If conservative Adventists are censored for saying too much, progressive Adventists are often protected for saying far more.
This is not a partisan complaint. It is a demonstrable pattern.
At several major Adventist universities, professors and departments have, for decades, raised serious challenges to foundational doctrines, especially around creation and sexuality. These are not fringe issues. They go to the heart of Adventist belief: a literal six-day creation, the biblical design of human identity, and a theology of marriage rooted in Genesis.
And yet when these teachings are contradicted from within institutional spaces, the official response is muted. Or non-existent.
At La Sierra University, for example, the biology department came under fire for its approach to evolutionary theory. Critics said the instruction directly contradicted the church’s official stance on a literal creation week. While the concerns were widespread, the accountability was limited. No sweeping institutional reset followed. Some administrators left, but the trajectory of the department remained largely unchanged.
On sexuality, the quiet drift has been more pronounced. At several Adventist universities, student groups have emerged calling for affirmation of same-sex relationships, redefinition of gender categories, and full inclusion regardless of lifestyle or belief. These groups are often tolerated, occasionally encouraged, and rarely challenged. Faculty write in their defense. Chaplains speak at their events. Leadership stays silent.
Now compare this with the treatment of conservatives.
When a pastor like Stephen Bohr raises questions about ordination, governance, or tithe use, invitations are withdrawn. Entire conferences circulate internal messages discouraging churches from hosting him. When Dr. Conrad Vine questions the church’s alignment with the United Nations, his appearance is denied, and his event is forced out of the building.
When progressives raise theological challenges, the church listens. When conservatives raise institutional concerns, the church closes the door.
This is not leadership. It is favoritism with a theological veneer.
Uneven Enforcement, Eroded Trust
This disparity has created a crisis of trust. Conservatives are told to submit. Progressives are allowed to shape policy. The result is confusion at the center and bitterness at the base.
When institutional power disciplines only those who still believe in discipline, the moral structure collapses. When standards are enforced selectively, they are no longer standards. They are instruments of control.
Leadership may believe that by avoiding direct confrontation with progressive critics, it is preserving peace. In reality, it is only preserving the illusion of unity. Conservatives are not disappearing. They are reorganizing — and they are no longer silent.
The Faithful Adventist initiative, launched publicly in January 2026, is not a rebellion. It is a reaction to years of asymmetric treatment. If administrators continue to discipline only the compliant, they will soon be left with only the unaccountable.
The problem is not disagreement. It is inconsistency. And that can still be corrected.
Institutional Response Guide: A Way Forward for Leadership
The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not lack doctrine. It lacks a working model for how to handle disagreement without resorting to silence, exile, or selective enforcement.
This guide outlines five actions for conference leaders, university presidents, and board chairs to apply with consistency and fairness.
1. Apply Standards Evenly
If speakers are restricted for contradicting official beliefs, the rule must apply regardless of ideological alignment.
A pastor preaching male headship and a biology professor teaching long-age evolution must be subject to the same expectations.
Uneven discipline destroys trust. Consistency builds it.
2. Define the Boundaries of Acceptable Dialogue Clearly
Establish and publish criteria for exclusion from official church platforms. These criteria must be grounded in doctrine, not politics.
Apply them consistently. Communicate them transparently.
Moving the goalposts based on pressure only confirms the suspicion that Adventist institutions lack moral clarity.
3. Reclaim Institutional Oversight
University boards and unions must actively uphold Adventist identity across departments.
Academic freedom cannot be used to erode core beliefs. Institutional affiliation must be contingent on faithfulness to stated mission.
Delegating theology to culture is not oversight. It is abandonment.
4. Engage Critics, Do Not Punish Them
Listen to dissent before silencing it. Respond with Scripture, not suspension.
Host public forums. Allow dialogue between opposing views. Demonstrate that the church is not afraid of its own members.
Avoidance breeds radicalism. Engagement promotes clarity.
5. Build Capacity for Theological Peacemaking
Equip leaders to manage conflict through biblical thinking, not administrative reflexes.
Establish roles or commissions tasked with engaging dissent and cultivating clarity.
Silence is not unity. Dialogue is not division. Real peace requires leadership that can endure disagreement.
Final Word to Leaders:
A church that only disciplines one side will not retain the other. A church that tolerates contradiction in its institutions while punishing loyalty in its congregations is not sustainable.
This is not about the past. It is about what remains possible.
The time for avoidance has passed. The time for honest leadership has arrived.