In the background from the beginning of the conference has been the question of how the corporate church can best address the reality that Seventh-day Adventist scientists and theologians do not agree on how and how long ago God accomplished creation. But even more crucial than the specific questions about the date and process of creation are the questions about how we understand Genesis. Adventists have always viewed the Bible as a blend of human and divine. But there is increasing debate over just how those elements interact.

On the second full day of the conference the formal work began with a paper which vigorously reiterated an essentially fundamentalist position. The most arresting statement in this presentation was the assertion that Adventist believers in the 21st century should adopt the worldview of the Old Testament writers in their understanding of how and when God created the world. A second paper pointed out that conservative Adventists scholars have long understood Genesis 1 to be a polemic against various aspects of ancient Near Eastern mythology with a highly complex literary structure. In light of its literary structure, it was argued that "the more cautious we should be about assuming that a narrative is meant to be seen as a straight-forward chronological history of events." This paper was a surprising because of its conservative provenance.

A third paper argued strongly against reading any of the putatively historical parts of the Bible as anything other than literal history. "Scripture as revelation is different from Scripture as only a witness to revelation." Most of the oral presentation by the author of this paper was a critique of the paper of another presenter. The paper being critiqued was authored by a well-known progressive theologian. It stated that we should begin our approach to the Bible by asking, "What is the purpose of Scripture?" or more specifically, "to what extent does Scripture give us scientifically useful information as well as theological meaning?" Although the author made it clear that he believes the Genesis creation narratives represent the results of divine initiative and revelation, he proposed that (1) "the purpose and function of Scripture are theological, not scientific," (2) "the portrayals of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 show that they are theological rather than scientific explanations," (3) "the assumption that Scripture provides scientific information about creation is a result of a theological tradition and the empirical bias of modern Western thought," and (4) "we should focus our attention on identifying, understanding, applying, and communicating the profound theological truths of Genesis 1 and 2."

Another paper asked us to view the Genesis narratives as not "unscientific"

but as essentially "non-scientific," i.e., having other, more transcendent interests. These interests are to portray God as sustaining "the world against the powers of chaos . . . [and as] the dramatic opening of a line of thought . . ." that supports the ancient Hebrew view of themselves as "God's agent for blessing the world."

Another paper, "Back to the Bible: Trying to Hear All the Voices," began with the assumption that all human knowledge is partial and limited, especially our knowledge of God. He quoted the words of Ellen White: "God and heaven alone are infallible." The presenter then commented, "We humans are easily tempted to obscure the diverse perspectives in Scripture by privileging the elements congenial to our particular preferences and biases. Thus we risk putting God on trial by our preferred words, logic and rhetoric. And by being selective rather than comprehensive, the diverse perspectives in Scripture can easily appear contradictory, rather than complementary." His thesis is: "The recognition of the diversity within Scripture should move us to seek a) the common ground shared by all the Biblical perspectives and b) ways of seeing these perspectives as complementary." In attempting to deal with the diversity he sees in Scripture and in the views being expressed in the Adventist community of faith, as reflected in the conference attendees, he pointed to the insights that can be gained by reflecting on the Myers-Briggs temperament profile which, in his view, "offers very helpful possibilities for understanding our

differences." Interestingly, one of the conference attendees, a prominent member of the medical profession, held a Saturday evening workshop on Myers-Briggs.

In considering what some view as the "problem" of the great diversity of Adventist views on origins, one theologian reminded us that the Adventist divisions are reflected in the wider contemporary Christian community. There is, he noted, no consensus among Christians "as to how these issues should be resolved, nor even as to how these problems should be defined. For some, the question is simply whether we will take the Bible as it reads. For others, it is whether we will accept the overwhelming evidence that supports conventional

scientific views of earth history."

This paper offered several suggestions for how the Adventist church might address the challenge of interfacing science and faith. The first is to consider the role of doctrine in the life of the church community. On one hand, he

suggested, there is the view that a believing member is one who comprehends and assents to a list of propositions. The "community of faith comprises those who have come to similar doctrinal conclusions through personal investigation." On the other hand, he writes, "While a concern for propositional expressions of the faith will always be important, it is a mistake to make it the one essential quality of the Christian community. Other expressions of truth are even more important and other qualities account for the corporate life of the community." He points out that "according to one of the most famous passages in Paul's writings, the Christian community lives by faith, hope, and love, rather than by knowledge-one of the things that 'passes away." Moreover, the life of faith is a life of community, a life in which learning from, caring for, and growing with one another are essential . . . The most important question before us as members of a community we care about is not, who's right about origins and why? But, how can we affirm our collective confidence in God's sovereign love in ways that include and encourage all of us: In other words, whatever we say about creation should ultimately strengthen our faith, hope and love."

Friday evening the group assembled for worship, then Sabbath morning there was a worship service in a beautiful outdoor setting. A few of the participants (including McLarty) climbed Long's Peak together. This hike was highly symbolic. It included five young adults who were at the camp because they were related to conference participants. It also included vocal proponents of the divergent interpretive positions present at the conference. Praying together, hiking, taking care of members of the group who suffered from altitude sickness or were nearly stymied by the thinness of the air at 14000 feet and finally sitting on a mountain top gazing in rapt wonder at the surrounding glory superceded our propositional differences. It gave us a special sample of the family connections God gives us in his church.