 |
November 6, 2003 GreatControversy.org Column by Kevin D. Paulson
Jesus and Evolution
The Liberal Adventist Dilemma in the Current Creation Controversy
Clifford Goldstein hasn't always championed the right theology, especially regarding salvation (1). But in his recent Review column on Adventists and evolution (2), he is right on the money! And perhaps few pieces lately written in a church publication have produced a reaction more indicative of the alarming waywardness of certain contemporary Adventist minds.
It is becoming increasingly clear, to those paying attention, that current controversies in the Seventh-day Adventist Church are not merely harmless jousting among persons essentially committed to the same spiritual values. Nor are these differences confined exclusively to issues unique to Adventism's doctrinal or moral identity. The question is no longer whether theologically liberal Adventists wish to remain authentically Adventist. That question they have long since answered emphatically in the negative. Rather, the question is whether they will remain authentically Christian.
The Plea for Unfettered Tolerance
For whatever reasons, the editors of the Adventist Review considered responses to Goldstein's column sufficiently newsworthy to warrant a special letters section in a recent issue (3). Both the letters published and the introductory word by the editor were enough to break the heart of any faithful Seventh-day Adventist.
Prior to listing the letters, the Review editor wrote:
Like all columns in the Review, Goldstein's view and tone represented himself only, not the editors or the church. So long as columnists keep within the parameters of the fundamental beliefs of the Adventist Church, we give them considerable latitude (4).
What the editor seems not to consider is that the debate between Goldstein and those letters the Review chose to print involves very much the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. While one can argue that letters to the editor need not meet the same standard of spiritual faithfulness as articles, columns, or editorials, one is deeply troubled by the Review editor's implication that the compromising views expressed by the letters they printed in response to Goldstein have as legitimate a place in the church as the strict Biblical creationism presented in Goldstein's column.
After all, Goldstein's insistence on a literal six-day creation week—the primary point of his column—is not only firmly based on Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy writings; it is also expressly affirmed in the church's Fundamental Beliefs. The book Seventh-day Adventists Believe, the official denominational explication of those beliefs voted by the church at the General Conference session of 1980, states regarding the issue in question:
The days of the Biblical Creation account signify literal 24-hour periods. Typical of how the Old Testament people measured time the expression “the evening and the morning” (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) specifies individual days with the day beginning at evening, or sunset (Leviticus 23:32; Deuteronomy 16:6). There is no justification for saying that this expression meant one literal day in Leviticus, for instance, and thousands or millions of years in Genesis.
The Hebrew word translated day in Genesis one is yom. When yom is accompanied by a definite number, it always means a literal, 24-hour day (e.g. Genesis 7:1; Exodus 16:1)—another indication that the Genesis account speaks of literal, 24-hour days (5).
The context continues by explaining how the Sabbath commandment also affirms the literal days of the creation story, then observes:
The 24-hour Sabbath day, therefore, commemorates a literal week of Creation. The fourth commandment would be meaningless were each day stretched into aeons (6).
The position declared to be non-negotiable by Goldstein, therefore, is explicitly spelled out by the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This is not a side issue or peripheral discussion. It involves not only God's supernatural Creatorship, but the credibility of the Sabbath doctrine and—as we will see—the heart of salvation itself.
The letters printed in the Review focused far less on the scientific or logical credibility of Goldstein's claims than on the cherished Holy Grail of theological liberalism—unfettered tolerance of diverse opinions. One woman laments that “many wonderful people in our congregation would be out the door” if they heeded Goldstein's advice not to try blending Adventism with evolution (7). Another asks, in seeming incredulity, “Does he (Goldstein) really want to get rid of me as a church member?” (8) (As if one's beliefs couldn't possibly disqualify a person for church membership!) This particular writer makes another assertion that would be laughable if it weren't so serious, when he writes of Goldstein's column:
This is another attack on fellow believers who do not see any problem accepting ordinary natural science and still believe in the Creator, as most Christians do here in Europe (9).
Anyone even remotely familiar with the lifeless ambiguity and long-term stagnation of European Christianity—including significant segments of European Adventism—will find the above statement most disturbing. Higher criticism and the slavish addiction to reason and science over and above the Word of God have long since wasted the vitality and emptied the churches of Europe. Does the writer of this letter truly expect the worldwide Adventist body to welcome this prospect?
The pleas of these letter writers notwithstanding, the Bible is clear that doctrinal truth matters—both to the believer's salvation and to the unity of Christ's body, the church. God declared through Hosea, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee” (Hosea 4:6). Jesus Himself declared that man shall live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4), and stated to His followers, “If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed” (John 8:31). In His prayer for the unity of His disciples, He prefaces His desire that they be one (John 17:21) with the plea that they be sanctified through His Word of truth (verses 17, 19).
The apostle Paul was equally insistent on maintaining the integrity of truth in the church community, as well as its role in personal salvation. He pronounced a curse on anyone who might teach “another gospel” (Galatians 1:8), instructed Timothy to “charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3), and exhorted Titus to show “uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity” in his doctrine (Titus 2:7). And regarding salvation, the same author writes: “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).
Ellen White simply echoes these Bible sentiments when she writes: “All truth is to be received as the life of Jesus. Truth cleanses us from all impurity, and prepares the soul for Christ's presence” (10). Elsewhere she declares, “The whole Bible is a manifestation of Christ” (11). Not only John 3:16 and the Calvary story, but the creation account, the doctrinal passages, the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, standards of personal godliness—all reveal clarity and balance in the Biblical picture of God. The popular illusion that maintaining the love of Jesus among brothers and sisters is something different (and presumably more important) than maintaining doctrinal purity, is utterly without support, in Scripture as well as the writings of Ellen White.
And whether the letter writers in the Review wish to think otherwise or not, the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual lists as its first criterion for church discipline:
Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the cardinal doctrines of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same (12).
We will see that the doctrine of theistic evolution, advocated by some contemporary Adventists, contradicts the gospel fundamentals as well as the cardinal doctrines of Seventh-day Adventism.
We can see, therefore, that Goldstein's call for those denying the six literal creation days to leave the church and stop accepting its paychecks (13), is in full accord with both the inspired reverence for doctrinal truth and the Church Manual's stipulations for maintaining doctrinal faithfulness. For the Review editor to even hint that room should be made in the church for those denying this cardinal Adventist belief, is a most egregious betrayal of sacred trust.
Irrelevant Statements
At least two of the Review letters made points that were plainly irrelevant. One, for example, stated:
I respect the right of Goldstein to offer his views. I respect the rights of anyone, as does God, to hold their views, even if those views are not to believe in God (14).
But does this writer think someone who chooses not to believe in God belongs in the Adventist Church, as a member or worker in good and regular standing? That was the issue of Goldstein's column, not the question of respect. Goldstein himself makes it clear he respects those who believe in evolution, only that those who do shouldn't try melding it with Adventism (15). Certainly God gives people the right of choice (Joshua 24:15; Revelation 22:17), but nowhere does Scripture command the church to make room in its fellowship for all, regardless of the beliefs they choose.
Another of these letters tries to muddy the water with several statements, such as the following:
Even though numbers of Adventists might find these concessions objectionable, it (Goldstein's column) leaves room for the possibilities of microevolution and a very old universe, while taking a firm stand on behalf of a literal six-day creation for life on earth (16).
For those not aware, microevolution refers—among other things—to the multiplication of animal and plant species since creation, as distinct from macroevolution which denotes more complex species evolving out of less complex ones, such as reptiles becoming mammals and monkeys becoming men. No thoughtful Seventh-day Adventist has ever denied the multiplication of species since creation week and especially the flood, nor has any Adventist ever claimed the entire universe was created 6,000 years ago, at the same time as the earth. In fact, the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe makes the following statement:
Some people are puzzled, and understandably so, by the verses that say that God ‘created the heavens and the earth’ (Gen. 1:1; 2:1; cf. Ex. 20:11) and that He made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day of creation week 6,000 years ago (Gen. 1:14-19). Were all heavenly bodies brought into existence at that time?
Creation week did not involve the heaven that God has dwelt in for eternity. The ‘heavens’ of Genesis 1 and 2 probably refer to our sun and its system of planets (17).
The same letter noted above went on to make the ridiculous claim that excluding believers in evolution from the church was a form of Charles Darwin's “survival of the fittest” concept, that such safeguarding of the church's integrity represented, in his words:
. . . an uncritical acceptance of the assumption that life is inherently conflictual, that competition rather than cooperation is the way to succeed, and that addressing complex issues with “fight talk,” refusals of respect and threats of exclusion can be appropriate, even in a Christian community of faith (18).
Without meaning to sound, harsh, the absence of logic here is truly breathtaking! Neither Goldstein nor any defender of Biblical creationism is saying anything about life being “inherently conflictual,” unless of course we are speaking of the great controversy between good and evil. The fact of a titanic struggle for the souls of men and women between righteousness and sin has nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin's view of natural selection or any application of this concept to human existence. Survival of the fittest isn't the point in the controversy between Christ and Satan. Survival of the faithful is quite another matter.
And again we see the absurd notion put forth that “threats of exclusion” are inappropriate for Christians. When the writer of this letter uses the phrase, “even in a Christian community of faith,” the use of the word even obviously seeks to convey the assumption of how totally unchristian it presumably is to exclude people from church fellowship because of their beliefs. One honestly has to wonder what Bible these people are reading! Where, at any time in Holy Scripture, is the idea advanced that no one—irrespective of his theology or lifestyle—should ever be excluded from the body of Christ?
The same author's suggestion that we be “more humble than we sometimes have been about our knowledge of how and when God created everything that is true, beautiful, and good” (19), likewise conveys a common but dangerous assumption of theological liberalism. Humility and ambiguity are not one and the same, certainly not in the message of Scripture. Ellen White perhaps says it best when she writes: “Skepticism and unbelief are not humility. Implicit belief in Christ's word is true humility, true self-surrender” (20).
The Gospel and Evolution
Here we see perhaps the most basic problem with the effort to blend the Christian message with Darwin's theory of natural origins.
In his postscript to the letters in the Review, Goldstein writes what in fact should have been included in his column to start with:
If evolution is true, then the Adam and Eve story becomes null and void. If that's null and void, what happens to the Fall? Without the Fall, the cross becomes an empty gesture, which destroys any grounds for the Second Coming (21).
Without perhaps considering the implications of their thoughts, those responding to Goldstein in the Review write as if the Christian gospel of grace and Darwin's theory of evolution are somehow compatible. One writer pleads for the acceptance of Adventists who seek a compromise with evolution, declaring of them, “These too are brothers and sisters in Christ” (22). Another writes:
It was God in Christ, who, with tears in His eyes and a sob in His voice, grieved over those who wouldn't accept the grace He offered. I detected none of that in this (Goldstein's) article (23).
What this author doesn't explain is why, if evolution is true, anyone would need the grace of Jesus at all. The point in Goldstein's postscript is basic and decisive. If Darwin's theory of origins is correct, then mankind—like the rest of the natural world—is merely progressing toward further development. Where, and how, do righteousness, sin, the fall of man, and the plan of salvation fit into this scheme?
One of the strongest but often unused arguments for a literal understanding of Genesis is Paul's message in Romans, chapter 5. Here the apostle draws his famed comparison between Adam bringing sin to the world and Christ bringing salvation. What is significant about this passage is how its very wording disallows any symbolic understanding of Paul's references to Adam. Let us review the verses in question:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.…
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come. But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification. For if by one's man's offense death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Romans 5:12, 14-19).
Some have alleged that the name Adam simply means man, therefore implying that Adam is merely a symbolic reference to the whole human family. But the above verses don't say simply that sin came to the world through Adam. Rather, they say sin came through “one man,” who these verses identify as Adam. This becomes clearest of all in verse 14:
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.
It would hardly make sense to read this verse as saying that death reigned from mankind to Moses, since Moses is part of mankind. Moreover, it is clear that Adam prefigured Christ, since Adam sinned and therefore needed a Saviour to redeem his failure and take his place as the Father of humanity. Obviously these verses take for granted that Adam was a literal, historical figure who led the human race into the sin problem, redemption for which required the coming of Jesus to earth, also understood by Paul to be literal and historical (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Adam, according to these verses, is as literal and historical a personage as Jesus Christ.
What this demonstrates, above all else, is that the book of Genesis is only the first problem with trying to blend Christianity and evolution. The fact is that the whole of Scripture, including such clearly didactic, non-symbolic passages as Romans 5, take for granted the historical existence of Adam and the accuracy of the Genesis story of the creation and fall of man.
Which means, in sum, that Darwinian evolution not only poses a mortal threat to the literal creation week and thus the Sabbath message so crucial to Adventist theology; it poses an equally mortal threat to the gospel message of sin and salvation. The brutal process of natural selection proposed by Darwin leaves no room for the mercy, grace, and self-sacrificing love of Jesus. It presumes pain and death to have been a part of the natural world from life's very origin, rather than as intruders brought into a perfect world by sin. If there was no Eden, there was no Fall. And without a Fall, no Saviour is needed.
And there goes the gospel.
The Downward March
Writing of those who dispute the authenticity of Adventist beliefs, Ellen White traces the development of doubt which we see among us today:
It is Satan's plan to weaken the faith of God's people in the Testimonies. Satan knows how to make his attacks. He works upon minds to excite jealousy and dissatisfaction toward those at the head of the work. The gifts are next questioned; then, of course, they have but little weight, and instruction given through vision is disregarded. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition (24).
In the light of this prediction, it is clear how theological liberalism in the modern Adventist Church has become, not some Darwinian trajectory toward progress and enlightenment, but a downward march toward perdition and eternal doom. Not only the pillars of classic Adventism, but the very heart of Christianity itself, is now coming under attack within our church.
May all within contemporary Adventism—leaders, pastors, and laity—arise with holy yet humble courage to halt this regression toward unbelief and apostasy.
REFERENCES
- See Kevin D. Paulson, “Beyond the Word of God,” on this website.
- Clifford Goldstein, “Seventh-day Darwinians,” Adventist Review, July 24, 2003, p. 29.
- “Seventh-day Darwinians? Readers respond to a six-day creationist column,” Adventist Review, Sept. 18, 2003, pp. 25-27.
- William G. Johnsson, Adventist Review, Sept. 18, 2003, p. 25.
- Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (Silver Spring, MD: General Conference Ministerial Assn, 1988), p. 71.
- Ibid.
- Carmen Lau, letter to Adventist Review, Sept. 18, 2003, p. 25.
- Kristen Falch Jakobsen, letter to Adventist Review, Sept. 18, 2003, p. 26.
- Ibid.
- Ellen G. White, Our High Calling, p. 208.
- ________, Desire of Ages, p. 390.
- Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual (2000 edition), p. 184.
- Goldstein, “Seventh-day Darwinians,” Adventist Review, July 24, 2003, p. 29.
- Dave Evans, letter to Adventist Review, Sept. 18, 2003, p. 25.
- Goldstein, “Seventh-day Darwinians,” Adventist Review, July 24, 2003, p. 29.
- David R. Larson, letter to Adventist Review, Sept. 18, 2003, p. 27.
- Seventh-day Adventists Believe, p. 71.
- Larson, letter to Adventist Review, Sept. 18, 2003, p. 27.
- Ibid.
- White, Desire of Ages, p. 535.
- Goldstein, Adventist Review, Sept. 18, 2003, p. 27.
- Robert Johnston, letter to Adventist Review, Sept. 18, 2003, p. 26.
- Evans, letter to Adventist Review, Sept. 18, 2003, p. 25.
- White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 672.
