A major policy address by the president of the General Conference (GC) is typically the occasion for observers to give much close inspection and dissection of its actual or assumed theological and/or political meaning and purpose. It should be of particular interest that the address occurred at a meeting of some forty-five church leaders who had been convened to consider, over the period of a week, (October XX to XX), "Theological Unity in a Growing World Church." The group was almost entirely composed of General Conference personnel, with "several scholars" in attendance.

A significant address was given by the current GC President, Dr. Jan Paulsen, on the topic of ìThe Theological Landscape." This is because, unlike all of his predecessors, he has excellent scholarly and academic credentials. His earned doctoral degree is from Tubingen, a prestigious German university. It is also noteworthy that the assembled leaders asked that his address be published, and it was, two times in the Adventist Review, as a separate insert in the June 13, 2002 (World Edition) and as a separate article in the October 2002 North American Division edition. Clearly, church leadership thinks this document is important.

The major themes of his essay are not immediately clear in the opening paragraphs, but later they are revealed to be what its author views as the tension between (i) unity and diversity in a world church, (ii) the concept of "obedience where you are in time, culture, and experience," and (iii) the importance of "loyalty to our heritage and our identity" as a church. These three major themes are interwoven in his statements relating his understanding of the current SDA theological landscape.

In his view, "the church works the best when unity and diversity coexist in a nonhostile tension, learning to defer creatively to each other, but loving that which they share more than they love themselves." He recognizes that there is "some theological polarity" in the church of ìthe right or the left, reactionary or liberal" and asks how the church should deal with this reality. His pragmatic answer is "learn to live with it." However, he attaches a very explicit proviso to his short answer-the church at all times must be loyal to its heritage and identity.

Dr. Paulsen insists that "obedience to the Lord is always obedience where one is-in time, in culture, in experience, and in history. And salvation is contingent on that obedience." While he appears to be very comfortable with a significant amount of cultural diversity in the church which allows for variety in worship formats and musical tastes, he states that he can abide neither theological "pluralism nor syncretism." In his view, there is "no place for these in our church." To him, what is "critical" to a united world church is "doctrinal integrity ... [with] the same points of belief... [formulated] similarly," a single Church Manual, "a common organizational structure," the same "weekly Bible study focus," and the sharing of "the gift of God to our church in the writings of Ellen White."

Paulsen has spoken out previously and continues in this essay to forthrightly state the "need for the church as an organization to make an impact on society in matters of social care, welfare, health, education and yes, even government and politics." His focus on this has occasioned the question of whether he wishes to shift the vision of the church to some kind of 'social gospel.'" His answer in this essay to that question is simple and straightforward: No-"Our understanding of the Word and of our doctrines, particularly as formulated in our 27 fundamental beliefs (all of them [his emphasis]) is clear."

However, he says that, in his view, the church has a "leadership problem." This perceived "problem" proceeds from his insistence that all church leaders, from the local church pastor up, in all parts of the world should support by word and deed, what Dr. Paulsen views as "God's plan that Seventh-day Adventists should be one around the world" [his emphasis]. Unhealthy local thinking [his emphasis] will "lead eventually to some kind of Congregationalism." If "oneness falters, we will risk disintegrating as one church" [his emphasis].

Under the heading "The Second Coming-Do We Still Believe?" he suggests "sadly [that] there are in [our faith] community those who in truth no longer believe these things as we used to." Unless we "very deliberately attend to our teaching . . . we will drift and become what we were not when we first took the name Adventist." He suggests that a belief in a second coming derives from an Adventist view of the world that they do not share with other Christians, namely that "the world as we know it is not reparable and is not survivable." On the other hand, he argues that in order to believe in the "reality of the last things"-which he says are to be "accepted by faith"-it is not a "prerequisite that all things be perfectly clearly understood." By "last things" he specifically refers to the Adventist sanctuary doctrine, the second coming, and the final judgment.

Under "The Question of Identity," Paulsen asks whether we Adventists have "become or are we becoming more recognizable as 'Christians' than we are as Seventh-day Adventist Christians?" In speaking out in favor of the church's "readiness to protect our identity," he states that he wishes to remind his fellow church members that we "chose to be Seventh-day Adventists" and that we are "a community of Christians with a very specific and defined identity." People deliberately choose to become Seventh-day Adventist Christians for "some very good reasons," and these reasons should not be made "to look inconsequential or irrelevant." As an example, in his discussion of "Interchurch Relations" he asks, "Do we need to change our basic prophetic scenario?" His own answer is, "Emphatically... no." He suggests that from the earliest days of the Adventist movement, we have stated "that we foresee in Scripture two super, geopolitical powers gaining prominence in the later days, and we have stated which two political and religious powers these would be." Adventists, he insists, need to continue to "stand apart and be separate from the organized ecumenical movement" because this is the "only way we can be faithful to our mission and identity."

To Paulsen, what apparently is an important part of that identity is the church's continuing view of itself as "the 'historical remnant' gathering the 'faithful remnant' from any and all comers to the purposes of God." Under the section entitled "The Idea of 'Remnant,'" he notes that we, as a church-although we sometimes hesitate and are not at ease when we do-use remnant language [his emphasis]. It is in this context that Paulsen makes the following statement which because of its forthright character is quoted here in its entirety:

"[As a church] we shun the perception of being arrogant, and we don't want to come across as being overly exclusive, but at the same time we believe that being Seventh-day Adventists [his emphasis] has direct bearing on our salvation; that while a believer can be saved as a Catholic, I would risk my whole spiritual life and salvation were I to leave what I am now and join any other community. Also we hold that the Adventist community is an instrument for salvation in God's hand such as no other."

He immediately follows this statement with the comment that very little is written in the church on ecclesiology-the nature of the church. To him the problem is that the "linkage between a member's growth in knowledge and understanding and the uncompromising responsibility of discipleship is not pursued as it should be ... The fact is that one cannot as a disciple step out of what one is today and go back into a state of less knowing and less understanding." That knowing and understanding, he states, is "constantly moving forward, constantly building on what was there yesterday. Anything other than that would be disobedience." Such a view, he insists, should temper our view of other Christian faith communities or "other experiences and cultures within our own church. One has to consider where they are in their knowledge of the Lord and His truth, and in their experience with Him . . . Those with whom I share my discoveries must also respond to Christ and dynamically move forward as the Spirit convicts... or their relationship with the Lord is compromised. It's a never-ending process, and it's why we must share our understanding with Christians of other identities ... so we conduct evangelism among... other Christian communities [doing this] without sitting in judgment on what they were before... So, in a sense, the "remnant" church both is and is in a constant process of becoming [his emphasis]."

Commentary

This essay-at least to this reader-is not simple to analyze. If someone reads it too quickly, he might dismiss it as just another exhortation of an ordinary church leader to "stick to the landmarks." First of all, Paulsen is very far from being a typical or ordinary ecclesiastical administrator. Secondly, a lot of things are said, but many are left unsaid. For example, it may or may not be important to point out that nowhere in this document does Paulsen refer to an "imminent" second coming. Thirdly, in places in the essay there are hints and references in the way he expresses himself that, despite his defense of traditional Adventist theological values, he appears to realize the limitations of orthodoxy in a post-modem world.

It might be the mark of a good essay on this topic if both progressives ("liberals") and traditionalists ("reactionaries") have serious objections to parts-but different parts-of the statement. I can't speak from the perspective of a reactionary or traditionalist, but I can imagine that members of certain theological groups might be very upset by some of the positions taken. However, from the perspective of one who has respect for Paulsen as a scholar (see my comments on his dissertation), he nevertheless expresses some opinions which I view as very troubling and, assuming that I understand what he is saying, highly problematic because they come, in places, much too close to supporting a fundamentalist ethic for the church.

One of Paulsen's most troubling suggestions is that being a Seventh-day Adventist has a direct bearing on one's salvation. A member of the Roman Catholic Church can be saved as a Catholic, but Paulsen says that "I would risk my whole spiritual life and salvation were I to leave what I am now and join any other community." One might note that in the same sentence there is a change from a generalizing comment-being an Adventist has a direct bearing on salvation-to his own personal confession-his own salvation is bound up in his being one. This is a helpful distinction. But why does Paulsen think that his own obviously deeply felt private and personal commitment and confessional position must be generalized and made normative for all church members? Perhaps it is because of his view that "we," i.e., Seventh-day Adventists, are "an instrument for salvation in God's hand such as no other." Few would disagree with the first seven words of that sentence-- we are one of many instruments for salvation in God's hand. But why "as no other?" One might conceive that for some individuals with certain personalities in certain situations perhaps the Adventist message is the only means God might have to reach them where they are at a particular time and place. But to generalize raises the specter of a highly inappropriate exclusivity in our understanding of our role as an institutional church in God's plan for the world.

This specter is rendered more concrete because the comments he makes on this topic are embedded in his discussion of the church as "remnant." The traditional Adventist position that our denomination is "the Remnant Church" of Revelation 12 is a classic expression of a fundamentalist, triumphalistic sect-type church-using sect here in its sociological sense. Paulsen recognizes that many Adventists are very hesitant and uneasy with the church's use of "remnant language." (One reason for the unease is that to many our historic interpretation of Revelation 12 to support this position clearly wrenches the text out of any reasonable context.) In considering this, one gets a vague feeling that Paulsen might be attempting to nudge traditional Adventist "remnant language" toward a more nuanced stance by offering the view that "in a sense, the remnant church "both is and is in a constant process of becoming." If, as he suggests, becoming a "remnant" is, like one's spiritual journey, a "never-ending process," it is possible that we might have a new ground on which to rethink as a faith community our classic, sectarian concept of "the remnant."

His suggestion that "the church works the best when unity and diversity coexist in a nonhostile tension" is one of the more hopeful, forward-looking statements in the entire essay. He recognizes the inevitability of this tension, and his recommendation as to how to respond is "live with it." This is the view of a pragmatic person. This position might yield an insight into the motif that animates the author of "The Theological Landscape" to express the view he does in the way he does.

Several individuals in a position to know have commented that Paulsen is a consummate, principled political churchman-here using "political" in the very best Aristotelian sense. He knows what will work and what will not in his church-both theologically and organizationally. His instincts and personality were not crafted within American Adventism but within European and specifically northern European Adventism. There the exercise of power is more muted and subtle than when exercised by someone acculturated and socialized within a middle-class American culture. In watching Paulsen chair a session at a GC Annual Council, one sees that he does not have to demonstrate that he is in charge.

Dr. Paulsen exhibits here the sophistication of a pragmatic, socially conscious, capable, well-educated, moderately conservative Adventist church leader who knows well what his church-viewed from a worldwide perspective-will be able to live with at this time. Although he employs fundamentalist-like expressions on several occasions there is, in some cases, a decided pulling back from extreme positions. Many of his positions are far from where progressives would like to see the "Theological Landscape" of their church become, but it is also probably far from how most reactionaries would like to see it as well. Perhaps from a pragmatic perspective, this essay represents what Paulsen believes to be the best (only?) balance possible at this time given the realities of the dominant ideology and structure of the contemporary worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church. Who at this time has a greater understanding of these realities?