ellen White. Can our omnipotent God work through either structure? Yes, and God continues to work through his Church in its various manifestations, whether hierarchical, congregational, or a hybrid thereof.

What I have shared is not exhaustive of my thinking on these issues. I’ve tried to give the sound-bite versions, knowing full-well that I run the risk of being misunderstood.

Let me just conclude by quoting Cardinal Avery Dulles. He was answering the question, Who, then, can be saved? In addition to Catholics, he wrote that “Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted.”

I take this to mean that every one of these areas of doctrinal disagreement between Catholic Christians and Adventist Christians can be discussed and debated by Christians, without either group calling into question whether the other is truly Christian. Reasonable minds can differ. I’m not trying to convince people to see things my way. As an Adventist preacher conducting crusades overseas, I used to believe it was important to change the minds of Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. I saw it as a sign that the Adventist Church was the righteous remnant every time I convinced other Christians to give up their denomination and adopt uniquely Adventist perspectives on diet, lifestyle, etc. I no longer think this way. Such non-essentials are not at the heart of Christianity. And such proselytism – between Christian denominations – should not be our focus. It would be like insisting people on the same plane flight headed for the same destination change their seats in the plane from aisle to window, or from coach to first class. The view, the perspective, may indeed change, perhaps even the in-flight experience may change, but the destination remains the same. This in an imperfect analogy, but it shares my perspective on the relationship between Christians.

I am also not a professional theologian. So all readers need to read what I say with an additional grain of salt. I don’t claim to speak either for the Adventist or Catholic Churches – but like all Christians I have the obligation to not simply inherit a faith but to reason it through for myself. Pope Benedict XVI said: “I have never tried to create a system of my own, an individual theology. What is specific, if you want to call it that, is that I simply want to think in communion with the faith of the Church, and that means above all to think in communion with the great thinkers of the faith. The aim is not an isolated theology that I draw out of myself but one that opens as widely as possible into the common intellectual pathways of the faith.” [Salt of the Earth, 1997, pg. 66] I concur.

The theological in-fighting engaged in between Protestantism and Catholicism is not pleasing to God. I hope my own sharing of my own journey does not exacerbate but rather bridges any divides. Jesus prayed that we would all be one. What really matters is what we think of Jesus Christ. I think Peter would be surprised to see the course of history Christianity has taken. The whole Protestant-Catholic divide would be puzzling to him. Yet with him we still respond that “Jesus is truly the Christ, the Son of the living God.” That’s what matters.

AToday: Mainline Protestant Churches share with the Adventist tradition concern about certain aspects of the Roman Catholic belief and practice, e.g., the devotion accorded to Mary and the understandings concerning her Immaculate Conception, the ex cathedra infallible authority of the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and the rite of confession to a priest. Were any of these or other historic Catholic beliefs and practices a problem to you when you decided to join?

Pendleton: They were all problematic to me initially. My reading beginning years ago was not for the purpose of shifting denominations. I was reading to clarify my thinking, not to amend my theology. We don’t have the time to specifically detail the gradual change in my thinking over the past few years. But let me just briefly explain where I am. Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ. Jesus honored her as his mother, and in doing so he was not only obeying one of the Ten Commandments but was setting an example for us. Distinctions between three terms might be helpful: dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. Dulia is the respect we show to others. Hyperdulia is the respect or veneration we show to Jesus’ mother Mary, seeking to imitate Jesus’ own example. Latria is the adoration we show only to the Divinity, that is, to God. Catholics certainly are prohibited from worshipping Mary, but they are called to imitate/follow Christ’s respect and honor for his own mother.

There are two Catholic dogmas which are not inconsistent with Scripture (since Scripture is silent with respect to these notions) but which are not based on express readings of Scripture. If one believes that God can reveal truths outside of the four corners of Scripture, which I do believe, then the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, namely, that Mary was not tainted with original sin, and the dogma of the Assumption, namely, that Mary was assumed into heaven upon the natural termination of her life on earth, can be believed. My salvation is not dependent on these dogmas. Adventists believe Moses was resurrected, despite the sketchy textual support. Adventists believe that the five Books of Moses were written by Moses, despite the fact that the books themselves don’t make this claim. The Book of Genesis does not begin by identifying Moses as the author.

Infallibility is something we attribute to Biblical writers, even anonymous and pseudonymous writers. To this day we are not absolutely certain who really wrote Hebrews, James, and Revelation. Luther felt James was a “gospel of straw” and that it shouldn’t be included in the canon. But we know they are Scripture and that they are the infallible word of God. Given this, why would we believe it impossible for God to speak in exceptional circumstances infallibly through fallible human beings? The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible, but only that under certain circumstances he can articulate on behalf of the church truths which the Church deems to be infallible.

The Council of Nicaea, convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. There, important doctrines were defined. The politics was incredible, the debates heated, the negotiating that went on – well, anyone who has attended a meeting of the General Conference can imagine! Yet through all of that God worked. Certainly the Nicene Creed is a central document of Christianity. No one is going to say that it is fallible and subject to change. No one is going to seek to revise that and suggest we are no longer Trinitarian! So it’s infallible. Why is it we can believe that an infallible truth emerged from that Council called by a Roman Emperor, or that a pseudonymous author can write infallibly, but believe that it is impossible that God can utter an infallible truth through a Pope?

Confession? After Vatican II we call it the Sacrament of Reconciliation. That’s one of the greatest blessings I’ve enjoyed since entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. The Bible says to confess your sins to one another. James 5:16 urges us to “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.” Early in Christianity that was the practice. Confession was public, open, and shared. For obvious reasons, a decision was made over time to afford full candor and to address privacy and confidentiality concerns. Naturally priests became confessors. Just as a minister plays a role in baptism, marriage, or funerals, so priests assumed a formal role in confession. Catholics believe confession should be undertaken yearly. I go monthly. I share whatever is on my heart. I find it therapeutic. There’s no requirement that you have to break one of the Ten Commandments before going to confession! Sin means falling short – and I fall short every day. God’s ideal for me is higher than the highest human thought can reach. I confess: I’m not there yet. For me, confession is about having a priest there one-on-one to help set, establish, reach, and evaluate spiritual goals for my life. At least that is my experience. It’s unfortunate that it was abused by Catholics in the sixteenth century and subsequently abandoned altogether by Protestants.

AToday: There are many different approaches and theologies within the Adventist Church. Who were the Adventist pastors and writers that you resonated with the most?

Pendleton: At the risk of “tainting” anyone by having them in any way associated with me, let me try to answer the question this way. I was blessed – and continue to be blessed – by the writing, teaching, preaching, and witness of many Adventist theologians and pastors, including but not limited to Richard Rice, Bailey Gillespie, Fritz Guy, Niels-Erik Andreasen, the late Paul Landa, Dan Smith, and my amigo José Vicente Rojas. They all exemplify what it means to combine genuine Christian charity with deep Biblical and theological insight. Just because I don’t agree with them 100% of the time on 100% of the issues does not mean I think they are wrong. That’s the problem with an interview like this. The questions concern the 5% we disagree on and give me almost no time to talk about the 95% that we do agree on. My feeling is that we can all say the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed together in unison and in agreement. That says something. Think about it.

Here’s another interesting question: If we had all been born in the late 1600s rather than in the 20^th century, we would not have been Adventist but would have been members of different denominations. What denominations would we have found attractive? Or would we have dared to start a new denomination, finding the available Protestant choices unsatisfactory? Had we been born pre-Reformation, perhaps in the time just following the Great Schism of 1054, would we have all been Catholic or would some of us find ourselves drawn to Eastern Orthodoxy? Going back beyond that, how would we have dealt with Augustine, Arius, Athanasius, or the availing of Greek philosophical categories to make sense of the Triune God, etc.? Would we have agreed with a Roman Emperor’s establishing of Christianity in the 300s after centuries of persecution? Would we have seen it as God’s promised deliverance, perhaps the fulfillment of prophecies in Revelation? Or would we way back in the year 350 have argued for “separation of church and state” and pointed to a “second phase” of Christ’s ministry to occur in 1844? Such questions put our beliefs in perspective – remind us that we are all to some extent creatures conditioned by our times, culture, and circumstances.

AToday: What's your personal view now of Ellen White? Do you think she had a prophetic gift, or do you think she was dishonest or misguided?

Pendleton: Catholics view individuals who have had private visions under the rubric of private revelation. Belief in private revelation is optional – permitted but not required. One has to prudently discern the message received in light of the totality of the Church’s received public revelation, which of course includes Scripture. Such Catholic saints would include Catherine of Siena, St. Francis of Assisi, etc. A would concur with Catholic monk Thomas Merton, who praised “Kierkegaard’s remarkable intuition that the greatest and most perfect saints are those whose saintliness cannot be contained except beneath some exterior that appears totally mediocre and normal, because it is an incommunicable secret.” God used Ellen White to convey important truths, and she in turned pointed back to the Bible. To the extent that her teaching causes us to love God and our fellows more deeply, completely, and unreservedly, she is God’s messenger. I’m not sure she referred to herself as prophet. But she did receive messages from God. “Dishonest” would be uncharitable. It assumes we can know her true motives. I think she was sincere. “Misguided” would be unfair given her circumstances. We see farther because we stand on the shoulders of giants who came after her and church developments she may never have envisioned. How would she have received the 28 Fundamental Beliefs? The answer, I imagine, depends on when in her ministry you asked – early, middle, late? Can’t we simply allow her to point us back to the Bible, to the totality of what has been revealed to the Church, without all the negative baggage? Why must we agree with her in all things or not at all? Are those the only two options? I disagree with her eschatology, her views of the details of earth’s closing moments, and her interpretation of Church history as set forth in The Great Controversy. Like all writing, that book is not immune to historical circumstances giving rise to the writing. At the same time, I believe her Steps to Christ is one of the single most important Christian writings ever published. I would rank it along with C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity. Like the prophets of old, she was imperfect but was nonetheless witness to a perfect God.