Church Authority or Bible Temperance

Health Reform Vegetarianism As A Test
1

Part 1 states:

Some argue that the church possesses authority to set fellowship standards based on Christ’s words in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, where He gave the church power to “bind and loose.” ( A Test of Fellowship? Examining the SDARM Basis for Making Vegetarianism a Baptismal Requirement – An Appeal to SDARM )

I would not argue it from this angle. Perhaps some have, but it’s a poorly stated position. Because this is not how we got here.

Among Seventh-day Adventists, standards of healthy lifestyle were imposed in terms of matters of temperance, such as abstinence from alcohol, tobacco and other substances which were harmful.

The reasoning for this was derived from a biblical principle—the principle of temperance. Temperance is a fruit of the Spirit, and is defined for us as follows:

“True temperance teaches us to dispense entirely with everything hurtful and to use judiciously that which is healthful.” PP 562:1

Adding additional articles to the list of those to abstain from is not a matter of adding a non-biblical test based on church authority. It is a recognition of the fact that Bible temperance, when applied with an intelligent knowledge of natural law, presents this duty to the person who has that knowledge.

2

So to the conclusion to Part 1, which says in part,

Scripture does not provide the clear “Thus saith the Lord” necessary to make vegetarianism a requirement for baptism and church fellowship

to which we can reply, that it does, in fact, in the only way it ever truly has, as a matter of temperance.

3

Its true that the argument based on Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 is not the official rationale used by SDARM for its test. However, it is an argument that surfaces often enough in discussions that it warrants inclusion.

I fully agree that the Biblical principle of temperance stands at the foundation of historic Adventist health reform and also is behind the efforts of SDARM on this front. However, the SDARM application of that principle raises two questions:

1. If temperance alone is the reason for making flesh eating a test of fellowship, then why are other equally or more harmful lifestyle practices not also made tests?

Modern lifestyle diseases - heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer - are in most cases more strongly linked to factors such as:

  • High intake of processed foods and refined sugar

  • Excessive saturated/trans fats and low vegetable and fruit consumption

  • Sedentary lifestyle (lack of exercise)

  • Chronic overeating

  • Poor sleep habits

All of these are just as harmful - in many cases more so - than occasional consumption of clean flesh foods. Yet SDARM does not impose a test on members who eat unhealthy vegetarian diets, skip regular exercise, or consume large amounts of sugar and fats. If temperance is sufficient grounds to bar a relatively healthy occasional meat eater who is fit from baptism, then logically other causes of lifestyle issues should also become tests of fellowship based on the same principle of temperance. But nobody argues for that, which exposes an inconsistency in the principle being applied - does it not?

The other question is:

2. Can the principle of temperance be upheld by the church as a body through education, rules and policies rather than tests of fellowship?

The Spirit of Prophecy supports this approach. A rule is flexible enough to allow for exceptions when needed, and it does not confound spiritual standing with personal growth.

In other words, if the goal is to model temperance, the church has other legitimate tools besides adding requirements to baptism. It can:

  • Serve only plant-based meals at official gatherings

  • Require employees and other staff to be vegan

  • Educate and encourage health reform more purposefully

  • Provide practical support for lifestyle change

—all without turning diet into a gatekeeping mechanism for church membership.

So yes, temperance is biblical. But the question remains:

Does the principle of temperance - rightly understood - require us to make abstinence from flesh foods a universal entrance test into the church? Or can the church fully uphold temperance through example, education, and policy, without binding where Scripture does not bind?

1 Like
4

I’m not sure that the fact that there are other unhealthy things should be an argument against taking stand on a particular one.

Flesh meats was the next thing on the list at the turn of the century. But that’s a subject for another thread. :slightly_smiling_face:

5

When framing tests of fellowship, do you think its better to remain more general (stating the principle) or more specific (defining how we interpret the principle applies)?

6

At the turn of the century, few could have predicted how inundated the Western world would become with ultra-processed foods. Today, such foods are among the leading contributors to lifestyle-related diseases. According to a recent article, Australia now consumes ultra-processed foods to alarming levels — nearly half the average diet: Australia has some of highest consumption rates of ultra-processed foods, researchers say | Health | The Guardian

Given the mounting evidence of harm from ultra-processed foods, one might ask: should the church now view UPFs with the same moral seriousness - and regulated according to the same temperance-based reasoning - as the meat question?

1 Like
7

I’ve thought about this, and I think that the temperance movement was aimed at items which were patently harmful and not needed for sustenance. The live argument here is on meat, but effectively if it moved into that category of not being needed for sustenance, then it can be included. To your point, that would be the question - are there items that have crossed into this category. I don’t have a settled point of view there but that’s the way I see the question.

8

Your answer seems to support a discretionary approach to the meat question - one that I also see reflected in the Spirit of Prophecy. If we describe meat as “not needed for sustenance,” then the implication is that there are circumstances - whether due to an individual’s physiological needs or their surrounding conditions - where some might genuinely require it. In such cases, they should be permitted to eat it, correct?

And how about this question - perhaps you missed it. Church Authority or Bible Temperance - #5 by Gerson

9

No sure I understand the question actually.

10

Perhaps in theory. I’m finding it hard to think of a scenario where that might be the case. But as the saying goes, the exception only proves the rule.

I don’t do coffee on principle, but I once attended in a first aid situation where we got someone a hot drink because they were in danger of hypothermia. You would think a reasonable person would understand the logic there.

1 Like
11

What I mean is: when we articulate tests of fellowship, do you think they should state only the general principle (i.e. Temperance), or should they also spell out the specific way we believe that principle must be applied (i.e. we must not consume flesh, cheese, coffee, alcohol, etc.)?

The question would apply across our other beliefs as well, for instance, must we define as much as we can the nature of God in our Fundamental Beliefs? The long version of our beliefs includes everything in the short version (the 1925 edition), but greatly expands it with definitions, clarifications, and theological positions that are not present in the short statement.

I think this can become problematic when we remember that some sincere, Christ-loving people simply do not read the SOP on some of these points the way we do - yet they love our church, have a genuine Christian spirit, and would gladly join tomorrow. If we were not so particular in how we define certain doctrines, would it not remove an unnecessary barrier for people like this to join our church?

12

This is a good question - regarding detail. I think that’s a never-ending question, simply because there will always be a variety of views on where to draw the lines.

In terms of articles to be included in a temperance pledge (which is the way I look at this), that’s always been something that was more or less spelled out.

I think there’s probably more to think about here and you raise good questions but I don’t have any brilliant thoughts to impart at present. :slight_smile:

13

I just published this article that I think pertains to the point you made here about drawing lines. I think the issue fundamentally relates to the concept of the spirit vs the letter, the old vs the new coventant type of ministry: The Glory of the Lord vs. The Glory of the Letter – An Appeal to SDARM

14

I appreciate the sentiment of the article in terms of spirit vs letter. In the subject at hand, I return to the previously stated point, that in terms of what is on the temperance pledge, there were many things added to it progressively. I contemplate raising another thread to explore that.

1 Like
15

Thanks brother. Please do create another thread for the Temperance Pledge. I’d love to explore that more.