Chapter 69 The Grand Dilemma

The Faith and Science Conference at Ogden and the succeeding conferences at Glacier View (an Adventist youth camp in Colorado) and in Denver highlighted the grand dilemma the church faces when it comes to earth history.

In Ogden, well-known Adventist theologians presented papers arguing that all of the attempts to “reinterpret” the Bible story so it was congruent with the geologic time scale were distortions of the clear meaning of the text. When the Bible speaks of creation in six days, the “days” it has in mind are regular, 24-hour days. They are not epochs or ages. The “creation week” is not a poetic reference to episodic acts of God spread over eons of time. It was a regular week that climaxed in the Sabbath.

In the past Adventists and other Christians have proposed various schemes to coordinate the fossil record and Genesis. One of the more notable Adventist attempts was Jack Provonsha's proposal of a Satanic creation prior to creation week. The fossils are a record of his work! In Ogden and in the succeeding conferences no mediating position or “gap theory” was considered worthy of the slightest consideration. We face a stark choice: an earth history derived from the Bible story–6 days/6000 years –or an earth history derived from geology–millions and billions of years. There is no middle ground.

The Adventist reading of the Bible is strongly supported by most contemporary liberal Bible scholarship. Liberal scholars have little patience with attempts to read Genesis through the lenses of contemporary world views. It is an ancient book understandable to an ancient audience

One Adventist theologian, Fritz Guy, retired so his job was not at risk, presented a paper at the first conference in Ogden arguing that the point of Genesis is theology not geology. He argued that attempting to use Genesis as a guide for interpreting the geologic column inescapably leads us into a dead end. We are using the book to answer questions it does not address.

According to Guy, Genesis is best understood as a theological declaration regarding the ultimate source, meaning and purpose of life. This truth stands regardless of our geological theories. How can evolution with its dreary history of predation and pain be reconciled with a God of love? Guy argues this is answered in part by the Cross. God is present in suffering, not just in tranquility and bliss. And it is no more difficult a problem than the question of God’s integrity if we argue he created a world that appears to be old but in reality isn't.

Guy's paper created a stir in the conference. These ideas were common outside of Adventism, but here was someone inside the church boldly arguing for us to let go of our fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. In the final conference in Denver Guy's ideas were not represented on the agenda. Only the mildest expressions of liberal thought were included.

There was another paper at the Ogden conference that boldly articulated a liberal position. It was by Brian Bull. He described the soul-bending strain of working in a church institution where he is expected to believe the dogma of the church while working in a research environment where the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to a long biochronology. For fifteen years he had kept to himself the inescapable implications for earth history of his own work. Like Guy, Bull's employment was no longer vulnerable, so he could speak freely. And like Guy, Bull's views were not represented in the final conference.



The second year's conference for North America was held at Glacier View Camp. Unlike the Ogden and Denver meetings, where the speakers were carefully selected and heavily weighted toward the defense of tradition, the Glacier View organizer welcomed pretty much everyone who wished to participate. As a result, this conference included many presentations that bluntly raised challenges to traditional Adventist creationism. Most of the challenges were raised by scientists--biologists, geologists, physicists. They were not saying they disbelieved 6 days/6000 years, they merely presented solid physical evidence that no one had found any way of making sense of in the context of a short chronology.

Toward the end of the week I was asked to work with two or three other people to craft a consensus statement. However, it turned out there was hardly anything we could say together. We all agreed God was the first word, the first reality, the foundation of not only life, but the universe itself. After that, we diverged.



The Denver conference was again organized by the General Conference and was by invitation only. It brought together an international group of presidents, theologians and scientists. The agenda and speakers were carefully controlled. As in Ogden, I was present but not a participant. The papers were a rehash of traditional Adventist scholarship in defense of 6 days/6000 years. There was relatively little science presented. When science was addressed it was usually from the perspective of philosophy of science. We were repeatedly reminded that science itself is a world view. It is not a value-neutral printout of nature, but is shaped by the worldviews of individual scientists and the science community.

One of the more pugnacious presenters was Fernando Canale. He constantly lamented the shallowness and lack of sophistication in Adventist philosophical discourse and none-too-subtly claimed for himself the requisite sophistication. He said, “The conflict between [creation and evolution metanarratives] then, will never be solved rationally, only eschatologically.” In other words, creationists cannot win the argument in this world, but we will win in the next world. He would be appalled at this simplification of his sophistication, but his view can be reduced to this: The only way to know the truth is to ignore science and form your world view wholly by reading the Bible.

It's a curious argument because the very language he uses to make this argument is not the language of heaven, but the earthy medium of English. And if he pushes us to be more “biblical” and master Hebrew and Greek, we are still working with the very earth-bound tools of lexicons and grammars which are informed in part by the findings of the ultimate earth-bound science, archeology.

It is not possible to put off our “truth finding” to a heavenly future, nor to limit our present quest for truth to Bible reading alone. We can't wait for heaven to make decisions. And we can't read the Bible without the aid of extra-biblical sources like dictionaries, grammars, and commentaries—all of which are shaped by earth-bound scholarship.

When this last conference was over a committee published a report. It was eight pages of reassurance that the Adventist Church remains fully committed to 6 days/6000 years. It affirmed repeatedly the priority of the Bible over science. Science is valuable, but any time there is conflict between the claims of science and the words of the Bible, the Bible must take precedence. The church is a theological society and theologians rule.

The report included three sentences that attempted to make room in the Church for scientists. Where Adventists in the past often dismissed scientists as infidels in search of a justification for their rejection of God and moral obligations, the committee wrote that the Church's disagreement with evolution “does not imply depreciation of either science or the scientist.” In a careful sentence that began by assuring readers that most of the people involved in these conferences held to our traditional views of earth history, “we recognize that some among us interpret the biblical record in ways that lead to sharply different conclusions.” Finally, the committee explicitly honored the value of scientific endeavor: “We accept that both theology and science contribute to our understanding of reality.”

The Church cannot change. We believe life first appeared during Creation week six thousand years ago. No matter what evidence a scientist may bring to the table, it is impossible for us to be convinced otherwise. We know already.

On the other hand, we cannot bring ourselves to excommunicate our scientists. We won't let them voice their opinions publicly. We will not hire them to teach in our schools if they say out loud they doubt 6 days/6000 years. But we want them as part of our church. We value them as persons even though we must reject their expertise.

This ambivalence was dramatically illustrated in an exchange at the Denver Faith and Science Conference. The setting was a panel discussion. On stage were Fernando Canale and two or three other strident conservatives who had pushed for the gathering to vote a resolution calling for sanctions against Adventist faculty who could not fully, unreservedly affirm 6 days/6000 years.

A theologian posed a question to the panel: “I held evangelistic meetings some years ago. A man attended the meetings and asked to be baptized. He was already attending church. He was keeping Sabbath at some considerable cost to himself. And he was paying tithe. However, he told me he had one problem. He just could not believe in a short chronology. My question to you: Would you baptize him?”

Canale responded: “That is not the question before us. We are here to debate the official doctrine of the church. And on that we must be crystal clear. We are talking about what is to be taught and preached in our church.”

The theologian would not let it go. He stood up. “We are a church not a theological society. What we say here and decide here is not merely about employment and doctrinal statements. You have made strong statements about the boundaries of acceptable thought. You've drawn lines and excluded people. I want to know, would you have baptized that scientist who came to my meetings.”

Canale hemmed and hawed. “The actual decision about baptizing someone is a pastoral decision that must be made with a full knowledge of the person. It's between the pastor and the person he's studying with.”

“But in this case the issue was clear. He didn't have secret personal issues. On the other hand he had a definite, explicit disagreement with our doctrine. He did not believe 6 days/6000 years. Would you baptize him?”

“Yes. Yes. If it comes to it. Based on what you've told us, yes, I would baptize him.”

The other conservatives on the panel agreed. Yes, they too, would have baptized the man in spite of his defective views on earth history.


Ultimately, it seems that the same force that has driven me to become a liberal is at work in the church as a whole—a high regard for individual human beings, a regard that sometimes overrides even our orthodoxy, our need to be right and make sure others do right.


In 2007, I resigned as editor of Adventist Today and embraced fully the obscurity of being “just a pastor.” The “guardians of orthodoxy” have pretty much left me alone. Those who sought my ouster—Robert Folkenberg, Al McClure, and Jerry Patzer—are gone. I am left free to serve my people. I preach sermons and visit people in the hospital. I officiate at weddings and dedicate babies. I listen to stories of hope and triumph and failure and grief and defeat. I share life with a group of saints and occasionally keep company with sinners. I see my primary job as making room in the family of God for people who might not otherwise know they are welcome. It seems to me that's not too far removed from the mission of our Master.