Introduction

It is now widely and publicly acknowledged that there are substantive differences of opinion among Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) scholars, both scientists and theologians, about how the Genesis creation narratives should be interpreted. The diversity of views can, in large part, be traced to whether scholars hold fundamentalist or nonfundamentalist-based assumptions concerning the nature of biblical inspiration. Their views of inspiration influence the degree to which such scholars acknowledge that biblical narratives like these may contain factual errors. These views also may influence their acceptance or rejection of scientific data--geological, paleontological, and archaeological--which they consider to be incompatible with traditional SDA views on origins.

How can we reconcile these conflicting perspectives? I think that the current dialogues on this topic might serve as a model and case study of how other conflicting theological issues in the church can be resolved in a constructive manner. We can use these discussions to explore how important doctrines such as the Sabbath might be revalued in light of non-fundamentalist ways of approaching the biblical narratives. Though some people declare that we must retain the traditional views on the Creation narratives, those who disagree should still honor their understandings and spiritual integrity. Those who hold a different perspective also have a right to the respect of any who disagree. Some may even disagree with both positions. But our church community as a whole should give them all equal respect; none should feel compelled to give up their views. The current president of the General Conference has proposed a constructive approach to reconcile the diversity of views on how God accomplished his creation. His approach, with several caveats, is for the church, firstly, to simply "to live with" the differences; and secondly, to "create a good home for the future in which people can communicate, understand each other, [and] respect each other's space."

Traditional SDA Creationism

Traditionally Adventists have believed in what is sometimes called "Young Life Creationism"- that all forms of life were created in six contiguous, literal, 24-hour days in the recent past. The words "in six days, the Lord made . . . all living things upon the earth" were added to the sixth of the 27 Fundamental Beliefs of the church at the 1980 General Conference session, without mention of how long ago that happened. This was the first time an official statement of doctrine made any reference to the details of either the Creation or the Flood narratives in Genesis.

Those holding to "Young Life Creationism" typically define and state the "recent past" to be in the range from about 6,000 to 10,000 years, and a few people suggest even slightly higher numbers. At the most recent (2002) meeting of the General Conference Biblical Research Institute Science Council (BRISCO), held at Loma Linda University, a much higher number-on the order of several hundred thousand years-was mentioned as a possibility by one BRISCO member with a reputation for supporting the church's traditional positions on these matters. In addition, the conventional Adventist "Young Life Creationism" posits that there has also occurred an even more recent catastrophic, worldwide flood-the so-called Noachian Flood described in Genesis 7-8, occurring somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 years ago. Traditional understandings hold this event responsible for much or all of the fossil-bearing layers of the geologic column. They thus reflect an essentially fundamentalist view of Biblical inspiration and are currently championed by the Adventist Theological Society

Young Life Creationism and SDA Fundamentalism

The use of the word "fundamentalist" in this discussion is not intended as pejorative. In historical, sociological, or anthropological discussions of this topic, the term is used in a descriptive and comparative sense, as defined by scholars who have studied varieties of religious commitments and expressions-particularly by those who have examined the history of American religious movements. This is how George Knight, professor of church history at the SDA Theological Seminary, used the term in a recent survey of the history of the SDA movement, A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs. He entitled the chapter in which he reviewed developments of SDA beliefs between 1919 and 1950: "What Is Fundamentalist in Adventism?"

A succinct scholarly definition of "fundamentalism" would be that it describes a militant, conservative movement in American Protestantism that, around the beginning of the 20th century, arose in opposition to what were termed "modernist" elements and tendencies in several Protestant churches of the time. Among other doctrinal statements, fundamentalist Protestants emphasized their belief in the absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures in the original autographs, i.e., that there are no major errors of fact in any biblical text. The origin of the word "fundamentalism" itself derives from a series of booklets entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, written between 1910 and 1915 by a group of conservative evangelical Protestant scholars in the United States.

In popular and journalistic discussions fundamentalists are pictured as intellectually naïve, culturally unsophisticated, and lacking in advanced formal education. They are represented as strident, anti-intellectual, reactionary bigots. However, many of the authors writing chapters in The Fundamentals held earned doctorates from major universities of the time and had academic appointments in some respectable academic institutions. Likewise, many SDA theologians currently supporting the Young Life Creationism position, as exemplified by members of the Adventist Theological Society, are well-trained in various fields of theology or biblical studies; and some have earned doctoral degrees from major European or American universities. It should be forcefully emphasized that differences of opinion on this topic within the SDA community today are not a reflection of superior or inferior education or intellectual ability on either side of any disputed point of view. Rather, at issue are assumptions people hold about which biblical interpretative framework is to be considered normative within the SDA tradition, and how it is to be applied to this topic.

Many Adventists who hold to biblical inerrancy are influenced by the church's all-encompassing worldview, a means of completely understanding the past, present, and future. The "Great Controversy" theme provides a master narrative and explanatory worldview that begins in the Book of Genesis and ends in the Book of Revelation. Many of its public evangelists present this as a comprehensive religious package. To many of its members this master narrative is thought of as an undifferentiated whole composed of a tightly interconnected set of beliefs which, taken together in their totality, are simply, "The Truth." It is thus understandable that they would tend to view a change in any one element as having important and far-reaching consequences for many other parts of their religious identity.

SDA Creationism and Flood Geology

. University of Wisconsin historian Ronald Numbers, a former Loma Linda University faculty member, in his The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, documents how Adventists helped develop one facet of fundamentalist Creationism in America. In this widely quoted book, he traces the SDA influence on the shaping of the modern fundamentalist "Creation Science" movement, and especially one of its characteristic hallmarks-the advocacy of a recent worldwide flood.

Numbers details how in the early 1900s one Adventist, George McCready Price, wrote books on what he called "Flood Geology," which were picked up by fundamentalists as their best way to confront evolutionary geology. Price's convictions on this matter stemmed from his reading of the Adventist prophetess, Ellen G. White. Like essentially all nineteenth-century conservative Protestants, she believed in a recent creation of all living things about 6,000 years ago and a worldwide flood not long after. Price, who received no formal education in geology but who read widely in the geological literature of his time, was a firm believer in the total and complete validity-we might even say inerrancy-of Ellen White's views on all important theological questions, including her interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis.

Since for some conservative Adventists this essentially fundamentalist interpretation of the Genesis Creation and Flood narratives have been thus linked to what they regard as central elements of SDA doctrine, the details assume great importance. In fact, for some church members, to deny the literal truthfulness of a recent, worldwide Flood, undermines what they view as the basis of their eternal salvation. This is clearly a very serious matter. SDAs who do not share these views should be sensitive to those for whom this is an issue of ultimate significance. Any who attempt to approach these differences in the church must affirm the sincerity and commitment of all members, even when not in agreement with their conclusions.

A New SDA Creationism: Constructive Approaches

A number of Adventist scholars have advanced alternative, nonfundamentalist understandings and interpretations of the Genesis narratives. Several have pointed out that there are approaches to honoring and celebrating the Sabbath within a solid Christian context that do not require the use of a fundamentalist view of the Genesis narratives. Some note that the reason given for the Sabbath as presented in Deuteronomy does not mention the Creation narrative, but rather places it in the context of the Exodus experience. It is also commonly accepted that Jesus worshipped on the Sabbath. One might accept considerations like these as fully sufficient for observing the Sabbath as an appropriate day of worship for Christians, without reference to the Creation week.

On the scientific side, conventional SDA Creationism is confronted with a massive scientific corpus assembled over the past century by students from many academic disciplines, indicating that the fossil record was deposited under many types of environmental conditions over many hundreds of millions of years. Modern human populations, they report, have been on earth at least 100,000 years. There is little physical evidence in the geological record that indicates a recent, worldwide flood. In this discussion, it is important to reiterate that the evidence for or against Neo-Darwinian evolution as a scientific explanation for the observed fossil record has very little to do with the empirical evidence supporting contemporary scientific understandings of the deep time reflected in the fossil record.

The current dialogue on Creationism between the fundamentalist and nonfundamentalist elements of the church provides not so much a problem as an opportunity. The discussion focused on the issues surrounding this topic may provide a framework and model of how such a church with so many fundamentalist roots might foster--or at least not hinder--constructive pluralism?. Can we as SDA Christians engage in the process of adjusting to a more diverse theological environment, while avoiding unproductive, negative organizational tensions? In the earliest years of the formation of the church, its leaders and scholars wrestled with many diverse opinions until their doctrinal positions were refined and clarified. Can we show the same spirit today?

In the context of this topic, I would like to suggest that one of these constructive refinements now might be to acknowledge as a new normative view of Creationism that the God of the biblical narratives is the Creator of the universe and all that is good in it-and leave the details of what, when, and how it was done to the individual conscience and convictions.

Another constructive refinement would be to implement a suggestion of the current president of the General Conference, Jan Paulsen. His proposal was included in a recent essay entitled "The Theological Landscape," presented at a conference of church leaders in May 2002 on the "Theological Unity in a Growing World Church." In his view, "the church works best when unity and diversity coexist in a nonhostile tension, learning to defer creatively to each other, but loving that which they share more than they love themselves." Recognizing that "some theological polarity" exists in the church of the "right or the left, reactionary or liberal," he asked how the church might deal with this reality. His essentially pragmatic answer was to "learn to live with it."

Some in the church may feel it is vital that they retain the traditional understandings of the Creation narratives in Genesis; their understandings and spiritual integrity should be honored by those who disagree. Others may wish to approach the Creation narratives in Genesis from a nonfundamentalist theological perspective; and their views should be likewise honored. I am suggesting that as a twenty-first-century faith community, we have the opportunity to create a positive environment for all members-including those employed by the organized church-to affirm either fundamentalist or nonfundamentalist perspectives on this and other conflicted theological understandings.

In conclusion, a question that now seems to be squarely before the community of SDA biblical scholars and scientists is, How best can they assist their faith community to reconcile conflicting theological perspectives, including diverse views on Creationism, in a constructive manner that will celebrate the church's historic commitment to "present truth"? All of us can play a constructive and healing role in assisting our faith tradition to create a place where, in the words of Paulsen, "unity and diversity coexist in nonhostile tension," where "people can communicate, understand each other, [and] respect each other's space." I would suggest that the current Creationism dialogues have the potential to serve both as a case study and a model of how other conflicted theological issues in the church can be resolved in a constructive manner and how historically important doctrines, such as the Sabbath, can be revalued in light of new information and insights about how God has, and is, creating the universe and conscious beings within it.

_________________

1 In part, this article was the basis of a presentation made at the San Diego Chapter of the Association of Adventist Forums in May 2003. A much more detailed paper with footnotes and references is available from the author who may be contacted at retaylor.ca@att.net.

Dr. R. E. Taylor is a faculty member of the department of anthropology at the University of California, Riverside