The Twenty-Seven Fundamental beliefs of our church are a loosely connected system of beliefs. Presently, each of them is a potential center for the church's identity and beliefs. George R. Knight says it well: "To put it bluntly, the 27 fundamentals are set forth as a list, somewhat like a string of beads with each bead having the same size, shape, and weight (1)". Thus the doctrine of health reform and modest dress (2) stands shoulder to shoulder with the doctrine of the Trinity (3), and the doctrine of soul sleep (4) is given the same weight as the doctrine of the atonement of Christ (5). This view that the twenty-seven doctrines are all of equal value is demonstrated in the actual life of the church community. For example, an Adventist Bible teacher who eats pork or smokes will be just as unacceptable to the community as a teacher who teaches the immortality of the soul. Both of them will be dismissed from their positions and fellowship just as much as a Bible teacher who denies the atonement of Christ or the Trinity.

Although it is unclear whether the framers intentionally set up the church's current belief system the way it is, there is something remarkably genius about it. I believe that, properly understood and applied, the church's present belief system can help the church become an open community of faith. One of us might prefer one doctrine as the center of faith, while another person might prefer a different one. But since the church has not designated any of the fundamental beliefs as its central doctrine, an Adventist is free to choose any one of them as the foundation on which to build his or her understanding of the rest. This kind of pluralistic system can function, however, only as divergent views regarding what is the central doctrine continue to be accepted as genuinely Adventist (6).

Some extremely intelligent and well-meaning people, however, have proposed to give shape to our belief system, so that one doctrine is subordinated to another in some meaningfully hierarchical order (7). But an attempt to achieve an official consensus about which of the beliefs should be relegated to a secondary position could be costly and difficult. Some might feel very strongly that the doctrines on Ellen G. White's prophetic gift (8) and the Great Controversy (9) are the church's central doctrines. Evangelically-minded believers might counter that the doctrine of Christ's free grace is still more fundamental (10) Those concerned with the question of identity might advance powerful arguments that the Second Coming (11) and the Sabbath (12) are the central doctrines of our church. Still others might argue that the center is Christian lifestyle or family (13). Actually, there are as many possibilities as the fundamental beliefs themselves (14). In my opinion, one should be left to choose any one of the church's fundamental beliefs as the center of his or her religious system, provided he or she does not use his or her central belief as the criterion by which the authenticity of others' beliefs are judged (15).

One might object, however, that this kind of pluralism violates the spirit of the New Testament, whose undisputed center is Christ. It should be remembered, however, that within the discipline of biblical studies, the question of "center" is an extremely controversial one for both Testaments (16). There is no consensus even in Pauline scholarship regarding Paul's theological center. J. Paul Sampley speaks for the majority when he states: "But precisely because Paul's thought is cast in balances and not in isolated ideas, the nuclear model with its single 'center' is not adequate" (17). Rather, the feeling is that John, Hebrews, James, Revelation, Romans, and 1 and 2 Corinthians are all valid expositions of the meaning of the Christ-event intersecting with life's situations (18). The Scripture simply does not offer a systematized form of theology (19). Thus if we want to remain true to the Spirit of the New Testament, we need to find ways to explain the meaning of all of our fundamental beliefs from the standpoint of the Christ-event rather than isolate and elevate as central the ones that directly mention the themes of salvation (20).

One might wonder whether I have not turned the Christ-event (belief #9) into a hidden center. In some ways, I have. If anyone denies the centrality of the Christ-event, he or she cannot be a Christian. But upon a careful examination of fundamental belief #9, one finds references to atonement, substitution, and expiation.21 These terms are metaphors of the Christ-event, meaningful to some and not so meaningful to others. It should be borne in mind that not even Paul mentions or develops terms like expiation (=atonement)22 and justification in 1 Corinthians. Yet no one would deny that right alongside Romans and Galatians, the letter is one of the most powerful expositions of the Christ-event in the New Testament. All of our beliefs-even the doctrines of the soul's mortality and health reform as well as the Sanctuary-arise from the Bible and should be articulated to derive their meanings from the Christ-event (23). I do not oppose making Christ the center of our belief system. I question whether making one of the twenty-seven fundamental beliefs like belief #9 and belief #1024 will do the job (25). Christ is behind all of our fundamental beliefs. If it is determined that Christ is not behind any of them, we need to seriously question whether it deserves to be among the fundamental beliefs at all.

In my view, the problem of Adventism does not reside in its failure to decide which of the fundamental beliefs is the center of faith. We as a body have already expended great energy and destroyed relationships arguing over the centrality of someone's favorite doctrine. Such a search for an illusive center can result in a distorted understanding of the meaning of salvation, often leading to the false dilemma of being an Adventist vs. being a Christian. I do not feel we need to make the choice. Adventism is a lens through which Christ is seen. William G. Johnsson, the editor of the Adventist Review, offers a fitting metaphor in this regard. True doctrine is not a list of teachings derived from Scripture, with 'Christ' being one among them. Rather, one might think of doctrine as the spokes of a wheel. The hub of the wheel is Christ, His person and His work. Every teaching occupies its rightful place as it is joined to Christ (26).

1 George R. Knight has written an excellent article to this effect: "Twenty-seven Fundamentals in Search of a Theology" Ministry 74 (Feb., 2001): 5-7.

2 See belief #21: Christian Behavior.

3 See belief #2: The Trinity

4 See belief #25: Death and Resurrection.

5 See belief #9: The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ.

6 Cf. Richard Hammill, "In Defense of Pluralism," Spectrum 18 (4, 1988): 39-42.

7 For example, Knight, 5, states: "Some of the 27 fundamentals are 'more fundamental than others." While I agree with Knight on the problems related to the "string" or "pile" approach, the problem of schism arising from the hierarchical model is even greater. Knight, for example, does not state in the article which of the twenty-seven he feels should be listed as central. In fact he distinguishes between doctrines and Christ without offering a criterion to distinguish between them.

8 See belief #17: Gift of Prophecy.

9 See belief #8: The Great Controversy.

10 Perhaps referring to belief #9.

11 See belief #24: The Second Coming of Christ.

12 See belief #19: The Sabbath.

13 See belief #22: Marriage and Family.

14 See George R. Knight, "The Pillar Doctrines," Record (South Pacific Division) 98 (Jul. 31, 1993): 6-7, for an excellent summary of the attempts in early Adventism to establish a central doctrine(s). He aptly writes, "This one-sided emphasis [on Adventist distinctives] eventually led to problems that would need to be corrected." In my view, the problem of one-sidedness would plague any official attempt to select a doctrine as the center.

15 Perhaps a telling example of a doctrinal center gone awry is Russell Standish's "Sound Doctrine and Pluralism, Part 2: Can they Co-exist in God's Remnant Church?" Our Firm Foundation (Jan, 1998), 24-27. The vitriolic essay is a long harangue against the church for refusing to make (perfectionistic) sanctification and the sinful nature of Christ the center of its discussion and faith.

16 Gerhard F. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

1972, 1991), 139-171; Gerhard F. Hasel, New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 140-164.

17 J. Paul Sampley, "From Text to Thought World: The Route to Paul's Ways," Pauline Theology I: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, ed. Jouette M. Bassler (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).

18 Peter Stuhlmacher, How to Do Biblical Theology, Princeton Theological Monograph Series, no. 38 (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1995), 62-62; yet what he advocates in reference to the necessity of one center is disturbing. Stuhlmacher writes: "The insight that the Bible has only one center makes it possible to relate the biblical witness to this center in a differentiating manner. Viewing things from this center, we realize not only that the Old and New Testament confess the triune God, but that the biblical books divide themselves into central and secondary writings with respect to this center" (p. 63; italics supplied). This is precisely the kind of thing we need to avoid in our church.

19 Georg Strecker, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996), 2, states, "Jedoch wird die im Neuen Testament angesagte Botschaft nicht ohne eine systematische Struktur dargeboten." Perhaps a more accurate statement would be as follows: The message of the New Testament is offered with an implicit potentiality of creating a systematic structure without itself actually being one. This seems to be more in line with Strecker's overall attempt.

20 This is the way I understand the meaning of "the system of truth" mentioned by Ellen White; see Timothy Watson, Person and Doctrine: The "System of Truth": Idea in the Writing of Ellen G. White (M.A. Thesis: Andrews University, 1996), 30f. We should be careful, however, of using Ellen G. White in trying to decide which of the fundamental beliefs is central. For example, Adekunle A. Alalade, "Jesus at the Center: Sanctuary Themes in the Book of Revelation," Adventist Review 173 (Oct 31, 1996), 16, offers this quote from Testimonies, vol. 8, 302: "The solemn messages that have been given in their order in the Revelation are to occupy the first place in the minds of God's people. Nothing else is to be allowed to engross our attention."

21 The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ: In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God's law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming. The resurrection of Christ proclaims God's triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will bow. (John 3:16; Isa. 53; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4, 20-22; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19-21; Rom. 1:4; 3:25; 4:25; 8:3,4; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Col. 2:15; Phil. 2:6-11.)

22 I refer here specifically to the absence of the term i`lasthrion and its cognates in 1 Cor. I am not saying that it lacks the concept of atonement altogether. My point is simply that the reason Paul does not introduce or develop the concept of i`lasthrion (expiation/propitiation/atonement) in 1 Cor (even in 15:3) is that it is a metaphor after all.

23 Knight, "Twenty-seven Fundamentals," 5, implicitly raises an important question whether under the church's current doctrinal system smoking a cigarette would amount to an outright denial of Christ. This is not an easy question to answer because there have been great Christians like C. S. Lewis who smoked, drank, and believed in the immortality of the soul. My answer would be twofold. First, the stewardship of the body is a Christocentric NT teaching (1 Cor 6:19-20). Second, one who chooses to smoke and drink would not be able to discern the meaning of Christ's salvation, as it were, through the Adventist lens. We are part of this community because we have chosen to understand the meaning of grace through an apocalyptic hermeneutic that places a great premium on divine judgment and human accountability. Although one can appreciate grace outside of this hermeneutic, I think that an Adventist perspective would be difficult to maintain without it. The question whether someone who eats pork and smokes can be saved should not be entertained with respect to the fundamental beliefs, as it is the product of a soteriocentric mindset. Our concern here is about center not salvation.

24 The Experience of Salvation: In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment. (2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13, 14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26; Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 8:7-12; Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.)

25 In this regard, I am essentially in agreement with the principle Hasel outlines concerning the question of center; see his New Testament Theology, 164: "It seems undeniable that the NT is from beginning to end christocentric. Jesus Christ is the dynamic, unifying center of the NT. God's gracious saving activity comes to expression in the life and activity, the suffering, death, and resurrection, as well as in the exaltation and heavenly ministry of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the beginning, center, and end of the NT. The NT's christocentricity must not be transformed into a structure on the basis of which a NT theology is to be written" (italics supplied). In a similar vein, he states concerning God as the center of OT theology: "With God as the dynamic unifying center, the OT allows the Biblical writings or blocks of writings to speak for themselves in that their individual theologies are allowed to emerge. Wisdom theology, creation theology, and others are not forced to fit into a unilinear and limiting center, concept, theme, or motif at the expense of relegating large portions to an inferior status or to neglect them altogether. An OT theology which recognizes God as the dynamic, unifying center provides the possibility to describe the rich and variegated theologies and to present the various longitudinal themes, motifs, and ideas. In affirming God as the dynamic, unifying center of the OT we also affirm that this center cannot be forced into a static organizing principle on the basis of which an OT theology can be structured" (Hasel, Old Testament Theology, 170-171; italics supplied).

26 William G. Johnsson, "Christ is the Center," Adventist Review 158 (May 28, 1981), 13-14. His article is not meant as the definitive Christocentric interpretation of the sanctuary doctrine, but it provides a good model of such a task. In a later article, "Jesus: Center of All Our Hopes," Adventist Review (March 5, 1992), 11, he tries also to connect the doctrine of the Great Controversy to Christ, without offering an extensive discussion on the subject. Alalade's article (cited above) may be offered as an example of an attempt to relate the doctrine of the Great Controversy to the question of the centrality of Christ. Shaping of the 27 Fundamental Beliefs, Choi 5