Believer Beware

I hadn't thought of Mike Warnke in a long time, until I read a recent post at Unreasonable Faith.

I read The Satan Seller growing up. Listened to Bob Larson and a few other speakers eager to tell teenagers how rock music leads to Satanism or was just plain bad for you (twice during my youth I tossed all of my rock music). I believed the reappearing Ouija board stories (even thought my father once threw one away that never came back). Only one adult during that time had anything critical to say: my geometry teacher, who thought that backward masking was rubbish.

Should have listened to him.

I read Adventist World

The latest issue of Adventist World carries an article called "Creation Wonders: Why special creation matters." It's an excellent brief overview of why it's necessary to believe in special creation in order to be a Seventh-day Adventist.

The article is part of Adventist World's ongoing series on the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Unusually, this article uses four authors:

John T. Baldwin is professor of theology in the Theology and Christian Philosophy Department at Andrews University. Leonard R. Brand is professor of biology and paleontology at Loma Linda University. Arthur Chadwick is professor of geology and biology at Southwestern Adventist University, and Randall W. Younker is professor of Old Testament and biblical archaeology at the same university.

Here's one of the things two theologians and two scientists need the SDA church to know (emphasis mine):

Additionally, the chronological material in Genesis 4, 5, and Matthew 1 are only compatible with a time since creation of a few thousand years, not millions of years (deep time). But why does it matter how long ago it was? Why do we care about time? It matters a great deal, and the reason involves our response to modern scientific interpretations of geologic time and what it says about the nature of God and of the Bible. Deep time and the theory of the evolution of all creatures go hand in hand. Our choice is between deep time plus evolution of life forms, or a recent biblical creation week.

Sigh. There's that clear black-and-white choice again.

In a nutshell, here's why special creation matters to the authors:

1. If Genesis 1 and 2 can't be read literally, then the Bible cannot be trusted. And if we can't trust the Bible on this issue, how can we trust the other parts of the Bible?
2. God is love. If God used evolution in his creation process, then he is a cruel God who, instead of the comparatively gentle method of creation described in the first two chapters of Genesis, used a method that resulted in "more than 3.8 billion years of trauma (predation), disease, death, mass extinctions, suffering, countless regional geologic catastrophes of all sorts."
3. The acceptance of deep time requires "requires the denial of a historical, literal Fall*, a global flood, and a historical Adam through whom sin and death passed to all humanity, and ultimately involves the denial of the need to accept Jesus as Savior through His life and death on the Cross*."
4. No special creation makes God a liar. God himself wrote the fourth commandment in which he describes himself as the creator of the heavens and the earth, and he did it in six days.
   

They sum up with the following:

Special creation preserves the integrity of Scripture, safeguards the loving, praiseworthy character of God, establishes the reality of the atonement and redemption, and the soundness of the seventh-day Sabbath.

If one is to believe in and worship a god, one would vote for the loving one (or at least I would). The idea that God is a loving God is deeply comforting to many people, and I have no interest in asking anyone to give up that idea. Keep it. I'd rather you have that one than some of the alternatives.

But the God of the Bible is not the God of warm fuzzies:

• By the seventh chapter of Genesis, God has wiped out much of creation with a global flood. Note that not everything created during creation week was destroyed—he preserved light, the sky, sun, moon, stars, and a few animals and humans. Vegetation, nearly all animal life, and almost all of humanity—gone.
  
• During the history of the Israelites, he repeatedly asks them to commit genocide and punishes them when they don't follow through.
  
• If one reads Revelation literally (and Adventists like to read part of it literally and part of it figuratively), God intends to throw anyone who doesn't believe in him into the lake of fire where, some believe, they will burn forever and ever (which, in spite of our other faults, Adventists do not believe).

Perhaps we need to accept that God has a dark side?

*When did we start capitalizing fall and cross?

I read the Adventist Review

The July 23 issue of the Adventist Review contains an article called Creation and the Certainty of the Second Coming. The article's primary recommendation is that it asks a lot of questions. Many of them are bad, leading questions, but in the current environment one can't help but think that even bad questions are better than no questions. Written by E. Edward Zinke*, the article begins thusly:

Who are we?

Are we the result of a lightning strike in a rich prebiotic soup that formed in ancient tidal pools? Did we evolve from there to self-replicating nucleic acids, then to a primitive cell, on to chimpanzees, and finally to humans? Are we here because the principle of the survival of the fittest guided our proud ancestry? Are we explained and defined by the theory of evolution?

If so, what does that tell us about God, ourselves, and the future?

If our origin is to be explained on the basis of evolutionary process, what does that say for God and His role and influence in the universe? What part, if any, would He play in history and in our lives? Does He know or care that we exist? Is He simply an inanimate powerful force, or a computer-like mastermind? Is He also a person? If so, how does He relate to us?

If He exists, did He initiate the first spark of life and then somehow guide the process of evolution to its intermediary and currently the highest stage of life—called human (a hypothesis called theistic evolution)? If so, why did it take Him billions of years of “tooth and claw” to bring evolution to its current stage of human development? Is His problem one of limited love, limited power, or limited intelligence? If He is a God of love, why did He use the cruel process of the survival of the fittest to create humanity? Could it be that He is a God of love doing the best that He can with finite power? Or is it that He is a God of power and of love, but just not very smart—a little slow, but doing the best He can? And if He is a personal God, a God of love, why did it take Him so many millions and billions of years to get around to telling us about His love?

And that's just for starters! Makes me think of the old days (You may notice that I've left a glaring error in that post. I've left it there on purpose, to remind me of where I used to be.)

In all these questions, there's bound to be a burr in the saddle. Once one starts asking questions, where does one stop?:

What implication does theistic evolution have for the way God acts in the world? If God either cannot or does not behave in the way that the Genesis Creation account describes, then what does that say for other reports of His activities in the rest of the Bible? Did God bring about a worldwide flood and guide Noah’s ark to safety? Did God, Sinai, and Moses actually cross paths? If we have a problem with the miracle of the biblical Creation** account, why would we not also question the miracle of the bodily Resurrection**, the literal, visible Second Coming**, and the creation of the new earth?

So here's my question: How can a people—a movement, if you must—that believes in the direct intervention of God in human history have so much trouble in believing in theistic evolution? Science can neither prove nor disprove the theistic part, but it has plenty to say about the evolution part. The stones themselves cry out. It's written all across creation, in the very fabric of the universe. It's right in front of you, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear. Keep looking. Keep listening.


*"E. Edward Zinke, a theologian and businessman, was a member of the staff of the Biblical Research Institute at the General Conference from 1971 to 1986. He served as president of Ann’s House of Nuts, an international food company, until 2008, when he and his wife sold the company. He serves on the Board of Trustees of Andrews University, on the Biblical Research Committee, on the Sabbath School Lesson Committee, the Faith and Science Council, and is Vice Chair of the Ellen G. White Estate. He was cofounder, past president, and IS current treasurer of the Adventist Theological Society. He is also active at Spencerville Adventist Church, teaching an adult Sabbath School class."

**When did we start capitalizing creation, resurrection, and second coming?

I read Adventist World

The latest issue of Adventist World carries Angel Manuel Rodriguez's column "Bible Questions." This month's question is "Is it true that some Adventist scientists and theologians no longer believe that God created everything in six literal days?." (It's almost like they're writing just for me these days. Wheeeeee! I'm special!)

In the interest of time (mine, not yours), I'm going to skip over what's wrong with his first two points in favor of the third. What the reader really asks is this: "Is it true that some Adventist scientists and theologians no longer believe that God created everything in six literal days? If so, what can I do to protect my children?" (words in italics mine)

Because this is what Rodriguez says:

Space does not allow me to say more about the tragedy of Adventists who are evolutionists. But I do want to address the concern expressed in your communication about what Adventist parents should do in this situation. I agree that having teachers in our colleges and universities arguing and supporting the idea that natural evolution is the best alternative for the understanding of origins is outrageous. They not only violate the meaning of the biblical text, but also violate the trust the church placed in them by calling them to teach our young people.

Your alternatives are few. Remember, you are paying for your children to obtain an Adventist education; and if the school is not providing what you’re paying for, you have to make a decision. This is what I suggest: Visit our colleges and talk to the teachers about their views on natural evolution and their interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. If you are unsatisfied with their answers, discourage your son or daughter from attending that school. Most teachers in other Adventist schools stand by what the Bible teaches. You may also want to inform the school’s administration about your findings.

There are several pitiable groups of people here. One is the parents. Imagine the shock! Imagine the horror! that their children might be exposed to the evolutionists among us! To you I say: Rather than setting your children up for grave disappointment later, consider allowing them to learn more about how the natural world works. "God did it" isn't science, and it isn't an explanation.

Then there are the aforementioned Adventist scientists and theologians. If there are more than a handful of them who believe that evolution is true, Angel Manuel Rodriguez represents why it's not safe for them to talk about it in the classroom.

Finally, there are the Adventist students. The church as an institution and as a living, pulsing, breathing body cannot afford to continue its policy of refusing to engage with biological evolution. Somebody—and I don't know who—has got to stand up and describe how it's possible to both be a Seventh-day Adventist and also believe that evolution is true. It's got to be someone who matters and someone who can make their voice heard.

Because, you know, the numbers aren't looking so good. I'm not one to imagine that changing this one thing is enough to stem the tide of young adults headed out the door. But changing this one thing might be the beginning of a larger change.

As always, you're welcome to ask me why I care.

I read the Adventist Review

Here's the kind of letter I would write to the Adventist Review if I could write under my own name:

I feel so frustrated with our church leadership. I am referring to Mark A. Kellner’s editorial “Darwin’s Dead, but Jesus Lives!” (May 14, 2009).

Church leaders keep pretending that there really is no problem between the current interpretation of the Bible and what science is finding. They wonder why so many young people are leaving the church. Part of the problem is that the church’s schools teach the young about how to do things scientifically (math, physics, chemistry, geology, biology), but then the church asks them to ignore the huge gap between the current theology and science. What the church is doing is creating the “God of confusion” for many young (and old) who just can’t reconcile the two.

I didn't write it, but Micheal Godfrey did, and his letter was printed in the July 9, 2009 issue of the Adventist Review. It's the first letter of its kind I've ever read in the Adventist Review. May it not be the last.

It's just the kind of question Bettina Krause ought to have asked in this episode of Intersection:



But there weren't any questions like that. Even Cliff was soft and squishy, and that's saying a lot.

But let's head back to the Adventist Review, where Stephen Chavez reveals a stunning lack of familiarity with basic evolutionary theory:

When a summer heat wave or a particularly threatening virus comes along, “at-risk” portions of the population are urged to take precautions—the young, the elderly, the feeble.

Why? If society is governed by the principle “survival of the fittest,” why be concerned about the weak, the marginalized, the infirm? Why not just let nature take its course?

The same with the current preoccupation with the health of the planet: you can hardly go a week without hearing about how this or that ecosystem is being threatened. Hey, isn’t that what evolution is all about? Evolve or die?

Turn the page, and you can read Jan Paulsen's recent statement on origins again.

Where to Start

I've been guilty of asking friends to read this blog to gain some understanding of where I'm at. One (apparently) skipped the homework, (apparently) jumped to conclusions, and then recommended a therapist.

There's always been a sidebar section called "Getting Started," but I've just added links to the section called "Some Favorite Posts." It's not the whole blog, but it's good place to start.

The pitfalls of blogging anonymously

My biggest regret* about blogging anonymously is that I'm unable to share more about myself. I'm constantly editing—no place names, no personal references, no talk about where I work or geographical location or the weather. Nothing about where I grew up, or went to high school or college, how recently I did either, and who was there with me. Little about my family. Does my paranoia show?

Some moments I fantasize about the day I'll begin a post with the words "My name is [insert real name here]." What comes next will inevitably be bittersweet—there is no happy event that will push me toward disclosing my identity, but I'll also be glad at last to tell you the fuller story of who I am, where I came from, and how I got here. Still edited, but a different kind of editing.

Because I also imagine that being able to share more about me means that you'll feel more comfortable sharing more about you and your experiences. Being able to share more about our lives means better connections, and I can always use a few more of those.

Just so you know.

*"Regret" may not be the right word. Can't think of anything closer.