KASPARS OZOLINS | Assistant Professor of Old Testament Interpretation,
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Life Assurance Ministries Board Member |
Examine any history textbook and you will learn many things. Quite apart from the historical content, every history book (indeed, every book) opens a window into the worldview, values, and thought processes of its writer. That writer, in turn, is part of a cultural context (be it national or religious) and thus will betray something of the ethos of his or her background.
So it was with considerable interest that I learned about the brand-new release of a history textbook written by two Adventists about the origins, rise, and global spread of Seventh-day Adventism. The book is simply titled A Global History of Seventh-day Adventists and it is written by Michael W. Campbell and Edward Martin Allen. As the writers explain in their introduction, this global focus was necessary, given the reality that Adventism is no longer primarily an American phenomenon (indeed, it has not been so for a very long time):
“A history of Seventh-day Adventists focused on their global history is long overdue. For over one hundred years, the majority of Adventists have lived outside North America. However, histories of the church have remained centered on North America. Many North Americans are unaware of developments in global Adventism. The predominant population of the church has shifted to Africa, and the intellectual center may be moving to South America. These shifts mark a dramatic turn for a church that began in the late 1840s in upper New England.”
The hint at South America becoming the “intellectual center” is a nod to the fact that the book was released on the eve of the the election of Erton Köller (a Brazilian) to the presidency of the General Conference. (The authors convinced the publisher, Eerdmans, at the last minute to allow them to include these revisions.)
Surveying the early history of Adventism
As expected, Campbell and Allen trace the Adventist story back to the New England of the early nineteenth century, in the aftermath of the Second Great Awakening. Before that, however, they note various earlier influences from Christian history, including especially Protestantism. I found it notable that they highlighted those groups and individuals who emphasized “human free will” in salvation (e.g., Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, and most significantly the revivalist preacher Charles Finney). According to the authors, Adventism was birthed in a context that they describe as “Christendom American Style.” In some ways, that is an accurate description. They describe America as “a free religious marketplace [which] enabled individuals to ascertain truth.” They note, in fact, that William Miller’s preaching attracted the attention of those sympathetic to Restorationist Christianity, many of whose adherents had decided that mainstream Protestantism was hopelessly corrupt and had departed far from the “primitive” faith.
…the authors strive to portray [Ellen White] as a sane, calm, reasonable voice in a somewhat chaotic movement that was struggling for a long time to swallow the bitter pill of the Great Disappointment…
Throughout their historical survey, they recite the main “facts” about the rise of Seventh-day Adventism in the wake of the failed Millerite movement: Edson’s cornfield vision, Ellen White’s “Little Remnant” vision, the Shut Door, etc. Especially when discussing Ellen White, the authors strive to portray her as a sane, calm, reasonable voice in a somewhat chaotic movement that was struggling for a long time to swallow the bitter pill of the Great Disappointment: “In her accounts of the experience [her first vision], Ellen Harmon focused on issues within her religious community in a thoroughly orthodox manner.” As regards the authority of White, the authors repeat the same arguments that Adventists have inherited from their prophet: “She believed her writings would be self-validating by pointing people to Christ and the primacy of Scripture, to which she gave more authority than her writing and by which her writings were to be evaluated.”
Describing doctrinal issues in Adventism
I was curious to see how the authors would describe the pivotal 1888 General Conference in Minneapolis. Their description of the Adventist approach to doctrine can only be described as alarming (yet accurate): “The denomination had seldom dealt with basic Christian beliefs in the lead-up to the crucial conference in Minneapolis that fall. It had settled its unique doctrines by 1850, leaving some of the most fundamental Christian beliefs unaddressed.” Such an attitude betrays the mark of a sectarian group. Protestants, of course, have long been accused of being sectarians. Yet Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Baptists have always strived in their creeds and confessions to pay more attention to explaining and stressing their catholicity, rather than emphasizing what makes them distinctive. This is a million miles away from an Adventism which, as the authors admit, “had seldom dealt with basic Christian beliefs” as late as 1888.
In my opinion, however, it is their discussion of the Adventist historical controversy with the doctrine of the Trinity where the authors provide a simplistic and even misleading presentation of the evidence. They repeat the line advanced by so many Adventists, namely that Ellen White’s book The Desire of Ages definitively placed the denomination on a sound trinitarian footing. They claim that, “[w]ithout fanfare, this clear statement of Jesus’s equality with God slowly made its way through the church.” This statement is filled with internal contradictions. To begin with, to state that such a basic Christian doctrine “made its way through the church” is to admit that it was never a church to begin with. There is no Christianity without God the incarnate Son. Moreover, how could it ever be possible for such an earth-shattering doctrinal shift to spread through the church “without fanfare”? The figure of Jesus is revered in almost every religion, but not as God. Is it even conceivable, then, that the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ could spread through Islam, for example, “without fanfare”? Finally, it seems hard to reconcile how this doctrine could have been received “without fanfare” and yet only make its way through the church “slowly.” What is the basis for such a monumental doctrine being received slowly in Adventism?
In fact, as the authors must acknowledge from the historical evidence, the doctrine of the Trinity has never ever been received in Seventh-day Adventism “without fanfare,” nor indeed has it finished “making its way through the church,” even to this very day.
The authors’ summary of these issues is a good example of how it is impossible for a religious historian to tell the story of Adventism without running into numerous contradictions:
“In 1888, the Seventh-day Adventist Church had existed for only twenty-five years. It was still working out some of its basic positions. Their impatience for Christ’s return was evident in their reluctance to embrace a more Christ-centered theology. They feared change and thought to bring Christ’s coming through their own activity. Those who accuse the church of being a cult point to the early leaders’ denial of the Trinity, the emphasis on the law, and the authority of Ellen White. The 1888 experience and its aftermath show that under Ellen White’s influence, each of these early misdirections was corrected. Ellen White recognized the truth of the message of righteousness by faith and championed it. She refused to be an extrabiblical authority and decide the doctrinal issues at stake. Beginning in 1898, she affirmed the divinity of Jesus in such a way that the church moved to accept it and teach a fully Trinitarian theology. Thus, by 1920, the church had affirmed its beliefs in three foundational Christian doctrines: salvation by faith alone, the ultimate authority of the Bible, and the Trinity.”
Space prohibits a full discussion of the many problems in this quotation, so I will just note two: (1) how is it possible for someone to yearn for Christ’s return and yet be in any way relucant to “embrace a more Christ-centered theology”? (2) How can Ellen White “refuse to be an extrabiblical authority and decide the doctrinal issues at stake” while at the same time apparently affirming the divinity of Jesus (beginning in 1898!) in such a way that the church “moved” to accept it?
Twentieth-century controversies
I was also interested to hear the authors’ take on more recent Adventist doctrinal controversies. The pivotal dialogues with prominent evangelical scholars in the 1950s are described in some detail by Campbell and Allen. They characterize the discussions as an opportunity (and a need) for the church to “be more proactive in disarming and dissuading the wider public concerning their prejudices about Adventism.” Regarding the resulting Questions on Doctrine (QoD) book, they state: “The world church would widely distribute the book as an authoritative explanation of Adventist beliefs.” However, the very claim that this book is tied to “the world church” and that it is “an authoritative explanation of Adventist beliefs” is shaken later in the same chapter where the authors describe the subsequent demise of QoD:
“Another theologian [from the fiftieth anniversary conference of QoD in 2023] attributed most of the ‘dissident’ or ‘independent groups’ that arose within Adventism in the last half of the twentieth century to the controversy concerning the atonement and the nature of Christ sparked by Questions on Doctrine. Such controversies prevented the book from being translated. Once the initial printing had sold out, opponents blocked it from being reprinted.”
We see a number of things from this admission. The book can hardly be characterized as belonging to “the world church,” since it was not translated. Secondly, far from being “an authoritative explanation of Adventist beliefs,” it would appear that the authors are subtly pointing the finger at QoD for stirring the pot with regard to such radical doctrines as “the atonement and the nature of Christ.” It is almost too obvious to point out that controversy only rises when claims are being made that contradict what is mainstream. Thirdly, the opponents (such as M. L. Andreasen) whom the authors seem to portray negatively as narrow sectarians, nevertheless are described as having the power to “block it [QoD] from being reprinted.” The highly centralized General Conference was apparently unable to do anything about it, even well after the deaths of these opponents.
Defining Adventism
It is the job of historians to tell the history of a movement as fairly and accurately as possible. The accuracy of that history is an important component in the identity of a movement, as well as how that movement is perceived by outsiders. I think that Campbell and Allen have tried to portray Adventism as a mainstream form of Protestantism, which leads to serious difficulties in how one should “tell the story” of the radically divergent teachings and views present in SDAism from the very beginning.
…Campbell and Allen have tried to portray Adventism as a mainstream form of Protestantism, which leads to serious difficulties in how one should “tell the story” of the radically divergent teachings and views present in SDAism from the very beginning.
To illustrate this point, I reference the authors’ mention of David Bebbington’s famous quadrilateral:
“David Bebbington argues that evangelicals are marked by four characteristics: a focus on the cross as the means of salvation, an emphasis on conversion, biblicism, and activism. As this history of the church will demonstrate, Adventists exhibit all four of these characteristics, but their activism has spread their reach to the whole world. They developed a unique mission and then set out to fulfill it. In what is an intentional interpretive lens, this narrative strives to focus on Adventism as a global phenomenon.”
This can hardly be anything other than a claim on the part of the authors that Adventists are in fact evangelical. However, that very claim is undermined in the very next breath by the following boast:
“Adventist activity embodies not only theological ideas but also convictions about health and education. This relatively small denomination came to operate one of the largest Protestant educational systems on the planet and one of its largest health-care systems. This is the story of a people committed to actively working to share both the gospel of personal salvation and the gospels of health, education, and freedom for all.”
The gospels of health, education, and freedom for all. One evangelical endorsement at the back of the book strikingly echoes this claim while at the same time using somewhat different wording. Different wording was likely used because the endorser does not sufficiently understand the spirit behind Adventism (otherwise he would not have made such a damning admission in his endorsement). The endorser is none other than David Bebbington himself, who describes Adventism as “an elaborately structured global church identified with health reform and educational effort as well as the simple gospel.”
The history of Seventh-day Adventism that Michael W. Campbell and Edward Martin Allen recount reveal a movement whose gospel is anything but “simple.” †
- Rewriting Adventist History - April 2, 2026
- What Is Your Advent Hope? - December 18, 2025
- New Covenant Has a New Commandment - October 16, 2025