Chapter 69 The Grand Dilemma is my last chapter.
If you have read this far and have any comments, they are welcome. I've thought of publishing this as an ebook. Your opinion on that would be especially welcome.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
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.
Chapter 68 Faith and Science Conferences
Faith
and Science Conferences
In
2001, the Church announced it was going to hold a three year cycle of
conferences on Faith and Science. Among Adventists, “Faith and
Science” are code words for earth history. The Bible says “In six
days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is
in them.” Genealogies give 4000 B. C. as an approximate date of
that creation. The fossil record says single-celled organisms
appeared on earth and over long ages evolved into modern life forms.
Current conventional geochronolgy dates the beginning of this process
at about 3.8 billion years ago.
Publicly,
the Adventist Church had always been absolutely confident in 6
days/6000 years. Every article on the subject published in
denominational magazines, every chapter in every book published by
the denomination presented 6 days/6000 years as the clear teaching of
the Bible and the best interpretation of scientific data.
In
fact, for decades Adventist academics had debated the tension between
the physical evidence and the Biblical narrative. In conversations
with scientists I would hear about meetings convened to explore
issues of origins. But I never saw any reports of these meetings in
any denominational publications. In the years immediately before
these Faith and Science Conferences, one of the outcomes of these
closeted discussions was the general abandonment of the Ecological
Zonation Theory. This had been Harold Clark's attempt to reconcile
the geologic column with the Flood. At the time he proposed it, it
was welcomed as a creative, responsible effort to be faithful to both
the Bible and geology. But over time its supposed fit with the
paleontological record proved untenable and it quietly disappeared
from serious Adventist discussion of origins. These debates were
never publicized. The papers presented were not widely circulated. As
far as the larger church was concerned, Adventist scholars were
universally confident of the scientific defensibility of our creation
orthodoxy.
Now
the Church was publicly acknowledging there were issues to be
explored. I read the announcement of the Faith and Science
Conferences with mixed feelings. My ambivalence was shared by others.
Conservatives worried the conferences would bring into the open the
paucity of scientific support for Adventist creationism. This could
be the first step down the slippery slope. Liberals worried precisely
the opposite. Bringing into the open the pervasiveness of doubts
among Adventist science professors about the plausibility of 6
days/6000 years might become the catalyst for a purge.
It
was impossible for the Church to change its doctrine. Twenty million
people looked to the Church as their home, their spiritual guide. At
least ninety-five percent of these believers had unquestioning
confidence in our historic doctrine of Creation and 6 days/6000
years. They not only believed this is what the Bible teaches, they
were sure there was massive scientific support for a recent creation
and a world wide flood. If the denomination gave any sign of waffling
on this doctrine it would unsettle the faith of millions.
On
the other hand, no amount of pontification would change the fact that
the weight of scientific evidence in support of an ancient creation
was constantly augmenting. Those closest to the argument were being
driven increasingly to the choice between utterly irreconcilable
authorities—the Bible and Nature.
The
only way forward for the Church that I could imagine was to reaffirm
what it had always
believed while perhaps acknowledging that
individuals in the church were driven to aberrant views through
honest, conscientious study.
The
first conference brought together a select group of Adventist
presidents, theologians and scientists from all over the world. They
met at a hotel Ogden, Utah. I never heard why such an out-of-the-way
location was chosen. I theorized it was to isolate the conference
from the potential of being swamped by interested lay people.
The
publisher of Adventist Today tried to secure an invitation to the
conference for me as the editor of Adventist Today. Elder Lowell
Cooper, the General Conference vice president organizing the
conference responded that he could not allow Adventist Today access
as a matter of fairness. If he allowed us in how could he say no to
all the other people who were also clamoring for access to the
meetings?
I
replied to Elder Cooper that I understood his position and respected
it, however, as the editor of a magazine committed to transparency
and openness in the church, I was obligated to come to the conference
venue and report as effectively as I could even if I did not attend
the meetings.
On
the shuttle from the airport to the hotel, I visited with a
conservative theology teacher from Southern Adventist University. (Of
course, there are only conservative
theology
teachers at SAU.) We had not met before but we knew of each other by
reputation. He said he'd often read Adventist Today. His highest
priority was to preserve the Church’s mission. God’s remnant
church was called to preach God’s authority as Creator and
Lawgiver. Surely, if the Church compromised its commitment to a
literal reading of Genesis, it would lose its distinctiveness. It
would lose its reason for existence.
I
talked about the need for the Church to provide spiritual care for
its scientists who were compelled by the evidence they worked with
every day to believe life had been here a lot longer than six
thousand years. He acknowledged my concern without giving an inch in
his commitment to enforced doctrinal rectitude in Adventist
education.
At
the hotel I fell into conversation with a couple of physics
professors. Their most optimistic dream for the conference was that
there would be significant discussion of the issues and no consensus
statement would be made. Because, they said, they could not imagine
any conceivable “consensus statement” they could assent to.
That
evening as I was eating at a small restaurant across the street from
the hotel, a member of the organizing committee, found me and said he
was bringing me a personal invitation from Lowell Cooper to
participate fully in the meetings throughout Sabbath. Once the
conference proper started on Sunday morning, I would need to be
excluded, but until then I was welcome, including sharing meals. I
was touched by this courtesy.
I
hurried over to the meeting as soon as I finished my burrito. When I
walked into the meeting room, people were gathered in groups. I
stood there for a minute or two trying to see what was going on. Joe
Galusha, a biologist friend, came over and explained they were
gathered in groups according to the month of their birthdays. I
found the March group. It consisted of Marvin Moore, Bob Cushman and
Ed Zinke. Our assignment was to tell one another what we hoped
for from the meeting.
Marvin
and Bob both hoped for civility, openness and genuine dialogue (my
words but their sentiments). Ed Zinke spoke of recently rereading
The
Great Controversy with
its championship of “the Bible and Bible Only” and its promise
there would be a people in the last days who would accept the Bible
above the false dogmas of science or any other source of knowledge.
Zinke hoped the conference would result in a strong affirmation that
Adventists were “that people.” (Ed was a trained theologian, but
he was working as an executive in his wife's natural foods business.
I strongly suspected his dollars had more to do with his presence
than his scholarship.) I then talked about my desire for openness to
ideas and to people so that our children would not be squeezed out of
the church.
After
the group split up, Ed and I prayed together. They were clumsy
prayers. What each of us really wanted, was divine intervention
against the views the other represented. Ed represented to me the
kind of doctrinaire biblicism that would exclude most scientists from
the church. To him, I was the most dangerous kind of liberal–claiming
to love and respect the church while questioning the fundamental
assumption underlying its authority. He prayed truth would triumph. I
prayed for the triumph of love.
After
this small group exercise, we reassembled for the keynote address by
Jan Paulsen, the General Conference president. He mentioned that this
series of conferences grew out of a request originally voted by the
Geoscience Research Institute (GRI) in 1998. GRI was the church
office tasked with studying and defending the Church's doctrine of
creation. In 1998, he, Paulsen, had been a vice-president of the
Church and the chair of the GRI board. So, he said, we could
understand his personal interest in the matters before us at the
conference.
He
appealed for civility and mutual respect in our interactions, a firm
confidence in the Bible as the word of God, a healthy skepticism
about some of the claims of science, an openness to learn new things,
an awareness of the world church and its members. He specifically
questioned the uniformitarian ideas that undergird radiometric
dating. He did not expect the conference to settle once and for all
the questions surrounding origins.
The
Sabbath morning sermon was preached by Dwight Nelson. He did a good
job rhetorically. He tried to be civil, but in the end argued that
science is irrelevant to the study of earth history. He argued our
theory of earth history (at least that portion of earth history which
involves fossils) must be compatible with the God of love described
in 1 John 4. Perfect love casts out all fear. Since evolution
necessarily involves fear it cannot have been God’s mode of
creation. No matter what scientists find in their research, their
conclusions must reconciled with the fact that life first appeared on
earth 6000 years ago. Dwight told of listening to scientists as they
struggled with the issues of earth history, but it was clear he
listened only as a pastor. He worried about their struggles. He had
no interest in their data. His own understanding of earth history was
impervious to any so-called evidence that contradicted it.
After
lunch, most of the conference participants went to Temple Square in
Salt Lake City. I was invited by a scientist to join a group headed
out to look at geology. We examined horn corals in an exposure of
limestone in a road cut. A paleontologist familiar with area talked
about the difficulty of accounting for the ecological assemblage in
this formation if it had been deposited by the flood. Further east we
looked at varves in a mudstone formation exposed in a canyon wall.
Varves are layers of sediment laid down in lakes. The time it takes
for one layer to form can vary from hours to years. In one part of
the wall neat horizontal layers had been dramatically scrunched
together and folded. The group had no particular interest in how this
formation fit into Creationist or Evolutionist macro theories. They
were just studying rocks and enjoying the commentary of the
paleontologist who had studied the area and knew something of the
overall geology.
Throughout
the afternoon we observed the dramatic wave cut benches that mark the
varying water levels of Lake Bonneville, a huge Pleistocene lake
whose surface had been 400 feet higher than the present elevation of
the Great Salt Lake. Lake Bonneville would have inundated all the
present cities along the front of the Wasatch range–Provo, SLC,
Ogden, Logan.
We
returned to the hotel for a presentation by retired theologian George
Reid. He began by narrating an encounter he had with students from
Wesley Seminary which is located at American University in the D. C.
area. He made much of the school's loss of religious identity. He
said these students were fascinated by the way the Adventist story
integrates so much of human experience and scripture. They went from
curiosity to fascination.
He
referred to the collapse of membership among mainline Protestants
over the past 30 years and warned that if we compromised on our
commitment to the plenary authority of the Bible we would follow them
into decline.
Late
that evening I was visiting in the lobby when I saw William Johnson,
editor of the official church paper, The Adventist Review, and Don
Schneider, president of the Church in North America. They had just
arrived from the airport after speaking appointments elsewhere
earlier in the day. I walked over to greet them while they were
waiting to register at the front desk. Bill reached out to shake my
hand,then embraced me. He immediately asked if there were going to be
field trips. I told him, No there were not field trips planned, that
I wasn’t an official participant, that I was there as a
representative for Adventist Today. He then asked in kind of an
agitated way, “Why are they having the conference here?”
I got
the impression that he felt quite put out by the location and was
expecting the adventure and stimulation of field trips as at least
partial compensation for traveling to such a place for this
conference. I was flattered he thought I would know information he
was not yet privy to. He then turned to introduce me to Schneider.
Schneider brushed aside the introduction. “Of course, I know John.”
Then responding to my remark that I wasn’t officially invited, he
asked, “Well, the meetings are open aren’t they?”
“No,
they aren’t.” I said. “I guess they were worried too many
crazies would show up if they opened the meetings to everyone.” He
shook his head and they turned to greet others. I went to bed.
Sunday
morning the conference got down to business. I was excluded from the
meetings, but through friends had access to all the papers and
reports on the debates.
Chapter 67 Pastor and Editor
Pastor
and Editor
Leaving
Voice of Prophecy and becoming “just a pastor” did not remove all
the tension between my roles as church employee and editor of an
independent news magazine. I believed I was serving the larger good
of the Adventist Church in my role as editor. The church needed the
scrutiny of an independent press. On the other hand, I was
sympathetic to the pressures that sometimes drove administrators and
committees to take actions that from the outside appeared
indefensible.
The
potential for conflict between my dual commitment to the moral
integrity of the church and its reputation was demonstrated shortly
after we moved to Washington. The General Conference president,
Robert Folkenberg, was caught in a financial scandal. I never learned
who blew the whistle on him, but other people in the top leadership
of the denomination challenged him. His behavior was reminiscent of
the abuse of position characteristic of Central American despots. I
wondered at the time if his many years living in Central America had
blinded him to the standards for avoiding conflict of interest that
we take for granted in the U. S.
Adventist
Today began reporting the story on our web site with information fed
to us from church insiders. At the height of the crisis we were
getting 10,000 hits per day as people around the world followed the
story.
Later,
I was told by people in the General Conference that if it had not
been for the Adventist Today reporting, Folkenberg may well have
weathered the conflict and remained in office. If the matter had
remained “in house,” if it had been processed only by church
officials meeting in formal committees, Folkenberg's supporters may
well have been able to push back against those calling him to
account. After all, his behavior would have been considered quite
unremarkable in most of the world where most Adventists live. (More
than 90 percent of the denomination lives in developing nations where
the “privileges of power” are often taken for granted, more so
than in the West.) The thousands of people following the story
through the Adventist Today web site strengthened the hand of the
reformers. In the end Folkenberg resigned.
One
of the curious features of this episode was the flood of accusations
sent our way without permission to name sources. Missionaries who had
worked with Folkenberg alleged frequent irregularities in the way he
dealt with customs. It was the kind of venality frequently mentioned
by my parents in their stories about their missionary friends in
Central America, though in Folkenberg's case it was taken to a
“higher level” and with a direct personal benefit that was
missing from the stories I was familiar with. People who told these
stories sometimes were terrified of what would happen to them or
their relatives in denominational employment if Folkenberg learned
they had talked to us. He was seen as a highly effective
administrator and ruthless. We published none of these rumors. But I
could not help being influenced. We had no way to check the
authenticity of all these accusations. But with all the smoke it was
hard not to think there was probably a fire.
When
I was offered the position of editor, I told the Adventist Today
committee that I was exploring the possibility of another job and a
new job might take me out of southern California. We agreed that if I
did move out of the area, I would resign. So, sometime in 1999, I
tendered my resignation. It was rejected. So I continued on balancing
the competing demands of pastoring and editing, both of which
deserved my entire attention.
After
my resignation was rejected, I called Jere Patzer, the president of
the North Pacific Union (the denominations regional body). Patzer was
a famous (or notorious, depending on your perspective) conservative.
Not only was his theology classic old school Adventism, he was an
activist, driving administrator. He and I already had a bit of
history. A few months before moving to Washington, we had decided to
publish a transcript of speech Patzer had given. When I contacted him
about publishing the piece, he said he didn't feel free to give me
permission to publish it because of “counsel” he had received
from Elder Folkenberg. I told him I wasn't asking permission. His
speech was in a public setting. It addressed issues of interest to
the larger Adventist population. We were going to publish it with or
without his permission. And he could quote me to Folkenberg. I went
on to say, that while I was not giving him a choice about whether or
not we published his speech, I was offering him the opportunity to
edit it with a view toward publication. I offered to edit it and send
my version to him for review. He agreed. He approved the final
version we published.
So,
now that I was pastoring in his territory, I figured we better have
an understanding. When I called, our conversation went something like
this.
“Hi
Elder Patzer. I'm just calling to let you know I've moved to
Washington. My plan had been that when I moved here I would resign as
the editor of Adventist Today, but they have refused my resignation.
So I will continue. I know that you have a lot of influence here and
you could get rid of me if you wished, so I'm calling to persuade you
to leave me alone.”
“Okay,
give it a shot.”
“I
often hear from Adventist professionals who tell me they were
thinking of leaving the church. Then someone sent them an issue of
Adventist Today. They became subscribers and now the magazine is
their primary connection with the church. Many of these professionals
are sending their children to Adventist academies and colleges. If
these professionals decide to leave the church, the church will not
lose just them. It will lose them and their children and their
grandchildren.
“If
they stay in the church, even if their personal religion is not up to
par, they will send their children to Adventist schools. The church
will have an opportunity to present our faith in its entirety to the
next generations. If these families leave, they may well never
hear the Adventist message. As professionals they are unlikely to
attend an evangelistic meeting. So, I think it serves the purposes
even of the institutional church to keep me as the editor of
Adventist Today and as a pastor in the employment of the church.”
Patzer
agreed to give me some space. He was not giving me carte blanche, but
he would wait and see. Some months later, I called him again.
“Elder
Patzer,” I said. “I've been reading over the schedule for the
upcoming Union Ministerial Meetings.” (This was a week-long
conference/continuing education extravaganza held every five years in
connection with elections of officers for the Northwest region of the
denomination. There were a couple of plenary sessions daily and a
wide variety of seminar-style presentations.) I said to Patzer, “I
don't see a single presentation in the entire conference that even
hints of connecting with the more liberal wing of the church. You
should have at least one seminar that addresses how to communicate
our faith to a liberal or secular audience. I could do that for you.
I have an approach to the Sabbath that very effectively engages
people outside our usual devout Christian audience. I think you
should include me on the schedule.”
“Send
me a manuscript and let me take a look at it.”
I
emailed him the manuscript of my presentation, “Sabbath, a Park in
Time.” He put me on the seminar schedule.
Patzer
eventually wearied of tolerating me and pressured the local
conference president to get rid of me. But to my surprise two
successive local presidents resisted his pressure. I remained
employed by the church.
Chapter 66 Incompatibility
There
were some obvious incongruences between my identity as the
writer/producer of the Voice of Prophecy and my identity as the
editor of Adventist Today. While in the days of its founder H. M. S.
Richards, Sr., Voice of Prophecy had been a venturesome and even
controversial ministry, over the decades it had been one of the most
venerable institutions in the Adventist Church. It was a trusted
brand—by church administrators, by pastors, by the laity.
Adventist
Today, on the other hand, was an upstart. It was controversial by
nature. It was feared and disliked by church administrators. It was
condemned by many conservative members for “tearing down” the
church. Even though I aspired to give the magazine a more positive
focus, there was no escaping the fact the had published and would
continue to publish articles that gave attention to scandals in
church administration and to the challenges to Adventist orthodoxy
that arose primarily from academics and intellectuals.
In
accepting the editorship I knew I was risking my employment. At
minimum I knew I was closing the possibility for any “upward”
move in the denomination. I took the position for a couple of
reasons. First, it was offered. My guess is I would have gladly
worked for any of the Adventist journals—The Adventist Review,
Signs of the Times, Ministry. By this time, after six years of
constant writing, I was confident of my ability to put Adventist
beliefs into good words. I could have served usefully as an associate
in any of these denominational publications.
Second,
it offered an avenue of ministry most closely aligned with what I saw
as my special gifts. The target audience was educated, intellectual
Adventists. I was confident I could articulate an attractive vision
of Adventism to this demographic. I strongly suspected that people in
that demographic were more likely to read a “defense of the faith”
if it was published in an independent magazine. The independence and
controversial nature of the magazine which alienated church
administrators were precisely the credentials I needed to be able to
gain the attention of these people with Adventist roots and skeptical
natures.
Curiously
it was not my work as editor of Adventist Today that got me in hot
water with denominational leaders. It was the paper I presented at
the Faith and Science Conference at Andrews University. As I
mentioned in an earlier chapter, conservatives at the Seminary
thanked me for my presentation. They would not have agreed with
everything I said, but they affirmed the pastoral concern I called
for, and they appreciated my public stance which they imagined
enlarged the thinking room in the church. My public articulation of
my views helped create space for conservatives to creatively wrestle
with the issues involved in theology and earth history.
A
couple of months after the conference, I was summoned to a meeting of
the program department, the manager of Voice of Prophecy and
Melashenko. Melashenko led the meeting.
“I've
received a letter from Al McClure (the president of the Adventist
Church in the U.S. And Canada) with a note by Elder Folkenberg (the
president of the international church). They have asked me about your
employment here at the Voice of Prophecy. They have read a paper you
wrote about evolution and the Sabbath. They believe it reflects
negatively on the ministry of the Voice of Prophecy.”
I
was surprised. I had not published the paper. Not that it was private
or secret, but I certainly had no idea that the presidents of the
North American Division and the General Conference were reading what
I wrote.
Melashenko
tried to ease the sting of his message by comparing my situation to
his embarrassment a month or two earlier when he had written a
strongly-worded defense of an evangelist who had been accused of a
romp with a mistress. A few weeks later video of the evangelist and
the woman turned up, video the evangelist himself had taken!
Melashenko had egg all over his face.
I
strongly disagreed with the parallel Melashenko was attempting to
draw. I pointed out that in his case, once he knew the facts and
faced the consequences of his letter, he strongly wished he had never
written it. I was not embarrassed. I had written my paper after
decades of studying the facts. Facing the reality of negative
consequences from writing the paper, I would do it again gladly
because my commitment to pastoral care for scientists in the church
was greater than my commitment to career preservation.
A
few weeks later, Cyril Miller, one of the vicepresidents of the
General Conference and the chairman of the Voice of Prophecy board,
was on campus. He came to see me. I enjoyed the visit immensely, for
all the wrong reasons. Miller had a reputation as a tough, even
ruthless, administrator. I had heard stories of people called into
his office. However, instead of calling me into a conference room or
some other place for a private conversation, he came to my cubicle.
His
demeanor appeared mild and diffident. My read was that he suddenly
realized that cubicles offer no privacy. Everything we said could be
heard over the partitions. Or perhaps his reputation was undeserved.
In any case there was no bullying on his part. We had a respectful
conversation about my plans. He explained that the reason the church
presidents were so concerned about my paper was my identity as a
writer/producer at the Voice of Prophecy. That was a high status
position in the denomination. They could not afford to have someone
in a position with so great responsibility questioning our absolute
commitment to creationism. He was happy to hear that I was pursuing
employment elsewhere.
Suddenly,
I had a new worry. “I have a question.” I said. “ Let's say I
get a job as a pastor somewhere. And I pack up my family and we move.
How far are you guys going to chase me? I don't want to move away
from all my friends and support system here only to end up jobless
and friendless in a strange place six months later.”
“Oh,
you don't need to worry about that. If you are just a pastor, your
views won't be a matter of concern.”
I
have often replayed those words: If you're just a pastor . . .”
In
October of 1998 we moved to Washington where I became pastor of North
Hill Christian Fellowship, a six-year-old congregation in the suburbs
of Tacoma.
Monday, January 9, 2012
65. Geochronology, the Sabbath and Death before Sin
Note: This is a paper I presented in July, 1998, at a conference on faith and science at Andrews University, sponsored by Andrews and the North American Department of Education. There are several references to the paper on the web, but the actual text is not available elsewhere, so I'm posting it here. To be clear: I'm posting as a historical document not because I think it represents the latest and best thinking on the subject.
GEOCHRONOLOGY,
THE SABBATH AND DEATH BEFORE SIN
John
McLarty
Abstract:
McLarty identifies the seventh-day Sabbath as crucial for SDA
self-understanding and unity, but questions our use of the Sabbath as
an epistemological principle. High regard for the Sabbath and for
conventional geochronology are not mutually exclusive. One possible
solution is to see the Genesis One account as a poetic expansion of a
creation event that lasted one week but which was a local creation of
a habitat for humanity rather than the creation of all fauna, flora,
and land forms. The paper also includes some hypotheses regarding
death before sin.
Sabbath
afternoon in Zion National Park. There were four of us, an engineer,
a geologist, an entomologist and a theologian. The topic of
conversation? Earth history, of course. And not the date of the Big
Bang or the age of Precambrian granites, but the question of when
life first appeared on earth.
We
all freely acknowledged the paucity of our knowledge. We admitted
the existence of problematic data no matter what position we took.
There wasn’t much dogmatism that day. But then someone raised the
question I’ve heard in nearly every Adventist discussion of
geochronology: What about the Sabbath? Isn’t a literal
interpretation of Genesis One1
and the seventh-day Sabbath inextricably linked? If we give up our
belief that all terrestrial life forms have their ultimate origin in
a single week a few thousand years ago won’t we also lose the
Sabbath?
After
kicking around some possible solutions to the Sabbath question, the
entomologist raised the other perennial question: If you accept
conventional geochronology, then how do you handle the matter of
death before sin?
The
question about the Sabbath is primarily an Adventist question. The
question about death before sin has broad ramifications in classic
Christian theology.
The
Sabbath Issue
Sabbath
comes close to being the essential glue that holds us together. We
can argue about the meaning of the cross, the role of faith and
works, the authority of Ellen White, the nature of
Biblical
revelation/inspiration, the meaning of the Apocalypse, and proper
Christian dress and video customs. But then we come to the end of
the week and interrupt our frenzied lives with
Sabbath
habits—special meals, Sabbath School classes, corporate worship,
distinctive music, even in some places distinctive radio and TV
habits. Sabbath, probably more than any other habit or belief,
connects Adventists across the amazingly diverse
philosophical/theological spectrum of Adventism.
Given
the crucial role Sabbath plays in our Adventist identity, it’s only
natural that devotees of Adventism would vigorously combat anything
that undermines our church’s appreciation of the Sabbath. And
without question, many Adventists, scientists and lay people alike,
have seen conventional geochronology as a serious threat to our
Sabbath doctrine and practice.
I
do not have the chutzpah to suggest this paper can settle all the
questions. But I do insist that what follows demonstrates the
possibility of holding a high regard for Scripture AND an openness to
conventional theories of earth history.
Sabbatholatry.
I
betray my conclusion with my title2.
At times we Adventists talk as though Sabbath is the ultimate test
of Biblical interpretation and scientific veracity. If something
challenges the Sabbath it must be false. In practice we’re
treating the Sabbath as an ultimate epistemological test.
But
Sabbath is not the touchstone of truth. Jesus is. If the starting
point for one’s theology is the historic Adventist understanding of
the mark of the beast, then perhaps we could justify giving Sabbath a
normative role judging truth. But if one’s starting point is more
Christian, that is if our starting point is a conviction that God has
spoken to us through His Son and the record of the Son in The Word,
then it seems to me misguided to make a theory’s implications for
Sabbath-keeping the ultimate litmus test.
What
if we found out the Bible did not teach that ALL terrestrial life
forms originated from the flora and fauna which first appeared during
a seven-day creation week six thousand years ago? What if we
discovered that the Bible did not intend for us to understand that
Australia’s protomarsupials disembarked from Noah’s Ark? Would
we still believe these things to avoid losing the Sabbath? What if
nature itself bore unmistakable witness to several million years of
life history? Would we still insist on a life history in the
magnitude of thousands of years just to preserve the Sabbath?
To
state it bluntly, it would be highly unethical to oppose theories
that were true but which we refused to believe merely because they
contradicted other theories that were precious to us. It would be
unethical to reject a biochronology of millions of years in order to
maintain our Sabbath witness if we, in fact, could locate compelling
evidence for just such a biochronology. Sabbath is precious, but it
does not justify obfuscation. It cannot be made the final measure of
truth.
Old
Earth Sabbath Keepers: Oxymoron or Fact?
Is
the customary Adventist linkage of a young earth and single creation
week with the Sabbath logically or experientially necessary? To
answer the second part of the question first: it is quite possible to
be a devotee of the Sabbath and not believe in conventional SDA
creation chronology. I could name several Adventist scientists and
theologians who do not believe the conventional Adventist
biochronology, but are committed, glad Sabbath keepers.
Experientially the linkage is not essential. (Conversely, some of
the most doctrinaire “young-agers” are Sunday-keepers.)
What
about the logical linkage of Sabbath and geochronology? Can a person
read the Bible with any kind of reverence and still question the
traditional SDA chronology? This question becomes particularly acute
for someone who has grown up in the church believing wholeheartedly
in a conventional short chronology but then encounters what seems to
be irrefutable evidence for a long chronology. If the only way a
person can believe in Sabbath keeping is to first believe in young
earth creationism, then our young people who no longer believe the
traditional short chronology have no choice but to leave the
Adventist Church.
I
am convinced it is quite possible to sustain Sabbath convictions
without belief in a single, seven-day creation week a few thousand
years ago. First of all because of my personal acquaintance with
Sabbath keepers who accept uncritically conventional geochronology.
Secondly, because I see several logical foundations on which to build
a defense of Sabbath-keeping which do not include a literalistic
reading of Genesis One.
Support
for Sabbath other than Genesis 1
How
can a person believe in keeping the seventh-day Sabbath and at the
same time read Genesis One as myth or figurative poetry?
1.
The Sabbath commandment is given twice in the Mosaic corpus: In
Exodus 20 it is said to be rooted in the creation week. In
Deuteronomy it is rooted in Israel’s experience of deliverance from
slavery in Egypt. Sabbatarians have long noted that these are
complementary rather than contradictory rationales for
Sabbath-keeping. However that may be, Deuteronomy gives a distinctly
different basis for Sabbath-keeping from that found in Exodus. In
Deuteronomy the Sabbath commandment is completely independent of the
Creation story.
Deuteronomy
5. Isaiah 58. Jeremiah 17. Ezekiel 20.
2.
The example of Jesus and the Apostles would be quite sufficient as a
rationale for Sabbath-keeping, even if one did not have Genesis One
and Two. The founder of our faith was a Sabbath keeper. He declared
himself “Lord of the Sabbath.” And his followers were Sabbath
keepers in the decades immediately following his death and
resurrection.
3.
The origins of Sunday sacredness are highly suspect. The modern
Protestant practice of reducing Sunday religious practice to church
attendance only, avoiding any pretense of holiness for the day, [see
Dorothy Bass, editor.
Practicing Our Faith,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 1997] is much more defensible on the
basis of ancient Christian practice than Puritan Sunday sacredness.
But it fails to satisfy the human need for a holy day.
Reinterpreting
Genesis 1 and 2
1.
In the Adventist understanding of hell, we have always insisted that
language with obvious chronological meanings must be interpreted in
the light of theology. Chronology is a servant of theology, not the
other way around. When Jesus talked about the unending torment of
gehenna and John wrote about “the smoke of their torment ascending
up forever and ever” we make no apology for insisting that these
chronological statements be reinterpreted in the light of our
conviction that God would not supernaturally sustain life for the
purpose of dispensing unending torment. We understand this language
about unending torment to refer to the unalterability of the verdict
rather than the duration of the punishment.
Applying
this same principle to Genesis One we might read the Creation Week
narrative as a statement of divine intention or attention rather than
as statement of chronology. The story of Genesis One tells us that
Almighty God involved himself with earth and did so at the very
beginning with the ultimate purpose of bringing into existence
creatures capable of intimate fellowship with their Creator.
2.
There are many instances in the Bible of straightforward statements
that we unquestioningly reinterpret because of what we know are “the
facts.” Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar, “you have become great and
grown strong, and your majesty has be come great and reached to the
sky and your dominion to the end of the earth.” Daniel 4:22. The
Mediterranean famine in Joseph’s time was said to be “severe in
all the earth.” Genesis 41:57. Acts refers to a famine which
affected people “all over the world.” Acts 11:28. And Paul
declared the gospel had reached “all the world.” Colossians 1:6.
In every one of these instances we understand “the world” to
refer to a geographical fragment of what we mean by “the world.”
“The world” for these Biblical writers was smaller than what we
mean by the same term.
Applying
this to Genesis One we might conclude that the writer’s global
language referred to events which, from our perspective, were local
rather than global.
2A.
We don’t believe the ancient world view offered in the Bible.
Rev. 7:1 Four corners of the earth. Job 26:8. Wrapping the waters.
Job 9:5,6. pillars. Gen. 7:11; 8:2 Flood gates of heaven.
6.
There are many instances in the Bible of local phenomena being
understood to have global spiritual significance. The divine
selection of Abraham is seen not merely as the launching of a
particular tribe or ethnic group. His choice somehow is a choice for
all mankind. When Isaiah describes the inclusion of non-Jews and
disqualified Jews in the congregation of God’s people (Isaiah 56)
we immediately understand this to portray the inclusion of all kinds
of “unacceptable” people among the people of God. Psalm 87
describes the reckoning of Babylonians, Egyptians and Philistines as
natives of Jerusalem. Preachers immediately broaden this to portray
the inclusion of all kinds of rejects in the people of God.
Gen.
12:1-3 cf. Rom 4
Deut.
4:34 cf. 1 Pet. 2:9
Deut
5:6 cf Rev. 14:12
Isa.
43 and 56: National language which we apply to current believers.
Ps.
87
Rev.
21.
Jerusalem
is used by the New Testament writers as a metaphor for heaven.
Israel is spiritualized to the people of God. Babylon becomes the
forces of evil.
Israel
was challenged to be kind to aliens because they themselves had been
aliens in Egypt. But we apply this to our own treatment of
immigrants. The declaration “you shall love your neighbor as
yourself” comes in a list that includes things like rules for how
many days meat from a sacrifice may be kept and eaten, prohibitions
against interbreeding two different kinds of cattle, interplanting
two crops in a field, cutting the body in mourning or “rounding off
the side-growth of your heads.” But we have no problem at all
separating the enduring, universally applicable rule “love your
neighbor” from the local “do not harm the edges of your beard.”
(All references in this paragraph are from Leviticus 19).
Applying
the same principle to Genesis One, it would be quite possible to
believe both that Genesis One referred to something smaller and more
local than the creation of all fauna, flora and terrestrial landforms
(as well as the sun, moon and stars) and still believe that its words
about the Sabbath teach us something vital for all humanity.
New
Ways of Reading the Bible and Geology
The
last three points in the previous section already suggest
non-traditional (within Adventism) ways of reading the Biblical text
which allow for an easier harmonization of Scripture and conventional
geology. Since I am a theologian, not a scientist, I can more
readily suggest examples of bending that can be done by theologians.
At the same time without any hesitation or timidity I challenge
scientists to question the orthodoxy in their own tradition. The fact
that all geologists believe something doesn’t make it true. I have
worked in the field of manuscript collation and often struggle to
suppress a guffaw or two when I read statements about the “assured
results of scholarship” in connection with textual criticism.
Those “assured results” include huge amounts of conjecture
dignified by age and the academic credentials of the conjecturers.
Earth science has much more data to work with than does textual
criticism, but I doubt the human factors in the respective fields are
much different.
I
challenge scientists to cultivate at least as healthy a skepticism
about the orthodoxy of science as they have about the orthodoxies of
religion. Potentially one of the values of young earth creation
scientists is that they keep the pot boiling. They ask impolite
questions. At times, they make preposterous assertions. They “see”
things that aren’t there. But at least they are roiling the status
quo or in the words of the bumper sticker, they “Question
Authority.”3
Our
great need as Adventists is not for scientists who are committed to
young earth creationism. That presupposes too much; it precludes too
much. But we do need scientists who will actively look for ways to
articulate the agreement of geology and Scripture. We need
scientists conversant with a number of different fields who will look
for ways to interpret the data that are faithful both to the tangible
facts and to the spiritual insight of Scripture.
One
Model
One
way to understand Genesis One is to see it as the poetic expansion or
globalization of a local creation event. Behind Genesis One is a
particular creation week during which God prepared a local habitation
for the first humans, the Garden of Eden.
Moses
took the events of that week and used them to symbolize God’s
global involvement and his anthropocentrism. The week which began
human
history is seen as the beginning of time. The creation of the
animals which supported human life—domestic sheep, domestic cattle,
horses, dogs, camels—is pictured as the creation of all animals.
The creation of the plants on which humans depend—grains, fruit
trees—is portrayed as the creation of all flora.
I’ve
been intrigued by what appears to be a convergence at about ten
thousand years ago of the appearance of Cro-Magnon people, grain
culture, and some domestic animals. Is this “scientific”
evidence for a creation?
This
approach preserves the Adventist understanding of Creation Week as a
literal seven-day period in which God prepared a special habitation
for the primeval humans. His resting at the end of this week would
still have the rich theological meaning expounded by Barth and other
theologians. It would still carry the imperatives Adventists and
other Sabbatarians have preached.
Whether
the first Sabbath came at the end of the week which saw the creation
of all flora, fauna, land forms and celestial bodies or marked the
end of the week in which God climaxed creation history by preparing a
special home and then creating Adam and Eve, Sabbath would remain a
premier expression of God’s desire for relationship with his
creatures. It would speak of grace and obedience.
Why
Should We Bother with Geochronology?
Why
should the SDA denomination publicly open the question of
geochronology? Our system has built a reputation as a defender of a
short geochronology. Many of our members are quite happy with our
current public stance and would be upset if it were altered. So why
bother?
I
have no personal need for my model to be accepted. If tomorrow my
views were declared heretical and I was defrocked and
disfellowshiped, I’m sure it would hurt, but I’d survive. And my
faith in God would survive. I’m too old to change that.
My
concern is not for myself or other “Boomers” but for the young
people I meet who are wrestling with the difference between what they
can believe and what the church declares is essential Adventism.
When a young person goes off to college or graduate school and comes
to the conclusion that short age creationism is not tenable I don’t
want that young person to be forced to choose between the community
of faith and the community of science. These are not mutually
exclusive communities. Many of us who are older have found our own,
at-times- difficult-and-painful way between the conflicting demands
of these communities. We don’t want our children and our
grandchildren to face the same wrenching conflicts we did.
I
remember hearing H. M. S Richards, Jr. speak to the pastors of
Greater New York Conference. Speaking specifically of questions
surrounding earth history he declared, “If you don’t believe it
[the SDA short age tradition], then you should have the courage and
integrity to resign and get out.” I don’t remember if I actually
wrote a resignation letter or if I merely composed it in my mind a
hundred times, but I came very close to resigning. It seemed to me
the only way. This, in spite of having entered the ministry with a
very strong sense of “divine call.”
Several
years later, Richards sat in the committee that interviewed me for a
position as a writer at Voice of Prophecy. In that interview I was
forthright about my geochronological questions. I was hired. But I
doubt I’ll ever forget the months of agony as I weighed the
question: Could I be an Adventist pastor with integrity and still
have the opinions I did about geochronology? I don’t want my
children to endure that kind of pain. Life is hard enough already.
When
Richards made that unequivocal statement to the pastors of Greater
New York Conference, he did not intend to make me unwelcome in the
church. (Witness my hiring by the Voice of Prophecy to write sermons
for him to read on international radio.) He was speaking out of his
profound loyalty to the denomination and his belief at that time that
anyone who questioned traditional SDA earth history was undermining
the Church. I’m not asking the church to re-educate its
grandmothers regarding the proper interpretation of Genesis One. I
am urging us to make room in our church for our children whatever
their persuasions regarding geology.
Columbia,
Missouri story: Man who called me after my letter to the editor
appeared in the Review. He was on the verge of resigning his church
membership because he thought he was the only Adventist with
questions about geochronology. Because I was a minister and had the
same questions he decided there was room in the church for him.
Ladell
Fisher told me her brother was a geologist. He has dropped out of
the church because he could not accept a short chronology.
If
we are honest, we must confront the reality that many of the people
in our denomination who challenge our belief in a short chronology
began their study in pursuit of scientific evidence supportive of our
tradition. They gave up a short chronology only with great
reluctance and in the face of overwhelming evidence. Hare,
Lugenbeal, Ritland, to name some famous ones. And there are many
others as well.
It’s
time to reject chronological concerns as the center of our spiritual
life and theology. In our early days our obsession with chronology
led to the great disappointment. We still like to say we got the
chronology right but the event wrong. Well, maybe something like
that is true with creation week. Yes, something happened a few
thousand years ago. But maybe it wasn’t the first appearance of
life on this planet. Maybe it didn’t involve literally the whole
world. Maybe it wasn’t the first time God intervened on earth.
Maybe it wasn’t the last. And if we got the event wrong, is it all
that significant that we got the date right?
Death
before Sin
What
about death before sin? This question has broad roots in classic
Christian theology. Forgive my giving a ten cent answer to a million
dollar question, but just a few suggestions of some directions we
might look for answers:
The
uniqueness of humans.
All of nature is declared to be God’s doing, to be the fruit of
God’s creativity. But only humans are said to be created IN THE
IMAGE OF GOD. Is immortality part of the imago
dei?
When the Bible declares that Adam and Eve would die if they ate from
the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, did that mean that all of
creation was deathless until that time or that by eating from the
tree humans
would sink to the condition of the animals through their
disobedience? Is it possible that deathlessness a unique gift given
to humans alone of all creation?
The
Tree of Life.
It appears that even Adam and Eve had only conditional immortality.
When separated from the tree of life they died. Would this have been
the result even if they hadn’t sinned? Why did they need to eat
from the tree? The very existence of the tree of life suggests that
Adam and Eve did not live in a deathless world. Did animals eat from
the tree of life also? What if they did? What if they didn’t?
The
difference between pre-fall and post-fall nature.
If there was a deathless world before sin, then pre-fall nature was
so radically different from what it is now that we probably can know
NOTHING of the pre-sin world by studying nature. In fact, the
difference between that world and ours would be so great that the
present world would have to be the result of a complete recreation.
If the deathless world of creation transformed into our world with
its cycles of decay and birth, its predation and parasitism, through
natural processes, it would represent a rate of change that could
easily accommodate the evolutionary changes from the Cambrian through
the Pleistocene in a very few years indeed. I.e. Darwinism is more
plausible.
The
Atonement. Human
death has a unique meaning rooted in the unique position of humans as
the image of God. If we conclude not all death is the result of sin,
that in no way undermines the significance of the cross. In classic
Christian theology, the cross was necessary not because of the
existence of death (human or otherwise) but because of the existence
of sin. And of all terrestrial creatures only humans were capable of
sin. For Almighty God death is an easy problem to solve. The
warping of the moral fabric of the universe by the sinful choices of
humans or “gods” creates a much larger problem. And it was that
warping and associated problems that the death of Jesus addressed.
CONCLUSION
While
Adventists have understandable concerns about potential threats to
our convictions about the Sabbath and our understanding of the
connection between death and sin, openness to conventional
geochronology does not necessarily undermine either doctrinal
cluster. This paper presents just one approach to harmonizing
Adventism and conventional biochronology. If the church were more
open, it is my conviction that the creative tension between devotion
to the Bible and love of the natural sciences would prompt the
publishing of a variety of useful and interesting answers to these
long-standing questions.
_______________________
1Throughout
the article I will refer to Genesis One. I know that the first
creation narrative continues through Genesis 2:3. I also know there
are other passages which refer to the creation story as recounted in
Genesis One. Still it is a convenient shorthand.
2The
formation of the title is taken from the cautionary statements
intended by the words Bibliolatry (worship of the book rather than
the God who stands above the book) and Mariolatry (idolizing Mary
instead of joining her in adoring her Son).
3Okay,
okay. I know there’s another way to view this. It’s possible
that the activism of young-earth creationists has slowed the advance
of science by making it even more politically dangerous for
mainstream scientists to question the orthodoxy of the system. If
you question orthodoxy you have to be very careful to dissociate
yourself from any sympathy for the “crazies.”
___________________
John
McLarty is a writer and producer for The Voice of Prophecy and editor
of Adventist
Today.
The opinions expressed in this paper are entirely his own and do not
necessarily reflect those of The Voice of Prophecy or Adventist
Today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)