"and Lee F. Greer, Ph.D., Professor of Evolutionary Biology at La Sierra University."

Teaching "evolutionary biology" at a, ahem, SDA institution?

Tell the SDA church isn't, in some places, sick.

Amen, Cliff! (assuming it is being taught as fact rather than exposing evolutionism for the religion it is)

Christian Skeptic

Cliff and Allen represent the epitome of shallowness. To criticize someone (without hearing him) based on his professional title and immediately assuming that he is teaching evolution--horrors--and in an SDA school? Wouldn't it be better to listen to the discussion before condemning before doing so?

"What is Evolution?

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population."

For a quick overview and to correct the typical misunderstanding of the term "evolution" go to:

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

God has been trying to tell us for generations that the road to a clean environment begins in the mind of each individual. The hierarchy is first a clean mind, then a clean body, finally a clean environment. The environment was once clean but God tore it apart, at the flood, because a dirty mind cannot use a clean environment properly.

It is not possible for a man or woman who is a criminal or drug addict to take care of the environment. The only way to permanently solve the problem of ecology is to be born again and respect the person who created the earth, everything else, in the long run, is doomed to failure.

JB,

Interesting point. Although it includes some outdated cultural elements, Exodus 19 does seem to echo that wholistic approach.

But, I'm not sure that one has to wait for pure cleanliness in one part before tackling the others.

And perhaps the converse of that argument is that caring about the environment is evidence that Christ is already at work cleaning our minds and bodies.

Appalachia-based, Christians for the Mountains get at the wholistic thinking required on these issues.

Elaine--

Rather than call me shallow and other names, why not ask our own on-the-payroll SDA "evolutionary biologist" yourself what he believes. Or better yet, ask him what he teaches in the classroom.

Alex,

A clean environment is a worthy objective but it should not diminish or replace the preaching of the gospel which begins by cleaning up the mind.

I think it was the Valdez oil tanker that produced a giant spill in Alaska because the Captain was drunk. How much environmental damage is done every time a war is fought? Is anybody asking how much environment damage is done in Iraq as we fight the war? What about tyrants like Sadam Hussein who set the oil wells on fire and created an environmental disaster during the Gulf War? What about all the deadly landmines left behind, after a war that blows up little children as they play? What is going to happen to all the nuclear weapons we have stocked piled? The day is coming when we are going to use them on each other and destroy all of our good environmental efforts.

God can fix the environment as easy as He can change water to wine, if we are willing to allow Him to fix the human mind.

Elaine--
That definition of Evolution means absolutely nothing. It is a favorite switch and bait con by Evolutionists. Even creationists recognize that there is change in the genetic pool. What they really mean by Evolution is the diversity of all life forms from a single source over millions of years. And its actually Evolutionism, a religious dogma, that comes from the religion of Naturalism. Evolutionism is not a hypothesis. I find it incredible that there are people so ignorant that they fall for totally transparent lies of evolutionists.

If this professor teaches Evolutionism as a fact, rather than Evolutionism as a false religious dogma he needs to be canned. If He is teaching contrary to the beliefs of the church at a church institution he needs to be fired. If He is teaching contrary to the church beliefs why would he even want to work at a church institution?

Christian Skeptic

Cliff
Having been where you are, I understand your pain. What is happening in the SDA church is that its venture into academia is bearing fruit.

Adventists became enamoured of the wealthy who came to Battle Creek Sanitarium and other SDA health institutions in the late 19th and early 20th century. People such as Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford 'taking the waters' at Battle Creek, created a dream of winning such people for the church.

While I was in the church, people still swooned over wealthy people who joined the church, and proximity to celebrity was celebrated as a victory for the team. (Insight Magazine in the mid-70s did an article on a church member who worked for Johnny Cash and who had taken his son to Sabbath School on occasion).

You saw it in the high brow music beamed out to the community from SDA radio stations--all classical music all the time (except Sabbath, when it switched to mush). And you saw it--and see it--in the singular devotion to higher education within the Adventist church. To me, this is one of the most attractive features of the organization, its willingness to embrace academia. But not without a price.

The thought obviously was that if Adventists were to win over the high and mighty, they would have to go toe to toe with Episcopalian and Presbyterian priests and pastors who had been trained at the best universitites of the land. The GC leaders must also have thought that SDA pastors with a university degree in theology, would be able to preach the Truth with great power. Instead, they discovered that truth was not such a simple thing--they discovered nuance, they discovered that people who disagreed with the church on the all-important SDA doctrins, often did so for good reason.

In fact, I think that as Adventists spread into academia for post-graduate work, the most important influence on them was meeting their peers and their professors, and discovering that they actually were honest in their pursuits of knowledge, that they were not led by some dark force to wreck the Christian faith (of course, you may argue that that proves just how insidious the devil is).

Lots of Adventist headed into academia to do battle for Present Truth and the Third Angel's Message only to discover that they were tilting at windmills. Academia is merciless to those who don't play by the scientific rules.

It would have been better for the SDA church to establish SDA accredited Bible colleges to indoctrinate the young in the ways of the Truth, if the goal was to preserve the Cliff Goldstein brand of Adventism.

Aage

Cliff,

You were the one who apparently was shocked at the idea of an "evolutionary biologist" at an SDA school. Before assessing his teachings, perhaps you should sit in his classroom or read his writings, which would give you a much better idea of what he really teaches. If you have done so, what is he teaching that offends you?

Aage explained the history of SDA education very well. Loma Linda Medical school (formerly College of Medical Evangelists) sought and needed accreditation to maintain its status in l910-l915. And in order to receive that, their teachers had to have higher degrees than had been previously. This resulted in most of the "feeder" SDA colleges also needing more academically qualified teachers, not the former pastors that often taught in some of the departments, who had no advanced academic degrees.

Today, few parents or students are willing to pay the tuition to attend a non-accredited school, and I doubt that you, as a parent, would want your children to do so, either.

If one's faith is so fragile that learning there is more than their isolated education or church has given them, when will they learn?

Aage:
What many Adventist who went into academia didn't do was heed Ellen's advice that they were headed into a conflict of religions. It had nothing to do with science, but a conflict between the unenlightened "Enlightenment" religion of naturalism against Christianity and Creationism. However, being snookered into thinking it was about Science, these foolish people became teachers in SDA schools and have been trying to subvert the church with their ignorance.

There is a huge reeducation that needs to be done in the SDA academia and the church in general about what really is science and what really is religion. And the proper relationship between them.

Christian Skeptic

It is interesting to see the moral emphasis here.

On evolution, they sound like those folks in the eighties suddenly reading some report of educated Adventists attending movies.

Sick! Apostasy from Sister White!

Teaching evolutionary biology in Adventism is "sick?" Really?

If someone who loves God and their fellow humans also thinks that speciation fits the current evidence better than the alternatives and this makes one call out "sick" or blather on about re-education, I wonder, who really is majoring in the minors?

The last time I checked, Jesus didn't say anything about goats or sheep and natural speciation. . .but he did emphasize over and over that how we treat the least of these (residents of Appalachia? fellow Adventists?) represents our relationship to Him.

Alex--

Jesus also said, "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" and if evolution isnt "a commandment of men," nothing is.

Evolution is apostasy from Jesus the Creator and Redeemer, not from Ellen White, who by the way called belief in evolution "disguised infidelity." I agree.

I'm beginning to wonder: Is there any worldly teaching out there, ANY? that Chrisians might find appalling enough to not try and incorporate it into their faith once it becomes du jour? I'm seriously beginning to doubt it. If so called "Christians" can find a way to incorporate evolution into their so called "faith" then I suppose nothing's off limits, huh?

"Sick," I think, is too kind of a word for it, actually.

Cliff
I don't think "wordly" is a Biblical category. "Worldly" is the language of EGW and her religious tradition, and refers to a culture war over minor and largely symbolic issues, such as dress, hairstyle, alcohol, etc.

Evolution certainly is incompatible with traditional Christianity, but to accuse those who accept it as a description of physical reality of apostasy, is--if nothing else--the wrong use of words.

Aage Rendalen

Oh Cliff.

"Jesus also said, "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" and if evolution isnt "a commandment of men," nothing is."

Evolution is "a commandment of men." You sure do humor me. I wonder if "a commandment of men" could refer to the unbiblical literalism of "conservatives" and "fundamentalists?" Or maybe it is the anti-intellectualism of the "Religious Right?" I wonder if the doctrine of “always being right” could be something to which Christ is referring. . .just some thoughts.

You asked the question, "Is there any worldly teaching out there, ANY? that Christians might find appalling enough to not try and incorporate it into their faith once it becomes du jour?"

I wonder, too, how about the hubris of those "conservatives" and "fundamentalists" who insist on their "rightness?" Could these Christians afford humility in their lives? Of is that a "worldly" thing? It would seem that in the discourse between literal-creationists and those who support theistic evolution the former group are quite good at mimicking their “worldly” secular evolution counterparts, at least in their rhetoric and lack of decorum.

You really discredit yourself when you write such absurd statements as, "If so called "Christians" can find a way to incorporate evolution into their so called "faith" then I suppose nothing's off limits, huh?"

Such arrogance--would that we were all as right in our convictions as you are. . . maybe we could stop this tact that "conservatives" are so fond of, the “let's question their Christianity and faith if they don't believe as we do.” Please, Cliff, you are better than that (and need to be; you are a leader in this church, act like it).

I will take the time to remind you (and the GC) that this Church has "moderates," "liberals," and "progressives" as members, too. It would be nice (maybe even Christ-like) if they were given the respect they deserve. Please be mindful of your words, not everyone agrees with you or the positions that you advocate and they aren't wrong or less-than-Christian because they don't reflect your notion of Christianity.

We need to uplift each other not engage in this kind of rhetoric. We can do better, Cliff.

How much I long for a church that can have disagreements but which understands that will all of our human reason or faith we are yet worshiping the same Awesome God that taught, “By this you will know that they are my people, if they have love for one another.”

Would you join me in uplifting this church and the Body of Christ beyond liberal and conservative . . . and just Followers of Christ?

Please, let's get real.

Dr. Joe Blow is a professor at an SDA college, where parents send their kids on the ridiculous assumption that the teachers there actually believe in SDA theology. But Dr. Joe Blow, who loves God, doesn't really think the Sabbath is binding; thinks it was done away with at the cross but, you know, the health insurance is good and he's tenured, so why not stay? Besides, academic freedom should allow him latitude to teach what he wants, so why should we not show the love of Jesus to him and let him stay and teach? To do otherwise would be, oh, yes, "such arrogance." Imagine, actually thinking doctrines matter enough to stand for them. Horror of horror! How narrow minded and bigoted can one get?

Or, perhaps, Dr Joe Blow has been having seances in his house and, what do you know, his dead mother has been appearing to him. So, Dr. Blow--good scientist that he is, following the empirical evidence wherever it leads--realizes that the SDA position on the state of the dead must be wrong. I mean, he's seen his dead mother, and she spoke to him, and so the church's long held traditional position on this topic isn't correct. Thus, he no longer believes it and so, well, again, can't you be a loyal SDA and not believe in our teaching on the state of the dead? Why not? How arrogant of us to actually think that honesty alone would tell Dr. Joe Blow that, maybe, he no longer belongs here. But, you know, he was raised an SDA, that's the only culture he knows, and he really doesn't have the guts to take his premises to their logical conclusion or at least have the decency to, if not leave the church, at least not take a pay check from an instution that trusts he's loyal to our teachings.

Or let's say Dr. Joe Blow hates homosexuals. Thinks they should be stoned. Just hates them so much he can't bear the thought of them and derides them every chance he gets. But, well, Raymond, there are all sorts of SDAS, right? And who are we to be so arrogant and close-minded that should stop him from professing his hatred of gays in the classroom and advocating, from his reading of the Bible, that gays should be punished in some ways for their lifestyle. Is your tolerance large enough for that Raymond, or perhaps do even you think there's a point where someone in the employ of the church has crossed a line and really shouldn't be in the employ of the denomination?

Some of us do think there is a line--and if evolution hasn't crossed it, then what does?

It's one thing to believe in evolution and be an SDA; it's illogical and irrational, to say the least. But to believe in evolution and to be in the SDA pulpit or the SDA classroom, in the employ of the SDA church, is the height of moral irresponsbility.

Scientists don't "believe" in evolution. The scientific theory of evolution is not a system of belief but a broad and very well tested explanation of the origins of life confirmed with overwhelming scientific evidence.

To be a biologist who does not accept the theory of evolution would be incompatible with the scientific method. Why be a scientist then?

Why be an SDA if you don't believe in a literal creation? Because there is ample evidence that the world was not created as recorded in the Christian scripture. Why would God expect anyone to accept as fact what is directly contradicted by the study of all life on earth? I was taught to use my mind and to think critically when I was brought up in my SDA home.

I am getting ready to enter school as an adult to finish a degree in Biology and Zoology at a public university. I will get a rigorous education from leaders in their fields. Someday I plan to be a veterinarian, I can't imagine being a veterinarian who does not respect the scientific method. And I won’t be.

Does anyone have any comments on the content of the discussions, rather than rabble-rousing to get a professor fired or opining on what exactly is the height of moral irresponsibility? I respect your right to define Adventism as your personal vision, Cliff, with that you find repulsive/anathema to Adventism somehow also the height of apostasy, but I sometimes wonder if what might really be irresponsible to constantly focus on our own personal pet peeves/bully pulpits in what often seems like a convenient deflection of the issue at hand.

Does anyone here actually know Lee Greer, the object of most of this discussion?

Urging an SDA academy to meet (or exceed- for God's honor) the new minimum state standards for secondary graduation (which they don't have to - being a parochial school)has opened my eyes to the fears of academia that are a constant undercurrent in our Adventist psyche. No Daniel vision.

But back to the subject of evolution and enviromentalism. Creationism does pose man as a steward, not ultimate owner. Evolution poses man as the temporary pinnacle- for more change is bound to happen. Then why this sudden resistance to change? Adjustment and exploitation of impending change is appropriate for the evolutionist. But regression to a previous enviromental state? Are enviromentalists true evolutionists even in theory?

Wow--thanks for posting that video clip about the mountain-top coal mining happening in Appalachia, Alex. Now, that is something I'm very comfortable calling the height of moral irresponsibility. West Virginia coal mining is in my family's blood--my grandmother came from a family of 21 in those hills. Besides the fact that this type of coal mining is meant to "take the miner out of mining," it seems unfathomable that any person, any company could actually have such a short-sighted sense of profit that they would actually blow off the top of a mountain (over 450 so far), completely destroying the mountaintop and the rivers below in pursuit of a quicker method to find cheap energy (an energy that is barely used anymore, but apparently the last dregs must be exploited in search of the last dollar).

I loved Alex's comment reported by Jared--we didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of stones. It's definitely time to stop thinking we have to completely use up all of our current dirty energy sources before we move on (dare I say "evolve") in our methods and thought process.

Cliff,

I’m disappointed, again, at the tone and rhetoric of your comment. With respect to your statements, the point at which your reasoning concerns me is your equating all doctrine of equal value in Christian theology.

The doctrine of the Sabbath is important because it is based on our love-relationship with God. God desires communion with his children on Sabbath—to bless them, spiritually, physically, and mentally. He also, I believe, calls all of us—His Body of believers—to minister unto others on Sabbath. And therefore, if “Dr. Joe Blow” doesn’t appreciate the concept of the Sabbath that God has given us in the Decalogue, then I would be concerned about the foundation with which his relationship with God is built and understood.

For one to disregard the Sabbath and the importance that God has placed on this day degrades humanity’s relationship with God and for that reason alone such a position advocated by an SDA employee would be of concern.

The doctrine of the State of the Dead is important, again, because it is based on our love-relationship with God. Because God loves us and does not torture us for all of eternity, or for that matter, bless those with heaven while loved ones are still braving the trials and tribulations of this earthly existence. If God did allow this, it would not be reflective of the love-relationship he has established between him and his creation. For one to disregard the State of the Dead and believe in either an eternal hell or of a heaven and hell in existence today degrades humanity’s relationship with God. That is why such a position that denied the Adventist doctrine of the Sate of the Dead would concern me.

The fact that “Dr. Joe Blow” desires to kill someone, regardless for what reason, would be in a direct violation of the love-relationship that God has given; a love-relationship between us and him and between each other. Also, I recall something in the Ten Commandments referencing killing as being one of the “Thou shalt nots” . . . I do not, however, find anything in there about homosexuality; furthermore I fail to find any mention of homosexuality in the collected sayings of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, or the voluminous writings of Ellen White.

Theologically, the idea that gay and lesbian people are sinful because of their sexuality projects an image on God that is not worthy of divinity. I think Archbishop Desmond Tutu is speaking to something important when he says, "If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God." Neither would I.

You write, “Some of us do think there is a line--and if evolution hasn't crossed it, then what does?” I have not stated that there is not line; simply that it is not as simplistic as “you are either with us or against us.” That is not the biblical model for community within the Body of Christ.

Finally, Evolution doesn’t “cross the line” because the belief in theistic evolution doesn’t violate the love-relationship that God has mandated. One can believe in creation and not have it be a literal six days. Furthermore, one can be a loving, committed follower of Christ and not believe in the traditional view of creation.

I’m not willing to make an idol of tradition or to restrict God to man’s traditions. I’m equally not willing to demean other sincere Christians with legitimate questions regarding our traditions nor am I arrogant enough to dismiss theology simply because it is not “traditional” or “what the church has believed for whatever period of time that it takes to enshrine it as “’truth forevermore.’”

Our friends in Spain are also active on this discussion.
There is also a post on Cafe Hispano which you can read in English here.

question seems:
Is there a discrepancy between the employer(church) and the representative of the employer(professor at college)?
If so, how significant is it? And should the employer continue to use/and pay him as a validated representative?

(All moral,christian and personal judgments aside for the time being)

Cliff
Do you believe the SDA church should enforce the orthodoxy you stand for and have people such as Alexander Carpenter and Raymond Thompson removed from church membership?

My political guru Michael Kinsley years ago suggested that anti-abortion rhetoric was just that, rhetoric. If these people believed their own statements, that abortion was murder, he argued, you would expect them to call for the arrest of the aborting mother (for hiring a killer) and the doctor (contract killer). The fact that nobody did, he concluded, indicated that while their opposition to abortion was real, the rest was rhetorical hype.

You have stated that theistic evolution is apostasy from Christ. I realize it's not your job to recommend people for excommunication, but what do you think?

Aage Rendalen

If God's law is the Law of Love, then how can theistic evolution be consistent with the Law of Love? How can survival of the fittest fit with others-centered, self-sacrificial love? Yes, there are things that point to deep time. There are also many that are not consistent with deep time. Most of evolution is based on constancy. Is this a fair assumption? Probably not.

Cliff,
Aage is doing a good job at nailing you down on this. What exactly are you advocating? How Adventist is
1. your specific view on origins
2. the extent of difference on origins you think we should tolerate
3. how you feel we should respond to intolerable divergence on origins

Yes, Daneen, I wish that the folks who use Creation has a doctrinal rubric would spend more time talking about how Adventists should care for it.

Furthermore, in the last couple of weeks of discussion, its becoming clear that when folks start calling a scientific theory like evolution a religion, they really want their religion to work like a science. This sort of logical positivism just doesn't work to explain the meanings of Sabbath mornings.

I don't want to attack Cliff personally, because he is a product of what was once the dominant promise of Adventism, to wit: if you accept our doctrinal premises - and the Great Controversy narrative - anything that happens in the world can be explained. But the more one learns, the less that works at present. How does global warming fit into Revelation? Cliff, what happened to all those predictions you made about Reagan and the Pope? One either has to do some fancy contextualizing or deny some overwhelming evidence. For the sake of the argument, perhaps each events only sets the stage. . .but if it's okay to incorporate the evidence of human happenings into ones religion, why can't I incorporate the internal human happenings into my faith?

Just like there are extremists who deny evolution, there are news deniers who argue that significant events like the Holocaust or Sept. 11 are the result of collective delusion or a God-hating conspiracy.

Some just find the external story of biological happenings more threateningly, while others fear the internal explanations.

For those who find in Adventism a tight Truth, significant belief critique, such as 1844, evolution, the hermeneutical shift required by women's ordination, creates cognitive dissonance because the whole package doesn't provide what it promised.

This is evident in the occasional vitriol of Cliff, or deeper anger of Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, or the promotion of David Asserick.

Although there are exceptions, these three "defenders" of the faith are all converts who came to Adventism after some serious existential questing. This can happen to generational Adventists too, as what lies behind the "will they stop at nothing" is a sliding fear that the explanatory borders are changing and they don't want to return to their former existential anxiety.

Of course, it's two dimensional to describe motives like this - and I mean no harm - but I do it to point out that behind the simplistic left/right binary lie reasons that have to be addressed. And folks like Cliff and Sam have to stop reading their experience with Adventism as normative.

As Rick Rice points out, beyond the immediate security of beliefs as numero uno, lies an integrated approach that mixes ideas, with ethical behavior and community building.

Cliff asks a vital question, what are the boundaries? And that is an essential question that thousands of Adventists in college probe often, just so he knows that he's not the only one.

And those who visit Spectrum also devote a lot of time to this. It should be clear that future church leaders like Jared Wright and Trisha Famisaran are articulating new boundaries for Adventists, beyond the existential needs of some, to include the intellectual work of young Adventist women and the concern for earth's destiny. If creation is the only thing one sees between morality and immorality, I'd suggest that they have a shaky moral structure.

A. Way, follow the logic. Just because some animals kill every day for food doesn't mean that humans should. I take evolution seriously, but biology is not as a moral guide. Should one apply Mendellian genetics to one's mating choices? Should creationists not compete then?

I recommend Bob Wright's Nonzero on this topic.

I see these latent fears lurking behind a lot of anti-evolution rhetoric, that somehow once one takes the evidence seriously, nothing stands between that person and nihilism. But that's just not the actual or necessary result. Whoever one views truth, at some level we have to work together to create meaning.

I have come to appreciate more and more the idea of Adventism as a family.

There seem to be two dominant impulses. The first views our effort as necessarily exclusive: ethics, theology, truth and the rest is only accessible to Christians and from Christian text. It is narrow. The second is more comfortable seeing sources outside of our own ghetto inform our ethics, theology, truth and the rest. It is a broad perspective. This is the split between Niebuhr & Barth, Cobb & Hauerwas. And it is mirrored within our own denomination.

There are lots of ways we can take this discussion from that point but one thing I've been meaning to ask someone who is strongly narrow and someone who is strongly broad on what he/she views as sacred or profane. To expand on these two categories in relation to our discussion on science.

Cliff & Alex,
For example, is all human reason sacred? Why or why not? What makes one idea profane?

If there is a tipping point where one goes from one side to the other I will admit to being slightly on the narrow side. My friend Alex is on the other side quite a bit more strongly than I am on mine. It makes for very good arguments. Our conversations on Intelligent Design (ID) on Cafe Hispano are far more positive of ID than the comment by Alex. I like ID as does a majority of Spanish-speaking Seventh-day Adventists. Likewise, the book Creation Reconsidered published by Adventist Forum presents a wide range of views beyond the usual fare.

These liberal and conservative categories are, ultimately, ridiculous. When I was at one of our colleges I was put forth by a faculty member to help with the student paper religion page as I was "conservative". This impression was based on nothing to do with me but rather an encounter (s)he had with my dad where my dad advocated unity over division on the question of women's ordination as a response to an unfavorable vote. In turn, one conference official in Puerto Rico views my dad as a flaming liberal. This person also thinks Angel Rodriguez is too liberal. The world is full of people like that conference official and faculty member. Narrow not only in visions of truth but definition of community- of what makes one part of 'us' or part of 'them'.

In conclusion, these labels accomplish but one purpose: to marginalise views we disagree with and to ignore perspectives which challenge our own. Labels are not constructive.

Ultimately it is the belief that we are best served as a church when we engage in the search for truth together which defines my outlook. It's why I treasure Spectrum- this is what is meant by community through conversation. Cliff: I'm glad you're here. Please stop telling other people they don't belong!

thanks!!!

/another lesson is that who you caucus with, who your family is, defines who you are as much as, or even more than, anything you are.
//I love my Adventist family birthed from my pops to my last generation theology proponent Pr. uncle as well as my chosen Adventist family: my Loma Linda University church family and Adventist Forum/ Spectrum family. That is where I'm from and where I chose to be.
///Cliff, you're here often- you're part of the Spectrum family also! How does that strike you?

The May-June issue of Adventist Today, a sister publication, has an article By Larry Downing, retired pastor: "Essentials & Accidentals." By majoring in minors we sometimes find ourselves minoring in majors and that the difference between the absolute Essentials of Christianity and Adventists should not be confused with the Accidentals.

E.g., the Essentials are defined as those properties that are fundamental to an object or person. Accidentals are those properties that are part of an object but are not essential to its being. He uses the metaphor of a triangle. The angles of a triangle will add up to 180 degrees--always. This is an Essential. The area of a triangle is an Accidental.

The first Christians counted the following as Essentials: Jesus Christ is Lord, he was crucified, and he rose from the dead. Accidentals, include the Nativity story (recorded only by Matthew and Luke) but not mentioned in the other NT writings.

In some groups, Accidentals tend to become Essentials, because Accidentals are what define and give character to individual groups. The more distinct the Accidental, the more importance it may have for the group.

In the Adventist church, Accidentals-turned Essentials (the seventh-day Sabbath; the 2300-day prophecy in Dan. 8:14; abstinence from tobacco, alcohol, and unclean meats; tithing; and the belief that Ellen White was a prophet of God. These provide the SDA church its unique identity and have, over the years, become basic to its continued existence.

Is it possible for the Adventist church to decide one member's Essentials as another member's Accidentals? Can the church survive and permit a diversity of belief in inspiration, eschatology, short-earth chronology, and a worldwide flood without destroying the Christian fellowship of its members?

Dude, where's my post?

The most interesting evolution (as usual) is in the comments section.

The unfortunate thing is that while the conference at Pine Springs Ranch was a very good one - a retreat that provided rich conversation, valuable insights, helpful resources, and a catalyst for faithful Christian action in the world, the potential to continue the discussion has been sideswiped here by I'm-not-sure-what.

It was a pleasure and a privilege to meet and talk with so many thoughtful Adventists, and my biggest regret is having so little time to share in dialogue with the good folks of the TierraSanta Adventist Church and the invited guests.

I left the conference (too soon, as I've said) with a head full of thoughts - thoughts of gratitude for the many people in Adventism who care about the way we treat our Earth, thoughts of hope for the good things happening (like the Solar-ization of La Sierra mentioned in the post above), and new thoughts on how to mesh faith and action.

First I will say that biblically being a good steward and being responsible for creation is truly valid and a charge that we should monitor our actions in this area. But; the craziest thing about all this is the juxtaposition of where the Enviro drumbeat is/has always come from.
We have heard it for years. Don’t cut down trees. Don’t use coal. Dont use chemicals. SUV’s Ect.
The strange part for me has always been where it doesn’t come from. The Environment. Some people used to call it the countryside, the outdoors, the part without the Starbucks.
No, the drumbeat comes from the pavement jungles. You can always spot them. They are so devoid of natural life they bring it in and put it in a thing called a ZOO. They have 10 times the percentage of their counties covered up with asphalt as do the country dwelling environment destroying schlubs. Geniuses like Al Gore devise great plans like buying greenhouse credits from the same family farmers he effectively legislates out of business then claims himself carbon neutral.
But instead of leading by example or living according to their convictions and getting out into the environment they seek to protect and grow their own food and put in solar panels or wind generators they tend towards media, lectures, academia and the proximity of concrete and asphalt.
Seattle is a good example region. The riparian water restrictions for any county not infested with people are treated as pristine untouchable areas while any waterway stream or oceanfront in urbanized King, Snohomish or Pierce county is open for concrete seawalls, docks, piers and high density development.
Let’s just say that although there is truth here, the average spokesperson for the cause is less convincing to the public than they could be because historically they have relied more on lawsuits than on their example. This fact is not lost on the public.

On the whole I would pay much greater attention to concerns comming from within NE New Mexico or NE Idaho than someone holding a conference in Berkley.

I will have to agree here with Michael. I find it very amusing when I see the very wealthy, often single, multiple home owners proposing that we use cloth bags to carry our groceries home so that we can help save a tree.

I didn't mean to get sucked into this again, but something like an "evolutionary biologist' teaching at an, ahem, SDA school just hit my hot button big time. (I need to learn to not post when angry)

For the record, I haven't advocated throwing anyone out, not here and not in "Seventh-day Darwinians." That's not what I was talking about. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the logic, or lack thereof, of those who, while professing to be SDAS, hold beliefs totally antithetical to Adventism at its most fundamental level--and evolution is contrary to the most basic Adventism.

But, even worse, I have hard time understanding how folks who believe in evolution can in good conscience take a pay check from a church whose very name "Seventh-day" implies something radically opposite of what they believe.

I'm done on thi post. I wasn't planning to start harping on this topic again (I know, I sound like a broken record). God be the judge of others, not me. Lord knows, I got my own issues . . .

Michael
From a purely political point of view, conservatives should take a clue from Newt Gingrich, who realizes that unless you get over the fact that liberals have spearheaded the environmentalist movement, your political future is at stake.

Much can be said about Newt Gingrich but he is a savy politician. Unlike the ditto-heads, he's not willing to stake the future of the GOP on the off-chance that AM-radio and the odd meterologist who's wandered off the reservation in the end will triumph over science.

So get over the fact that people you dislike (Al Gore et al) show more concern about the future of the planet than those you identify with. You can help change that.

Aage,

I used to share space in a building in College Park, Ga. with Newt. Newt is intellegent and you are correct that He is a "savy" politician. He spoke to our Dental study club meetings and once in 1985 would not answer my comment of why corporations should be allowed to deduct health care expenses for employees at 100% when the average citizen could not write off 100% expenses. This I said is unfair and will lead to a "two tier" overused more expensive cost system for the average citizen.

Newt simply said, "we need to do something about healthcare."

Pilate was a savy politician also and "savy" gives up principle for votes.

Pat

Super Interesting Conversation!

I’m sorry I’m coming in super late in the conversation. I don’t mean to rehash any conflicts already settled but, I’d to bounce my hypothesis here and get some feedback.

My thoughts boil down to this: It is fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE to be both a believer of Theistic Evolution or any other kind of evolution that is contrary to the 6-day creation theory that ID proponents hold to and be a Christian at the same time. Here’s why:

I believe, first off, that MOST of the Bible is inspired(hahaha yes you can tell that to my religion professors at SAU). But before Cliff gets more upset at another one of our schools let me clarify myself. The only piece of scripture not inspired by God is found in Exodus 20:2-17. Why do I say this part of scripture is not inspired? Because these are the actual, literal words of God! Maybe in his infinite wisdom, God thought this piece of scripture was so important that He couldn’t trust have anyone come and question its authenticity so He chose to write it down PERSONALLY and have the Israelites view this pronouncement as witnesses. So again, remember, these are not the ‘inspired’ words of God we’re dealing with, these are the actual words, the very thoughts of God written verbatim.

The Creation account is the foundation for the entire Bible, it’s what everyone reads when they first open up the book. Satan knows that if he can take out this foundation, then not only does this story and all of Scripture come undone, but Gods claim of being truth and love is shattered. Here’s why summarized in a few points:

1) God Himself said in Genesis 20:11 that he created the world in six days but if this isn’t the case and creation took longer, He is a liar and a cheat who has tried to make Himself look better than he actually is. He’s lied about one part of the 10 Commandments, what else could be false? Sabbath maybe, because he’s giving us the reason WHY we should keep it? Or maybe we’ve also been lied about Idolatry and Adultery also.
2) If he has lied in this part of the Bible that is not inspired, what else have we been lied about? We might as well throw out whole thing!
3) Jesus’ divinity is jeopardized because His healing ministry now takes on a “Benny Hinn” feel to it. If the Creator did not say, “Let there be light” and instantly create at the sound of His voice, neither does He have the power to say, “Rise up and walk” with the hope of instant healing. His miracles must have had some lag-time what would be sure to cause more damages than help to those He healed.
4) If God could not create life on earth at His command, then how can we expect Him to RECRATE the world again after sin has been done away with without bringing death and survival of the fittest back into the scene? That isn’t love.

I’m sure there are more ways that Evolution plays a role in shattering a trustworthy view of Scripture and God but if this much is true, then I might as well go back to being a Deist because as I though before, God doesn’t care about His creation since He’s lied to us all this time. Or better yet, I should go be a Satanist because Lucifers been right from the beginning when he said questioned Gods trustworthiness. Thankfully, I believe that scripture can be trusted, God is true and love and that one day he will come again and take us up to enjoy fellowship with one who is in all things true.

Either way, it would take more faith to stay in a belief system where the Bible is false, its Deity is a liar and you have no sure way of knowing that there’s any truth to what you’ve been told. If Gods bride is the Church then I’d say she should find herself another man because the one she has is no good.

Wheather this argument holds water to it or not, what are everyone’s thoughts?

Sorry about all the grammatical errors here also, this is what happens when I type early in the day and with no spell check on my computer to aid me, hehehe.

Nelson,
I wouldn't go as far as you but I would agree that Genesis, and the creation event, is inextricably tied to the New Testament and Christs work on our behalf.

Cliff,
To the extent that our church is in conversation about certain issues, we're in dialogue. When our church votes statements on contentious issues or takes other forms of ecclesial correction some people have chosen to part ways. We saw this most recently in Glacier View and in reaction to the Utrecht vote on women's ordination. However I am saddened to think that you view this parting as a happy event. The loss of such people in my view represents a failure both relational and rational to retain and convince members of our family of our (collectively formed) view. Yet such decision to stay or leave are not personal, they are principled.

I disagree with your assertion that people who stay or leave do so because they want a paycheck. If asked, I am quite confident most would say that their leaving or staying was because they either see our state as irredeemable so they've left or that they see their task within our church as ongoing so they've stayed.

Elaine,
I hear what you're saying but if my 'essential' is your 'accidental' have we really gotten anywhere or have we shifted the conversation from the matter itself to the question of how essential the matter is? How useful is that? I haven't gotten my copy of AToday. They sent the last issue to Canada (I'm surprised it found its way to me) and mail takes a while to get to me generally anyways...

There is a broader discussion on orthodoxy: who decides what is in or out? I believe that there is a protestant and Catholic answer to this question which prefers, respectively to different degrees, the church body or ecclesial structures. Theologians are part of the church (as are administrators) but they could hardly be said to be the church. I think it's important to cling strongly to the Adventist notion that truth is progressive, we have no creed save Scripture and that we together as a church are constantly searching for truth- a task that is without end for us. That doesn't deny the essentials or minimise accidentals but it might remind us that humanity can see truth through glass darkly- it is a humbling and re-orienting perspective which should impact how we relate to ourselves and to those who differ from us within (and without) the body of Christ.

Jared,
Why care for creation if there was no creation event? I think that question, which some people do feel quite strongly about, is what sidetracked the discussion on your post. Alex's work for The Regeneration Project and Interfaith Power and Light is very inspiring. When I was working for Ryan we organised the Hollywood Seventh-day Adventist church to be a signatory and member congregation of that effort. What you posted from Dr. Ford is quite disturbing. That we're facing a water shortage is something I am familiar with. I was not familiar with the idea that we're affecting the rotation of the earth. That _does_ sound quite scary! Do you have more on that?

Who declares what is antithetical to Adventism? Every individual has a different opinion. Whose should count?

If the denomination which employs a teacher, pastor, or anyone they believe whose teaching is antithetical to the church, the employer is the one who decides. God help us if we left everyone's belief about creation, the 2300 days or any of the 28 to decide on any employee. If anyone is alarmed about a church employee's stance, if he is so unhappy, then there is still a course to take which should be to get the church's ear and leave it there.

For those employed by the denomination who disagree strongly with another employee's teaching, he should be fully qualified to address the matter being criticized before speaking out. How many here are professionally qualified to address creation/evolution? If the Bible is the only textbook source, it should be remembered that the Good Book was never intended to be a scientific compendium and to so use it is abusing it. It is a story told by humans, just as the many other contemporary cultures also had their stories of origins.

To the individual who claimed that the Ten Commandments were actually God's own words, where have you seen the original tablets, and why are there several versions if not written by man? Deut. 5:1-21, 34:10:27, and Ex. 20. These were covenants made with Israel, NOT with any of the surrounding tribes, nor were they ever introduced as mandatory to the Christians.

Elaine,
I don't know about you but I don't have the stomach to join the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or International Board of Ministerial and Theological Education. Orthodoxy being whatever position the church (for the member) or institution (for the employee) deems non-negotiable. I don't envy the people who do that for a living but I have serious questions about anyone who would volunteer for such an effort. Moreover, I don't think such an office should exist in our church.

A great example of how this shouldn't be done is in our latest issue which has an editorial by Charles Scriven titled Let’s Eliminate Hyperorthodoxy.

Interesting links Johnny,
One says concerning The International Board of Ministerial and Theological Education,
"It poisons the congenial working relationship that now exists between the University and the General Conference in ways that could easily lead to a break between the two entities, ironically making more likely the very outcome that the writers of the Handbook thought they were preventing."

The fact that the University thought there was a congenial relationship speaks to the fact that they paid no attention to the concerns brought to them over the years.
It is said that, a word to the wise is sufficient. When people pay little attention to the "word", you often get things like a handbook ect.
Many of those observing over the years might say, “Well, what did you expect?”

Then the next bullet point says,
"It will distract the faculty, administration, and board of Loma Linda University from the mission into involvement in prolonged, ugly, and divisive conflicts that will seriously damage our ability to carry out the mission."

Which is the mission and which are the prolonged, ugly, and divisive conflicts?
Do you think they mean the public debating of Environmentalism, homosexuality, women’s ordination ad infinitum?

Johnny,

Why care for the earth if the creation account is not a strictly literal, factual, scientific explanation of the origin of life on the planet?

First - if the "creation event" were the only rationale for Christians' taking care of the environment, I could agree that without the "creation event", there would be less reason for my bothering to caring for it.

However, even if there were creation events instead of a single creation event, I still find more scriptural reasons that care for the Earth makes very good sense. How about the fact that in Scripture, this planet is Tierra Santa. God's first act in Scripture is to come to this planet and to invest Godself in the future of this terrestrial ball. God's most important act - coming in the form of humanity (a unique event in the cosmos) happened on this terrestrial ball. Scripture indicates that God's final dwelling place is not in some distant otherworldly heaven, but rather on this tiny dot in space.

That alone seems reason to take seriously the care of this planet - God's home and ours.

Furthermore, in caring for the planet, we take seriously the command to feed Jesus' sheep and lambs. We provide a liveable environment for the least of these. We do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We love our neighbor as ourselves.

So even if the Genesis creation stories (both of them) are not a literal, precise account of the exact origins of life, there are plenty of good, sound biblical reasons for taking care of the life on this planet.

Concerning Dr. Ford's pointing out that humans have actually altered the "wobble" of the planet, here's the little bit more I could say:

First, and unfortunately, Dr. Ford didn't have time to share the wealth of data in all of its specifics that related to some of the points he made. What he said is that some planetary wobble is expected because of the non-uniformity of the Earth's mass (Earth is not a perfect sphere).

When scientists calculated the actual wobble of the planet, they found significantly more wobble than any predictive model could account for. This unsurprisingly startled people.

After more research and calculating, the excess wobble of the earth was pinned on large concentrations of water, particularly in North America, that backed up behind dams like the Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona.

What this suggests in a dramatic way is that humans can have a tremendous impact on this planet. The naysayers (Humans can't alter the planet because God is in control, right?) would be well served in paying attention to facts like these!

Elaine,
From reading other comments you have posted on this topic as well as other articles, I get the impression that you have serious questions regarding the validity and authenticity of the Bible as well as skepticism of whether the modern person should follow what is written in this “ancient text”. If this is your position, answering your question here might not help you much if you believe the Bible is full of human error anyways. The validity of scripture would probably be the topic of another post but I’ll answer your question regarding my earlier post.

No, I haven’t seen the tablets of stone with my own two eyes. Scripture tells us in Deut. 31:26 that God commanded Moses to place them in the Ark of the Covenant. From there, the last reference we have of them in Scripture is found somewhere I believe in 2 Chronicles where priests from the Temple hid the Ark in order to prevent its destruction at the hands of an invading army. I must mention that version of the tablets inside the Ark are a copy of the originals because they were broken by Moses in anger after seeing Israel’s’ behavior when he came down the mountain. Indiana Jones later found the ark and it is now in a compound in Washington (just a little humor at the end). :D

I was unsure what you meant by “34:10:27” but the reference in Deut 5 you mentioned is Moses’ reiteration of the Law given in Exodus. Deuteronomy itself is the retelling of the law (that’s where the name comes from) and it’s kind of his goodbye message to the people. He isn’t saying “these are a new set of 10 commandments” rather he’s saying, “Remember what God said to us back in Sinai (Ex. 20).” So, again, he is harkening their attention back to an earlier event so they remember.

You are correct in saying that the Commandments were given to Israel and no to the surrounding tribes yet, Christianity has its roots in Judaism. Our founder, Jesus, was Jewish and we can be sure he kept them. In Mat 5:21-22,27-28, we read that Jesus quoted some of them and then said, "But I say to you..." Jesus made clear that not only obedience to the letter of the commandment is needed but also obedience to the spirit of the commandment is needed. Proverbs 4:23 advised: "Be careful how you think; your life is shaped by your thoughts." Plus He mentioned in John 14:15, “If you love me, keep my commandments.”

We also read from Paul letters throughout the New Testament, refer to believers as members of what is called “Spiritual Israel”. And if we are spiritual Israel, then the covenant wasn’t just made for the literal Jewish nation, but for every believer in Christ. Could you imagine the world without the 10 commandments’?! Total Anarchy! Or how about if we took off any two. Maybe stealing and murder? Or Honoring your father and mother?

The point being that God himself is being quoted in Exodus 20 as verse 1 of that chapter indicates and every mention there on is making reference back to the event that happened back in Exodus 20. I hope this helps clarifying where I’m coming from but as I said at the beginning, an explanation won’t help if there is already a bias against scripture in place. Is this your view of the Bible?
Hope this helps! :)

/Thanks for the link Johnny
//Agreed, good stewardship also entails taking care of the environment.

Nelson,

Welcome to the discussions. You'll find that many of the issues you're addressing have been the focus of discussion in these forums for quite some time. The "authenticity" of Scripture is one of those areas that people here have discussed at length.

As for authenticity, I don't think that anyone here (including Elaine, though I would let her speak for herself) would question that the Bible is an authentic collection of writings from many cultures in many times and places, and that it contains a history of some of the Earth's best and most profound thoughts on God.

What people here would probably question is an insistence that Scripture is inerrant in every particular. Only a very superficial read of Scripture might lead to the idea that Scripture is devoid of any "human mistakes".

Think about this a moment - human beings are errant (make mistakes). All humans (unless you'd like to exclude Jesus from that). Human beings told and retold, wrote and rewrote, copied and recopied, edited and re-edited, translated and retranslated, and passed on the Scriptures for generation after generation.

The miracle of Scripture is not that God supernaturally over-rode any human errors that would certainly enter into such a protracted process of thousands of years, the miracle is that God would see fit to allow erring humans to tell the most important stories about God in human language and with human understanding. THAT is truly remarkable and a demonstration of God's mind-bending graciousness.

So let's not keep acting as though Scripture is an entirely unflawed treatise that is exactly the way God would have it if God had written it all. That's silly.

Rather, let's be profoundly humble and grateful that God would entrust such a remarkably important process of story-telling and truth making to mistake-making people as they were moved by God's Spirit.

Nelson wrote:

"if you believe the Bible is full of human error anyways."

It is not merely a matter of belief, there is an abundance of evidence showing that there is human error in the Bible; which should surprise no one as humans wrote it and they are not infallible. There are also multiple contradictions demonstrating that many writers contributed to its pages and could not possibly always be in agreement.

Faith that the Bible is inerrant and infallible is just that: Faith. Facts and faith should never be confused, as the writer of Hebrews tells us that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
It is a consistent conflation of faith and facts that permeate religious belief. Belief is never factual as it ceases being belief at that point.

Questions have always been with us; Socrates found it to be the most important learning tool: always question what has been said or believed regardless of its old tradition. Our learning would never have progressed these many millennia had there not been questions asked. For those who prefer to rest on tradition, one could ask: whose tradition? Does age make it right? Is it ever inappropriate to ask questions even though tradition seems to have prevailed? One need only look at all the great thinkers and inventors as well as discoverers of the past to realize that questions and doubts precede understanding. May we never stop questioning the status quo--that's when slow death begins.

Nelson
I God himself literally wrote the ten commandments, you would expect Moses to be careful to get the wording right when he repeated them, wouldn't you? Instead, there is quite a difference in wording between the two versions, leading most people to conclude that the commandments existed in various versions.

But more than that, let's home it was not God who wrote them. For one thing, it does not establish monotheism (only henotheism), the fourth commandment implicitly endorses slavery and the last commandment obliquely refers to women as chattel--one of the things that belong to your neighbor, and which you should not try to rob him of.

But the biggest problem with the ten commandments is not what they mandate (by and large, sound moral principles embraced by all people throughout history) but what they exclude. The Enlightenment values that Western civilization is largely based on--freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, human rights and human equality--none of these fundamental values are enshrined in the ten commandments.

The ten commandments were the centerpiece of the Torah. Paul's struggle in Galatians was to free Christians from the necessity to shoulder the burden of the Torah, as he saw it. His intention was obviously not to establish a new morality as such, but to establish a new religious structure (and in the process declaring Judaism obsolete as far as Christians were concerned--which is why he nearly got himself lynched.)

Others have used the example of what happened when the United States was established: The US declared that it was no longer under the English constitution and its constituent laws but when it established its own laws, the Founders quarried almost everything from the English legal tradition.

Jared,

"So let's not keep acting as though Scripture is an entirely unflawed treatise that is exactly the way God would have it if God had written it all. That's silly.

Rather, let's be profoundly humble and grateful that God would entrust such a remarkably important process of story-telling and truth making to mistake-making people as they were moved by God's Spirit."

What is so "neat about that" is we can take or leave whatever we want and reframe the rest to mean whatever we want. This falable book has no authority! At least not for me!

Humans creating "earth wobble" by dams. I gotta see that "research" and critical peer review! Boy, just think what the flood must have done to the "wobble" and weather...or did that happen?

pat

Aage--aren't there actually three versions of the 10 commandments? I was quite shocked to learn this in a Sabbath school class a few years ago. The third version in Exodus 34, the least well known, is actually the only one that says it's the duplicate of what was written on on the stones Moses smashed. I can see why it's not well known, as it definitely emphasizes different commands. See: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus34.htm

If you really want to know what was on the two tables of stone in the ark you can always ask God. He is still alive. However, the bible does say, "At that time the LORD said to me, 'Cut two tablets of stone like the former; then come up the mountain to me. Also make an ark of wood. I will write upon the tablets the commandments that were on the former tablets that you broke, and you shall place them in the ark.'

Why, then, are there major discrepancies with the three rendering of the commandments? Why has the church chosen the one in Ex. 20 over the others? Who decided which was the one to be used?

Mea Culpa: Incorrectly, I gave Deut 34 when it should have been Ex. 34. In the 27th verse of that chapter, it says:
"The Lord said to Moses, write down these words...and he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments." In this version, equal value is given to observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread; the first offspring belongs to me; you shall work six days but on the seventh day you shall rest; and you shall celebrate the Feast of Weeks; three times a year all males are to appear before Lord God; the Feast of the Passover is not to be left over until morning."

Who today observes those feasts which appear to have been given equal value and importance as given by God to be observed?

If they are attributing earth wobble to North American water storage being a factor why dont they calculate other weights too?

Pass a law that everyone in southern CA must move to unpopulated areas.
15.5 million people in a 50 radius of LA.
http://www.anaheimoc.org/Articles/Archive/Webpage10676.asp
At an average weight that makes oh say, 2.8 trillion pounds. Add to that the forests that are moving from up north to down south in the form of lumber and all their cars and the water they consume and it starts to make Grand Coulee (that backs up 9 million acre feet of water 150 miles into Canada)look like a mud puddle in terms of weight.
Besides, when they move out, the colorado river would again be a river providing an ecosystem to poor little fish and birdies instead of a brackish sewer that empties (or should I say trickles?) directly into the ocean.
SC environmentalists unite! Pledge to not use anymore water until the Colorado is fully restored!

A few posts in this discussion reacted to my brief mention of a hypothesis expressed by a few scientists several years ago that "human activity" (e.g. impounding of large amounts of surface water behind large dams in the northern hemisphere vis-a-vis the southern hemisphere) MAY HAVE have affected the "wobble" of the earth. This is an astounding fact indeed, but was cited by me only to illustrate some key points about modern science and how we use it or not--let me explain:

First, this human impact on the earth's geophysical patterns is very minor and not a cause for "concern" as expressed by a few posts. We are not going to "fly out of earth orbit" any time soon--but it does attract attention! What I was illustrating (which didn't come thru in the summaries online) is what this hypothesis says about improvements in contemporary science and technology and what it might mean for us as humans as we figure out how to live responsibly on this little planet which may be our only home:

That credible earth scientists can now measure very minute changes in the earth's orbit, which I refered to as the "earth's wobble", illustrates how the coupling of new scientific tools, data, and methods with new disciplines such as ESS (Earth System Science) has greatly enhanced our ability to understand planetary-scale ecological processes as well as those "human" processes we cause directly by our own actions as consumers, farmers, urban dwellers, politicians, commuters, miners, etc.

In fact, without these new tools our ability to truly measure "human impacts" of all kinds on climate, soils, biodiversity, or social ills such as poverty or natural disasters, would still be largely speculation--not near fact. Thirty years ago very few laymen ever heard about El Nino and its affect on climate; today it is part of regular weather forecasts and is part of what farmer's use to predict what crops to plant next year. Most credible scientists and policy-makers approach these new realms of study with increasing awe and humility, and recognize that ignoring the lessons of science is not only futile but irresponsible.

The key point was and is--that we humans are now a planetary force on par with other global natural processes such as the erosion cycle; that is what the whole debate about climate change is about as well. I can't describe here all the improvements in modeling techniques, computational power, policy-analysis, or data gathering provided by satellite technology involved in this whole new realm of scientific study. Those who want to learn more about Earth system science might start by going to: http://www.essedesignguide.org/

But, what I do want to say--as a sixth-generation Adventist who was never exposed in our Adventist educational system to these new tools and methods until late in my adult life when I went to study earth science "outside the church"--is the following: These new tools, including GIS/RS (Geographic Information Science and Remote Sensing) are only now coming into our educational institutions. For example, the Loma Linda University School of Public Health has recently started to use some of these tools to look at global health threats, improve humanitarian relief, as well as address environmental issues such as biodiversity loss or pollution. This is all very new to the Adventist world, but could be very useful--if we keep an open mind! (see more about LLU's "geoinformatics" work at http://www.llu.edu/llu/sph/geoinformatics/index.html). Are we going to reject these new tools from earth science just because they are "new" or because they might also challenge long held views of how the Creator did his work, or how it might change our perspective on our role in many global environmental or social/political issues? These tools might particularly challenge American Adventists to ask questions about whether we're truly a global church or one still caught up in 19th century frontier nationalistic ways of thinking and behaving that is not helpful in a globalized world where most Adventists now live in the developing world.

As for me personally, becoming exposed to this new realm of science and technology has strengthened my love of nature and given me a window into Creation and the Creator which has strengthened my faith--not diminished it. But, it has also challenged me to be more humble about what I "know" not only in the realm of science, but what I may have felt was "truth" about theological debates such as the age of the earth or the differences between natural law and Divine law, etc. Most of the time I have found these debates to be divisive and petty, and not reflective of the underlying strengths to be found in Adventism.

The new generation of SDA students in and outside our formal Adventist educational system, will be and are much more comfortable with the new science and technology world we live in. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and let them discover "truth" in their own way, and let them figure out what it all means for their own personal value systems and what it means for our institutions as well.

I always thought one of the strengths of Adventism was its ability to look at and absorb "progressive truth" whether it was the health message, or the ills of slavery, or the dangers of smoking, etc. And most Adventists accepted that medical science could help us figure out how to live better as well as heal the sick. Let's keep an open mind on many of these newer science and faith issues, and maybe we'll just learn something that is good for us, the Church, and the Planet. And most important, it may help us become better steward's of God's creatures, the resources he put here for us to use, and make us better neighbors, consumers, and citizens who also recognize that how this generation changes or not, could greatly affect the poor of the world who will be the most affected by impending global environmental changes in climate, technology, urbanization, etc.

The reason for using the "wobbly earth" illustration was missed altogether by most posts: It is very clear from %99.99 of all scientists--that "human impacts" on global processes are real and is likely to greatly alter how future generations will live and die. We can now measure most of these global ecological and biogeophysical processes very precisely. Denying the facts of modern science and not grappling with the implications for policy and politics is tantamount to burying your head in the sand.

The essence of the whole "sustainability" movement is not about whether humans are changing the world, but whether we will do something about it that is good for future generations as well as our own. The greatest and most serious impacts by humans, are those affecting critical global ecosystem processes such as the water cycle, biodiversity, climate, landcover, and even geochemical systems which recycle pollution, provide us food, and govern our exposure to "new" diseases, etc.

Are we going to ignore what science says may occur just because it might challenge our personal views on economics or politics on the age of the Earth, or how our DNA is linked to other life-forms? Do we want to be "right" even if it kills us?

In the panel discussion, I tried to highlight the fact that Adventist's of every generation have not only debated the "end of the world" but we have also focused on "how we wait" for the end of the world! The latter is more important, in my view. That is why we build schools, hospitals, feed the hungry, house the refugee, and work to solve global social ills such as poverty, corruption, and illiteracy.

Other speakers at the conference also tried to focus our attention on the fact that "whether humans have altered nature" is no longer in dispute. What is in dispute is what we will do about it, how we will pay for it, or who is responsible, and whether this whole arena of environmental management or "sustainability" is a legitimate area of discussion within the theological and ethical realm. In other words, will our Church be part of the solution or the problem?

I firmly believe that Adventism with its traditional emphasis on wholism, redemption, healing, and health just needs to expand its view focused primarily on personal and community health and healing to the planeraty level as well.

We can lead or we may be left behind...it is our choice. Will Adventism for this generation be "good news" of healing and redemption or will we be focused on minor theological wrangles that define "who is right" but don't actually heal people or the planet.

I'm saddned when most of the debate so far as expressed in many posts revolves around pro-or-con's vis-a-vis "evolution" or other "hot-button" issues, rather than whether Adventism of today will be part of the solution for a dying Planet. And who are we to say what tools, methods, knowledge, or scientific or philosophical and ethical findings will be most crucial?

And if we muzzle our students or professors from exploring all of God's nature because it might challenge long-help views, is not reflective of the Creator or how His Son showed us how to live and think in the real world--a world where each generation must discover Truth for itself.

Thank you, Dr. Ford, for that helpful clarification!

You summed up my frustration as well when you said, "I'm saddned when most of the debate so far as expressed in many posts revolves around pro-or-con's vis-a-vis "evolution" or other "hot-button" issues, rather than whether Adventism of today will be part of the solution for a dying Planet."

Once again, thanks for helping to steer the conversation in positive and redemptive ways.

Thanks Dr. Ford, I really appreciate your point about how the tools we use can open up new vistas of God's revelation in the natural world. Should the church have tossed the telescope to avoid the theological discomfort of heliocentric-induced questions and a wider universe?

As a young Adventist, it's inspiring to see lions of the faith fearlessly pushing the bounds of learning while remaining rooted. Yes, These Fords Do Still Run!

Dr. Ford,

Your "dam" hypothesis by a "few" scientist MAY HAVE affected the "wobble" of the earth was not presented that way by Jared who rather presented your thoughts as if it is a foregone conclusion that man effects the "wobble" by manmade dams. "Perhaps" the three gorges dam in China will "counter-balance" the hypothesis. :)

I have a question. Dr. John Christy as you likely know was the cheif author for the 2001 IPCC report on global warming. How did an "unqualified scientist" acheive that role?

Dr. Christy is skeptical of the predictability of the current state of the GCM accuracy as regards the lasting and injurious effects of manmade CO2 global warming effects. He suggest weather baloons show a discrepency between models and the empirical evidence of troposphere expected warming thus therefore there must be inadequate data input and lack of complete understanding in the present models.

Is Dr.Christy thus a "quack" to object at this point in GCM as a "developing" science?

On the micro level, If our science of weather and it's causes is so accurate why can our local weather not be predicted 99.9% of the time?

I believe we definately do have an impact at the local level as to toxic waste as well as proper land use and other non environmental practice. I simply believe the global "big picture" is far less uncertain due to the tremendous input contributions that contribute to global weather that seem virtually impossible to completely account for...thus the differences between empirical vs. model results.

Do you feel man can formulate and explain "all the components" that contribute to a balanced weather pattern globally? If not,how might a GCM be completely accurate?

Regards,

pat

Thanks for correcting me.

For those who don't subscribe to a moral, theological nor socio-political rationale for sustainability and environmental advocacy, perhaps a more convincing argument that may carry more weight in conservative, middle-Amerca is a market/economic argument: Green is the color of the present global economy; whether one is manufacturing cars in Germany, Japan or Detroit, weaving carpets or textiles in Georgia, or building homes in Wisconsin. It is no longer just an issue of the '60s hippies in Berkely, or the 90's tree-huggers in the Northwest. It is now one of the highest priorities in the corporate boardrooms of New York, Tokyo and Silicon Valley.

If the moral arguments are not enough to sway good Adventist Christians, perhaps more pragmatic concerns like economic competitiveness and being able to get a job in the present global economy may take the day. I, for one, am grateful that if my children should decide to attend an SDA College or University, they will be taught by the likes of a Dr. Ford, who will not only nurture their faith in a lavishly extravagant God, but also give them essential tools to be good stewards of this fragile gift, our earth (not to mention getting a job "out there in the world", so they can move out of the nest, and let their parents retire in peace)!

Elaine:
"Who declares what is antithetical to Adventism? Every individual has a different opinion. Whose should count?"

Thats Post-modernism if I've ever heard it.

Christian Skeptic

Hi Neville,

Making money has never been considered ethical within itself by Wall Street or your local merchant. Consider as but a few examples Enron, Bear Stearns as well as the most recent "bailout" of BS by the U.S.Federal Reserve.

The "bad" paper is now being held by the Fed as collateral. The present Democratic bill of 300 Billion also offers to allow the "bad" paper to be backed by government guarantees which ultimately will be paid by who upon failure? Your kids and grandkids who assume a larger national debt while those directly invoved in the mischief are richer and gone. Now that's unethical!

Again, I am not against but in favor of taking care of the environment in reasonable provable non alarmist ways.
If interested read my article in Ministry Mag. in May of 2001 entitled, "The environment, created and sustained by whom."
p.24. http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN2001-05.pdf

pat

Pat,

I'm not sure I understand the connection between making money unethically, a la Enron, Baer Stearns, etc., and my assertion that mainstream, conservative corporate giants like Daimler Benz, General Electric and Intel (who have a vested interest in making a profit in reasonable, provable, non-alarmist ways) have "gone green", and further implying that if one wants to work for, or do business with them, one needs to be, at the very least, on the same wobbly planet!

I did read your linked article; and while I don't necessarily disagree with your facts, I must respectfully disagree with your interpretations and applications of those facts. Your point that environmental awareness, as measured by reference in The New York Times, has increased exponentially over the last 30 years is spot on. Your position that this is a conspiracy by Al Gore, the Pope and other radical Eco-Theologians seems a bit alarmist and political. I would propose that when Mercedes touts its recycled content, Toyota its "MPG", and General Electric and Samsung their energy star ratings in the same New York Times' ads, "green" has become mainstream, even by the most conservative corporate standards. It is less of a left-right, liberal-conservative, faith-science debate, and more of a matter-of-fact, feet-firmly-planted-on-the-ground reality.

While I generally agree with the three cautions in your article (who would want the extremes of: 1. A "purely naturalistic and scientific" basis, 2. A "strictly political perspective" or, 3. ..."widespread abuse of intrusive power"...), I wouldn't rule out the intelligent, approropriate use of science, economics and politics, in addition to morality, ethics and religion in the wider, fully-integrated endeavor of living the Christian life while "waiting for Jesus to come".

We may disagree on what is the appropriate balance: what I would term "engagement" (in science, economics, politics, social-justice, sustainability), you may call "compromise, diluting or diminishing" ones faith, or the gospel. Personally, I've found the more I engage in and integrate the full breadth of life experiences and God's creation, the stronger my faith becomes in the Creator.

Christian Skeptic said:

"Thats Post-modernism if I've ever heard it."

Spot on! From a plain skeptic to a Christian Skeptic (whatever that means).

If God checks one's church affiliation at the Pearly Gates, then hewing the line of a church will be the important measure; however, if it is up to each of us as individuals' I choose to opt for the latter. No church or group is responsible for my choices in life. Have you turned over your choices to a church to make for you?

Neville,

Thanks for your comments.

The ethical relation is that many of these companies are joining for the "economic ride" not necessarily a firm "ethical" commitment to the "green movement."

I do not call the opposing view a "conspiracy." It is a group of people who believe that the movement best relates to their socio-politico-religious-economic views. I happen to believe it will diminish personal choices and shift society more towards "people of faith who share a vision with some politicians of more central planning locally and globally better known as global "political eco-justice."

Regards

pat

Pat,

Why such cynicism toward corporations' (made up of individuals like you and me) "ethical commitment" to choose good (like caring for the environment), while at the same time, expressing trust in individual (who make up corporations, e.g.: Ken Lay of Enron) choices, unfettered by governmental regulation?

Aren't you also trying to shift society toward "a people of faith who share YOUR socio-politico-religious vision of an individualistic, de-regulated society? So which is the greater evil, total central planning on one end, or total anarchy on the other? Perhaps you and I (and all our friends) should sit down together and hash things out--but that would be engaging in politics, which violates your religion (but doesn't mine)!

Pat

Just a few comments. I apologize for me or Jared if the impression was given orally or in writing that the "wobbly earth" issue is proven beyond a doubt (it was stated as very likely to be a major cause...among others); the a actual ability to measure minute changes in earth rotation or orbit is not in question; the question was "what might be the cause". The scientists looking at this issue simple were suggesting that among the most likely causes were human changes in earth landcover processes including urbanization and water impoundments.

This discussion illustrates one of the key problems in the whole debate in general about some of these big science issues:

If one goes back and reads or listens to original scientific literature, declarations by the scientists in question are always expressed in "nuanced" language "as statements of hypothesis" (which doesn't translate well into soundbites on a blog or oral presentation to a lay audience). That even goes for most statements by the IPCC and other global science groups who study complex issues like smoking and cancer, the meaning of genomics for genetic research, the causes of biodiversity loss, or the probabilities that humans are affecting ocean currents and climate.

The problem is when the press or other non-specialists, or polititians (for instance) take a scientific declaration out of context and express it in a "sound-bit" that loses all the nuanced language that was originally there. Even scientists (including myself) have made errors in trying to simplify a scientific fact by telling it as a story or statement which is not "wrong" but can be misused by laypeople/non-scientists to suggest "pure fact" when the scientist never meant it that way.

My point I guess, is all of us need to be more careful when discussing science issues when they are used in political, ethical, or economic discourse outside of the original science journal where they were first expressed.

Al Gore, who you and others often criticize for statements he has made in his famous film--"An Invenient Trutht"--is a good illustration. He has taken lots of scientific literature and tried to synthesize it down to key "sound-bite" pictures and statements that are still faithful to the underlying science, but also tell a compelling story that will move people and policy-makers to take action--that is what polititians do. Even he acknowledges that at times the lines get fuzzy, but if we listen to what he says about the "big picture" occassional fuzziness on certain facts are often quite irrelevant. If we have an honest disagreement with Al Gore's analysis of "what the science means for policy" then argue about that--that is perfectly reasonable. But don't try to obfuscate the "big picture" issue which is compelling: humans are indeed affecting climate in ways that will affect future generations. And we should act, if we care anything about future generations!

Taking time to study the original literature is important, and we all need to become better consumers and critics of science which has been "watered down" for public discourse. In other words, keep and open mind and learn to recognize how particular facts are being used, but don't avoid discussing vigorously the key "policy" issues that is the prime focus!

We must always be open to checking/verifying validity of scientific statements--particularly those used in public discourse for policy ends. But don't avoid the "harder questions" which are about what we should do about the implications of these science facts.

As to some of your comments about the "certainty" of GCM's or your local weather report. Of course, there is still uncertainty in all these models; but my point was that scientific tools are MUCH better today than they were 30 years ago. Are we going to ignore their conclusions, when 99% agree, just because there is a 1% chance the reality might be slightly different. Even most climate skeptics who are good scientists, agree that humans are affecting climate; the debate is not about that, but "what would we do about it and when".

I bet that if you were in Oklahoma, Kansas or other states recently hit by killer tornadoes, and you received a warning that you should run into your basement, you wouldn't stop to argue with the science and say..."well, the weather emergency siren could be off by 20% so I'll just wait and see if it actually destroys my house or not"!!

This highlights the underlying issue in most global science reports. They are based on the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE which essentially says, if we know something is within 90-95% of likelihood for being true, e.g. that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, for instance, and that it could very likely cause harm. We act on it and don't wait until 100% accuracy, which is likely to be too late.

On many of these big science issues, we never will get 100% certainty, but we take 'PRECAUTIONS" that make sense politically and economically and try to avoid the downside. In other words, we try to be responsible stewards of our Planet even if we don'k have all the facts proven...

Furthermore, as several others have pointed out...doing the "right thing" about climate and energy consumption can often be a "win-win". That is why even the corportate world is "going green". Good policy-making is always (and always has been) about making good/precuationary decisions that don't wait for the perfect result, but decide based on the "preponderance of good evidence" which we have now!

One last point, usually in these debates the science "facts/hypotheses" are usually not the key problem; they become "strawmen" for debates about the politics or economics, or ethics. Let's all be intellectually honest enough to let people know what the real issues are, rather than misuse science for political ends. It's analogous to misquoting "key texts" in the Bible simply to "win a theological argument" rather than focusing on the "weighter issues" Jesus talked about, e.g. "looking at how we treat our neighbor or "the least of these"--the poor.

Bob Ford

DR Ford said, "... humans are indeed affecting climate in ways that will affect future generations. And we should act, if we care anything about future generations!"

Why dont the Liberal activists and Al Gore try and fix something infinitly easier to quantify like social security first then? It will affect our children much sooner than Global warming.

"This highlights the underlying issue in most global science reports. They are based on the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE which essentially says, if we know something is within 90-95% of likelihood for being true...."

Do we also admit that reports of how something might happen are used to gain funding for scientists pet projects?

I have served on boards where scientists submit proposals for funding. I have noticed a distinct "the sky is falling" aspect, to their requests. I can only assume that they feel the need since we fund many diffrent projects and impending doom seems to make certain of their projects stand out.

Neville,
I believe in “limited government” not anarchy, liberatarian or “collectivist” forms of government…nuff said.

-----------------------------
Bob,

Thanks for your reply.

I do agree that the issue is politicized. I also am aware of where most of it is coming from. I have given an overview in the paper I wrote, “The environment, created and sustained by whom.” It is as straight forward as I know how to be in regards to my concerns with the movement...Not a "conspiracy" but people with like thought and mindset who are dealing with issues as regards "global weather" that I don't believe man can fully understand...or change.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN2001-05.pdf
p.24.

I disagree that the "science" is settled and that we humans are changing global weather in a lasting or provable harmful way. If it were settled the models would routinely match the empiracal data in a predictable fashion.

Regards,

pat

Bob Ford makes a very important point that hits home for me, and I would say has a lot of relevance in conversations like this one.

Non-specialists (like me) need to take great care in latching onto and repeating points that we hear the specialists making (sifting the information through our non-specialist filters).

Rather, as far as possible, specialists should be allowed to speak for themselves, as Dr. Ford has done. All of us have been guilty, no doubt, of speaking for the specialists using the words we thought we heard - I have demonstrated sufficiently in this thread how that works.

Thinking about this issue of non-specialists speaking for the specialists in sound-bites, along with watching the ways people's statements are misconstrued and misrepresented here on the Spectrum blog, makes me think that what may be needed here is better listening - even active listening.

Active listening, of course, has to do with allowing a person to speak their mind (without passing judgment), listening attentively, then checking to see whether what I hear you saying is what you actually intended to say, or whether what I heard was off a bit.

Good points Jared.

I hear Dr. Ford using a lot of "likely" terms and this is completely legitimate. it is also completely legitimate for those disagreeing with the "consensus" to take issue with the "likely."

If someone comes to be treated for a cough in a medical office and one see's the patient is really coughing, Should the Dr. as a PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE immediately give antibiotics because he is 66-90% certain it is bacterial? understand there are often overlapping signs and symptoms requiring different treatments. "Correlation does not equal causation."

This particular patient I had in mind was mistreated as they had a virus. As a result, one may have also created a "resistent strain" to proper treatment in the future based on a unsound diagnosis.

Another aspect. I have seen a beautiful root canal done with all the accessory canals sealed etc.two weeks before a patient visited me. However there was no periodontal ligament or bone around 2/3 of the root and it was mobile. Even worse it was the only remaining tooth in the arch. A "great root" canal done for no legitimate purpose.

Moral of the story. Sometime legitimate research can be done on the "micro level" that appears excellent. However until it is accurately matched to the big picture with all of it's considerations it is at that point unuseful and if acted on at that time potentially harmful and costly with a poor outcome.

regards,

pat

Jared, Bob, and Others...an additional thought.

I put this online once before and I place it not for authority…as I have stated places where I disagree with EGW…but for the metaphysical concepts of the below statement which I believe to be valid.

“When in difficulty, philosophers and the great men of earth desire to satisfy their minds without appealing to God. They ventilate their philosophy in regard to the heavens and the earth, accounting for plagues, pestilences, epidemics, earthquakes, and famines, by their supposed science. Hundreds of questions relating to creation and providence, they will attempt to solve by saying. This is a law of nature.
There are laws of nature, but they are harmonious, and conform with all God's working; but when the lords many and gods many set themselves to explain God's own principles and providences, presenting to the world strange fire in the place of divine, there is confusion. The machinery of earth and heaven needs many faces to every wheel in order to see the Hand beneath the wheels, bringing perfect order from confusion. The living and true God is a necessity everywhere.” FE 409

I understand that some of the GCM “warming” advocates are now saying that “warming”
may be delayed for another 15 yrs. due to new info on Ocean cooling characteristics not seen earlier.

Due to the problems created in the market by Carbon credits and carbon trading and misallocation of resources from their best use, how might these facts along with the EGW thought have us believe we have time to get "exact science" before acting prematurely by the “Preventive Principle”…Would not a loving patient God allow for this?

regards,

pat

Pat / Jared:

Very good points generally, though I don't agree with all of them. Analogies are never perfect whether it is about root canals or earth science. To the degree that our discussion now focuses more on "what to do" and "when to do it" etc...is very appropriate. Just see the rethinking that is occurring nationally regards "ethanol" as a panacea for energy independence--once many have seen how it impacts food prices and other commodities. Some more careful retinking is starting to occur, on all sides of this part of the debate; I hope we can keep it there.

Caution and pragmatism--the essence of the precautionary principle--in the search for realistic policy options that consider carefully the science, is what is needed. Whether one believes in essentially libertarian or big government approaches to solving these problems, at the end of the day the "solutions" have to work in the real world, which is very complex. And usually the solutions that work are somewhere in the middle politically...outside the usual political labels of left or right.

I worked on many of these climate issues (and other global environment issues such as agricultural policy, desertification, etc.) under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. That was an interesting learning experience..needless to say.

I found that where the "rubber meets the road" at the operational level within key agencies that must implement policy, pragmatism is what works. It is sad that many partisans on both sides politically haven't had to actually try to implement their ideas at the operational level. If they had more experience they would find that most often its the good technical and policy-analysts in the middle who make things happen. But if you want to fuel acrimonious debates just listen to the partisans on either side.

I hope the Church and our country in general is moving into a more moderate open-minded era where we try to unite around solutions that work, not just what scores political points or makes us "feel right" on non-essential theological debates.

Bob Ford

Thanks Bob,

My point is in the "root canal" and the "cough" is that the micro and macro must be in accord in a sound diagnosis for "harmony."

regards,

pat