A Safe Place by Clifford Goldstein

[phkrause]

I couldn't get the link for the article on there website so I downloaded the pdf and copied and pasted it. I thought it was very interesting.

AS I HAVE SAID NUMEROUS TIMES: ADVENTISM AND EVOLUTION ARE

mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other is false. Ergo, you can be an Adventist or an evolutionist, but not

both. Our name, Seventh-day Adventist, implies a rejection of any creation story that’s premised not on the six

days before the seventh but on eons of evolutionary hell. Honesty demands that those who call themselves

Seventh-day Adventist ought to at least believe in what the name they claim stands for.

Because I’ve taken this unyielding position on what’s an unyieldable position, I’ve been accused—both in

the flesh and in the fleshly androgyny of cyberspace—of advocating that anyone who believes in evolution

ought to be thrown out of the church.

That’s false. What I’ve said is that it’s hard to see how anyone who believes in evolution would want to be

in this church. Nothing Adventist makes sense with the neo-Darwinian synthesis as backdrop. To paraphrase

a fundamentalist atheist, evolution is an acid that erodes everything it touches. That would

include the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14, which have the central theme of creation and redemption,

two truths nullified by evolution, even a “theistic” kind. (Who’d want to worship a theos who

created like that, anyway?)

To reiterate: be a Seventh-day Adventist or be an evolutionist, but let’s end the charade of thinking

one can be both.

That being said, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has to be a safe place for anyone who struggles

with this issue. Notice, I said struggles. I understand the challenge that science, with all its

prejudices, speculation, and presuppositions, poses, especially to anyone who doesn’t realize

just how heavy-laden with subjectivity even the hardest sciences can be (much less something

as speculative as what supposedly happened to some proto-RNA a billon years ago). I understand that

the secular academy is manically hostile to any hint of teleology, design, or goal in nature (other than,

perhaps, survival), and is not only going to interpret everything through an a priori materialistic lens

but demand that every student do it too. I understand that much of today’s science will be overturned,

as has happened to many now-defunct scientific theories; but I also understand that, until then, current

theories can seem compelling. I understand, too, that the world that science studies today is not

the same as the original creation; instead, it suffers from the “double curse” (as Ellen White called it)

of Adam’s and Cain’s sin, as well as massive water damage, i.e., the Flood. Therefore, what is can easily

lead even the most astute observer astray about what was.

Thus it isn’t hard to sympathize with those who are confronted with scientific “facts” that contradict all

they have believed. We have to be sensitive to their struggles; we have to affirm them in their search; and we

have to create an environment in which they can, without being judged or condemned, ask questions as they

work through these issues.

In short, our church has to be a safe place for anyone struggling with this attack on his or her faith.

That being said, the church also has to be a safe place for our students. It’s heart-wrenching to think that,

on occasion, young people in our Seventh-day Adventist colleges face teachers who, though professing to be

Seventh-day Adventists, hold a view on evolution that nullifies that profession. It’s a problem that is now coming

more to the attention of church members who are anxious for church leaders to deal with it. The recent

Adventist Accrediting Association decision to offer only a limited extension of term to La Sierra University

because of its acknowledged mistakes in conveying the church’s belief on creation exemplifies how seriously

the church is dealing with this issue.

No question, the overwhelming vote at the Atlanta General Conference session in 2010 to strengthen the

language on the Fundamental Belief regarding creation shows the church’s legitimate concern about the

inroads of a theory that, at its core, undermines everything we Seventh-day Adventist Christians believe. As

Paul said: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to

you, let him be eternally condemned” (Gal. 1:8). And make no mistake: evolution is another gospel.

Yes, the church needs to be a safe place: safe for those struggling with evolution, and safe for those who have

rejected it.

[doug yowell]

Goldstein presents us here with a puzzling delemna. If we were to take this approach regarding a literal 6 day creation then where do we draw the line when dealing with those who struggle with:keeping a literal Saturday holy,belief in the literal existance of miracles,a literal born again experience(as opposed to an evolutionary,"work of a lifetime" journey into justification and obedience to the commandments),a literal resurrection of literal dead people(especially Christ),ect...? I would ask why the creation story is the first story mentioned th the Biblical account of the world's history? Isn't the believability of God's Word the point of the whole debate?

[John317]

All good points, doug. Personally I think the church does already allow for people's struggles with all the issues you refer to. For example, there are people in the SDA church who sometimes (even oftentimes)work on the Sabbath, although they are praying about it and trying to obey all of God Commandmetns and do what is right financially for their families.

I think one of the issues that separates these things is that there are evolutionists in the church who encourage others to reject the literal creation and to believe in evolutionary theory, but there are far fewer who speak out in defense of working on the Sabbath, of not believing in the literal resurrection fo the dead, etc. So it's a question of whether people will remain in the church and cause division and disunity. I believe when that point is reached, then the church has to consider separating the individual from the church. If I encourage SDAs to reject basic SDA doctrines, then I have no right to remain a member of the church and claim to represent it. That's not to say that all people can't worship and fellowship with the church, but we have to distinguish between membership and the privilege of worshipping.

[Woody]

Quote:

If I encourage SDAs to reject basic SDA doctrines, then I have no right to remain a member of the church and claim to represent it. That's not to say that all people can't worship and fellowship with the church, but we have to distinguish between membership and the privilege of worshipping.

Best solution is to just not have the elite membership. Just let everybody worship and be equal.

[Dr. Shane]

Goldstein presents us here with a puzzling delemna. If we were to take this approach regarding a literal 6 day creation then where do we draw the line when dealing with those who struggle with: keeping a literal Saturday holy, belief in the literal existence of miracles, a literal born again experience...

I think this has to be discussed by the nominating committee when selecting church leaders - including Sabbath School teachers. It is one thing to allow those that are skeptics to maintain membership, but we shouldn't be putting them in positions of leadership when they are not on solid ground themselves.