Christian Spirituality and Science Issues in the Contemporary World

Volume 10 Issue 1 Chronology, Theology and Geology Article 2

2015

Trouble in Paradise: One Christian Denomination’s Contemporary Struggle Reconciling Science and Belief

Ross Cole Avondale College of Higher Education, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://research.avondale.edu.au/css

Recommended Citation Cole, R. (2015). Trouble in paradise: One Christian denomination’s contemporary struggle reconciling science and belief. Christian Spirituality and Science, 10(1), 23-32. Retrieved from https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol10/iss1/2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Avondale Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Science at ResearchOnline@Avondale. It has been accepted for inclusion in Christian Spirituality and Science by an authorized editor of ResearchOnline@Avondale. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cole: Trouble in Paradise: One Christian Denomination’s Contemporary St

Trouble in Paradise: One Christian Denomination’s Contemporary Struggle Reconciling Science and Belief H Ross Cole School of Ministry and Theology Avondale College of Higher Education Cooranbong, NSW

ABSTRACT Proposed amendments to Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief No. 6 represent an attempt to define acceptable Adventist understandings of creation more tightly and to exclude alternative viewpoints in a creedal fashion. In particular, there ap- pears to be an attempt to exclude anything but a young age for life. One question which may be asked is whether the proposed amendments are in fact sufficient to exclude unwanted views, since there are models which allow for a creation week consisting of seven consecutive, contiguous, literal, twenty-four days, yet which accommodate current scientific understandings in ways recent creationism finds uncomfortable. While group identity is important, a focus on the formulation of tighter belief statements as a means of defining heretics will do little to bring resolution. Such documents can all too easily become primarily instruments of power and exclusion. They indicate a shift in focus from the core of a community’s identity to its borders and that is no advance. Listening to one another may not always bring unanimity of opinion but it should both foster respect and facilitate a deeper and more productive unity than mere uniformity could ever bring.

Keywords: creed, Sabbatarian, fundamental belief, contiguous

INTRODUCTION define more closely the parameters of There is a long history of Christians acceptable belief concerning creation. struggling to reconcile new under- This tightening is being attempted by standings of science with traditional amending the language of its most formulations of faith. The struggle visible and authoritative statement on is not yet over. This article examines this topic, number six of twenty-eight the significance of current attempts statements of fundamental beliefs. in the author’s own denomination, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, to Seventh-day grew out of

23 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2015 1 Christian Spirituality and Science, Vol. 10 [2015], Iss. 1, Art. 2

the remnants of the American Millerite They were wrong. In the 2005 General movement that had (mistakenly) pre- Conference session a new fundamental dicted the second coming of Jesus in belief on spiritual growth was voted as 1843-1844. The Millerite movement belief number eleven. It was perhaps a was interdenominational but in its presage of things to come that the addi- closing months many of its adherents tion rather than the deletion of a belief were excommunicated from their pointed to a tightening rather than a home churches. Understandably, loosening of acceptable belief. Per- these individuals were subsequently haps the denomination was ironically extremely cautious about setting up on the road to creedalism after all. creeds or confessions by which an “in- crowd” group of believers could judge, Proposed amendments to a number exclude, and persecute others counted of the twenty-eight statements of as being part of the “out-crowd.”1 It fundamental belief are currently being was nineteen years before Sabbatarian developed for consideration by the Adventists could even bring them- General Conference session sched- selves to form an organisation, but uled for July 2-11, 2015. Most of the the imperative of mission eventually amendments formulated to date are drove the majority to it. Formally little more than semantic adjustments. adopting a statement of beliefs took However, a different dynamic is at longer, but was perhaps inevitable work with the proposed amendments given the place of doctrine in defining to Fundamental Belief No. 6 on crea- the group’s identity. Early statements tion, where a narrowing of acceptable of belief were largely informal infor- options is certainly in view. mational descriptors.2 The main body of this article will In 1980 a statement of twenty-seven examine the proposed amendments to fundamental beliefs was for the first the statement of the fundamental belief time adopted as amended by vote concerning creation and the intentions at a General Conference session. It that seem to be behind them. It will was prefaced by a qualification that then consider whether the proposed the language of these beliefs could changes are sufficient to accomplish be updated by vote of future General these intentions. Next it will explore Conference sessions as better ways the agenda behind the intentions. Fi- of expressing the Church’s positions nally it will ask whether there might were found. This qualification com- be a more productive way forward by forted those adherents who feared a which the denomination can discuss creed might indeed be under formula- the issue of creation. tion, although many doubted change would ever come.

24 https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol10/iss1/2 2 Cole: Trouble in Paradise: One Christian Denomination’s Contemporary St

THE PROPOSED 17:24; Col. 1:16; Heb. 11:3; Rev AMENDMENTS TO 10:6; 14:7). SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF The extra biblical references inserted NUMBER SIX at the end of the statement do not con- The following paragraph has been stitute a change of belief. The same developed by conflating the current cannot be said of the other proposed statement of belief on creation with the changes. In this section we will first draft of a reworded statement brought consider the intentions behind the to a committee of which the author is description of God as having revealed a member. Proposed deletions from in Scripture “the authentic and histori- the present statement of belief are cal account of His creative activity” struck out and proposed additions are rather than simply as having revealed marked in italics: in Scripture “the authentic account of His creative activity”. Secondly, God is Creator of all things, and we will explore the significance of has revealed in Scripture the au- describing the six-day creation as thentic and historical account of recent. Thirdly, we will examine why His creative activity. In six days the expression “the sea and all that is a recent six-day creation the Lord in them” replaces “and all living things made “the heaven and the earth”, upon the earth.” Fourthly, we will the sea and all that is in them" and consider why it has been felt necessary all living things upon the earth, and to qualify the creative work as being rested on the seventh day of that “performed and completed during six first week. Thus He established the literal days.” Fifthly, we consider why Sabbath as a perpetual memorial it is said that these days “together with of His completed creative work the Sabbath constituted a week as we performed and completed during experience it today.” six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted a week as An Authentic and Historical we experience it today. The first Account man and woman were made in The description of the creation account the image of God as the crowning as not only authentic but historical is work of Creation, given dominion a tacit acknowledgment that a piece of over the world, and charged with literature can be considered authentic responsibility to care for it. When even if it is not considered historical. the world was finished it was “very On a similar disjunction, Seventh- good,’’ declaring the glory of God. day Adventists have long known that (Gen. 1&2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1- “real” and “literal” are not synonyms. 6; 33:6, 9; 104; Isa. 45:12; Acts Jesus is the true Lamb of God (John

25 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2015 3 Christian Spirituality and Science, Vol. 10 [2015], Iss. 1, Art. 2

1:29) but he is not a literal lamb. Ad- The Adventist prophet, Ellen G. ventist belief in the non-immortality White, periodically wrote of the Earth of the soul is thoroughly inconsistent being “almost” or “about” six thou- with a literal reading of Jesus’ ac- sand years old. She may, however, count of the rich man and Lazarus have been simply using the chronol- (Luke 16:19-31). Church members ogy of Archbishop Ussher found in recognise this as a parable, much like the margins of many Bibles of her day. Abimelech’s account of talking trees That she would have approved of the in Judges 9, and hence do not read it use of incidental references made then literally. to settle a matter of informed debate today is a dubious proposition at best.3 Nor does Gen 1-2 have to be consid- One suspects that an earlier draft revi- ered as parabolic for the point to stand. sion spoke of a six-day creation “about These chapters and maybe the whole six thousand years ago” but that this of Gen 1-11may be a sui generis of was amended to “recent” in an attempt primeval history that describes the in- to preserve White’s intent without fall- describable in common terms because ing into too strict a creedal position. we could not comprehend it any other However, the substitution is so open way. Much hangs on the genre clas- it hardly clarifies anything. sification. The addition of the word “historical” is an attempt to invalidate The Heaven, the Earth, the Sea and models which attempt to reconcile All That Is in Them Gen 1-2 with current scientific and The current fundamental belief state- anthropological accounts. ment speaks of the creation of “the heaven, the earth, and all living things A Recent Creation upon the earth”. There is a reason for The use of the adjective “recent” is this language. Seventh-day Adventists clearly intended to preclude the idea have never believed that heaven as the that life has been on Earth for eons. dwelling place of God and the angels Of course, “recent” is a relative term. came into being during the creation One can speak of creation being six week. As they see it, Satan as Lucifer thousand years ago and call it “recent”. fell before this event and in the context But if one speaks of the recent publi- of the foundations of the Earth being cation of a book, six thousand years laid (Job 38:4, 6). Job 38:7 speaks of would be too long a period by far. If how “all the sons of God shouted for God himself is the measure of the ages, joy.” Many Seventh-day Adventists “recent” becomes a far less definitive see the stars as having been created term than if cosmic time is the meas- long before the six days of creation.4 ure. In fact it becomes useless. Thus, although eons of life on Earth may be problematic to them the vast

26 https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol10/iss1/2 4 Cole: Trouble in Paradise: One Christian Denomination’s Contemporary St

ages of contemporary cosmology of knowing good and evil as literal. are not. However, Kidner still makes a rec- onciliation of these positions with A notation on the draft amendment contemporary scientific understand- of the fundamental belief received by ing. His explanation is worth quoting the author suggests that the alteration at length: better allows for an ancient cosmology than does the current statement. It is Through the apparent naivety of difficult to see how this is the case. this earth-centred and history- However, the amended language is centred account God says to each more biblical, and on the assump- generation . . . “See the present age tion that biblical beliefs should be is the time to which My creative expressed as far as possible in biblical work was moving, and the uncon- language, this amendment is a posi- scious aeons before it as ‘but a few tive thing. days’, like the years which Jacob gave for Rachel.” A Completed Creative Work Performed and Completed during This interpretation may leave us Six Literal Days dissatisfied on two counts. We The purpose of the proposed amend- may object, first, that the author ments in general receives clarification shows no consciousness of speak- from the insistence that the work of ing otherwise than literally, and creation was “performed and com- secondly, that this reading of the pleted during six literal days.” The chapter makes it guilty of saying Genesis account may be historical but one thing and meaning another. if the days are taken as being long ages rather than twenty-four hour, literal The first point may well be true, days there is still room for ancient life but it is hardly an objection. We on an ancient planet. This addition is know that the full meaning of an attempt to cut off such a possibility. an inspired utterance was often hidden from the speaker: even Six Literal Days That Together Caiaphas exemplifies this, and with the Sabbath Constituted a the same is said of Daniel and of Week as we Experience it Today the Prophets. . . . The latent truth This proposed addition further speci- does not make their words any fies the literalness of the six days. less their own; nor do we have to Derek Kidner is a conservative Old shut our eyes to it, as though the Testament scholar who reads the full flower of meaning were less creation story so historically that he authentic than the bud. interprets the tree of life and the tree

27 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2015 5 Christian Spirituality and Science, Vol. 10 [2015], Iss. 1, Art. 2

The second point may seem more stands in attributive position has the weighty. If the “days” were not definite article. It is as if the author is days at all, would God have coun- speaking of “a day, the second one; a tenanced the word? Does He trade day, the third one,” etc.. Only when in inaccuracies, however edifying? the day sequence is established do we The question hinges on the proper have reference to “the day, the sixth use of language. A God who one” (Gen 1:31).6 makes no concessions to our ways of seeing and speaking would Summary communicate to us no meaning. The current Seventh-day Adventist Hence the phenomenological fundamental belief on creation is most language of the chapter (like our consistent with the belief that life on own talk of “sunrise”, “dewfall”, Earth as we know it was created dur- etc.) and its geocentric standpoint; ing a literal six-day week rather than but hence also the heavy temporal over eons of time. However, for some foreshortening which turns ages Adventists it would appear that this into days. Both are instruments is not enough. The statement must of truth, diagrams enabling us to confirm that the creation account is not construe and not misconstrue a only authentic, it is also historical. The totality too big for us. It is only events described are not long distant pedantry that would quarrel with but recent, whatever “recent” may terms that simplify in order to actually mean. It must be affirmed clarify.5 that together with the Sabbath the days of creation constitute not just a week, The proposed amendment clearly but a week as we experience it today. disallows even such a modest proposal Clearly this is an attempt to leave as as this. Speaking of “a week as we little “wriggle room” as possible in experience it today” is also intended to defining the time elements of creation. rule out the possibility that the six lit- eral days are anything but consecutive BUT WILL THESE CHANGES and contiguous. In fact, whether the BE ENOUGH? days are consecutive and contiguous There is no doubt that dissent may be or not, the language of Gen 1 places its quashed by sufficiently clarifying the emphasis elsewhere. The Hebrew of language of belief statements. How- Gen 1:5 speaks literally of “one day” ever, it may be asked whether even rather than of “the first day.” The He- these carefully crafted modifications brew of the next four days is distinc- will be enough to accomplish this goal. tive, in that the word yôm for “day” in each instance lacks the definite article Is it enough to insist that Gen 1-2 is but the ordinal numeral with which it authentic and historical, or must one

28 https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol10/iss1/2 6 Cole: Trouble in Paradise: One Christian Denomination’s Contemporary St

insist that the chapters are also scientif- upon the Earth are truly ancient, but ic? May not God have reserved some dedicated for the divine purpose in six things for human beings to work out literal days in geologically very recent for themselves, like the classification times.10 Or maybe every week the of the animals (Gen 2:19)? Should creation reoccurs and is rededicated God then be expected to deliver anew each Sabbath day,11 a truly recent perfect knowledge of every detail of view of creation. everything discussed in Scripture, or might He be expected to accommodate Not every proposal is of equal merit to the circumstances of His listeners? 7 and I mention these alternative models with some hesitation because I don’t The fact is that there are models which want to encourage yet further tighten- allow for a creation week consisting of ing of the statement of fundamental seven consecutive contiguous literal belief on creation as the solution. I twenty-four days yet which accom- want to point out instead that the modate current scientific understand- tightening could go on and on but may ings in ways recent creationism finds never be enough to preclude someone uncomfortable. Perhaps the seven coming up with some idea with which days are seven days of announcements we may disagree. I want to encourage of God’s creative intent. Maybe the a whole different approach rather than description of the actual appearance the usual habit of more of the same. of created things should be placed in parentheses and it is only the an- AGENDA BEHIND THE INTEN- nouncements themselves that come TIONS in the framework of an evening and To appeal to the authority of the text morning. As for God having finished is praiseworthy in and of itself. How- his creation in Gen 2:1-3, may this ever, given the variety of ways the not be the language of the prophetic text may be interpreted, the question perfect, where something still future arises as to whether this appeal covers is seen as already done in the past?8 deeper concerns that are not always According to the gap theory there acknowledged. was an initial creation referred to in Gen 1:1 that fell into the chaos of For Seventh-day Adventists Gen demonic influence. This is the ancient 1-2 has a special place because of creation recorded in the fossil record. their adherence to the seventh-day Then God is seen as recreating the Sabbath, which is believed to be a Earth in six literal days in geologically gift for all human beings since it is very recent times.9 John H. Walton understood to have been instituted speaks of seven days of dedication, in Eden before the entrance of sin. such that the universe, Earth, and life This is an understandable concern.

29 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2015 7 Christian Spirituality and Science, Vol. 10 [2015], Iss. 1, Art. 2

However, it is noteworthy that not of divine omnipotence than is deep many other young-Earth creationists space. Both may simply be profound have taken up seventh-day Sabbath symbols of the divine greatness. A observance. Clearly then, there is a long age for the universe and for life danger that seeing the account of Gen on Earth need not rule out specific di- 1-2 as primarily historical can all too vine intervention in natural processes easily end up with seeing it as merely at any number of points along the way. historical. If, on the other hand, the However, God must not be seen as a Sabbath is seen as the major reason for God of the gaps who is needed only the presentation of creation in a week when no natural explanation can be of seven days then is it possible that found. He is surely as much present historical perspectives may not be as in the sunrise and sunset of each day strongly emphasised? as in the resurrection of Christ, even if differently so. If it transpires that The question of death before the the very appearance of human beings entrance of sin is disturbing to many is inherent in the first moment of the evangelicals but Rom 5 is seen by “Big Bang” surely that would be a others as focusing on Adam’s sin in marvellous feat of creation in itself. relation to human death, perhaps even eternal death, not looking at death in These issues need to be squarely faced the wider creation nor at science as we without being dismissed a priori for understand the term today. Indeed, not being traditional or for being in if the creation itself is genuinely en- alleged contradiction to Scripture. It dowed with a freedom to develop in may be easier to appeal dogmatically some of its own ways, just as humans to the text, despite its potential for are later endowed with freedom of ambiguity, before getting to that level moral choice, some suffering before of theological searching. However, it sin might be expected and would be is not necessarily more helpful. no more innately problematic from the point of view of the character of IS THERE A WAY FORWARD? God than is the subordination of the In fact the issue may not really be creation to frustration as a result of primarily exegetical or theological the human fall.12 or scientific. Perhaps the dominant issue is one of identity and of intent Long time periods for the creation may to exclude those who don’t follow imply to some minds a limit on the di- traditional paths. Identity is certainly vine power. However, time−whether important. However, a focus on the long or short−is equally finite com- formulation of belief statements to pared to eternity and deep time need exclude as many heretics as possible be no more problematic to the doctrine will probably not do much to bring

30 https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol10/iss1/2 8 Cole: Trouble in Paradise: One Christian Denomination’s Contemporary St

resolution. Such documents instead creed, telling us what we shall become primarily instruments of believe. The second is to make power and exclusion. They indicate a that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by shift in focus from the core of a com- that creed. The fourth is to de- munity’s identity simply to its borders nounce as heretics those who do and that is no advance. Listening to not believe that creed. And fifth, one another may not always bring to commence persecution against unanimity of opinion but it may foster such." Loughborough, J. (1861). respect and allow a deeper unity to Doings of the Battle Creek Conference, Oct. 5 & 6, 1861. flourish than mere uniformity could Advent Review and Sabbath ever bring. After all, if God is the One Herald 18, (8 October), 148. who both inspired the written word 2 For a summary of the his- and created the natural world, will we tory of Seventh-day Adventist not ultimately find oneness beyond statements of belief see Guy, this present complexity. What then F. (2002). September 2002 do we have to fear? Avondale College statement, “Being Adventist in 21st Century : Uncovering the Ori- QUESTIONS gins of the Statement of Twenty- 1. The article speaks of holding to seven Fundamental Beliefs”, the centre of identity rather than available on http://www.sdanet. guarding its borders. What would org/atissue/doctrines/au2002con- holding to the centre look like for ference/guy/guy27origin.htm#2 (1/7/2014). Seventh-day Adventists? 2. Is descent into creedalism some- 3 White’s own hesitancy about thing that can be avoided as a readers using her incidental ref- erences to settle matters of dis- movement matures or is it inevi- pute is reflected in the fact that in table? the 1888 edition of her book, The 3. Theological assumptions as to Great Controversy, she speaks what a text could not possibly of “the palace bell” signalling mean may overshadow exegeti- the commencement of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre of cal evidence concerning what is French Huguenots in 1572. In actually says. How can concern the 1911 edition she speaks of for a coherent overall picture be “a bell” giving the signal. Jan balanced with respect for the text Voerman defends the accuracy of as it reads? her earlier claim. Jan Voerman, J. (2007). Ellen White and the French Revolution. Andrews REFERENCES University Seminary Studies 45, 1 The statement of John Lough- 250−257. However, that defence borough is indicative. "The first is inconsistent with her own step of apostasy is to get up a willingness to move away from

31 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2015 9 Christian Spirituality and Science, Vol. 10 [2015], Iss. 1, Art. 2

a more definitive statement. As J. W. (2000). ‘Creation/Evolu- a conservative group Seventh- tion Debate in Light of the Great day Adventists may innately Controversy’, in Hayward, J. L. prefer conservative models of (ed.), Creation Reconsidered: inspiration, but the evidence of Scientific, Biblical and Theo- how their own prophet worked logical Perspectives. : and her own descriptions of how Assoc of Adventist Forums, inspiration works make it far 303−311. Also Provonsha, J. harder for them to maintain this W. “The Creation/Evolution position than it is for fundamen- Debate in the Light of the Great talists generally. Controversy between Christ and Satan”, unpublished manuscript 4 See House, C. L. (1987). Notes on Translating weeth hekkoka- on file in the Heritage Room, James White Library, Andrews bim in Genesis 1:15. , Berrien Spring, MI University Seminary Studies, 25, (n.d). 241−248; and Davidson, R. M. (2003). The Biblical Account of 10 Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost Origins. Journal of the Adventist World of Genesis One: Ancient Theological Society, 14, 4−43. Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP 5 Ibid., 57, 58. Academic. 6 Miller, J. V. and Soden, J. M. 11 As suggested by a friend of (2012). In the Beginning . . . We mine, the Rev. Dr. Karl Hand. Misunderstood. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 49, 50. 12 See Emberger, G. (2000). Theological Analysis of Selected 7 See Herr, L. (1982). Genesis One Recent Creationist Assertions in Historical-critical Perspective. Concerning the Occurrence of Spectrum 13(2), 50−61. Death before Sin. Perspectives 8 See Hayward, A. (1995). Crea- on Science and Christian Faith, tion and Evolution: Rethinking 52,160−168. the Evidence from Science and the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House. 9 Most famously in the so-called Scofield Bible, Scofield, C. I. (ed.) (1967). The Holy Bible: Authorized King James Version, with introductions, annotations, subject chain references, and such word changes in the text as will help the reader, new ed. : Oxford University Press. Among Seventh-day Ad- ventists the gap theory has been given special consideration by Jack Provonsha. See Provonsha,

32 https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol10/iss1/2 10