Concerns over Alex Bryan Email posted for the curious

 I debated with myself whether to post the internet email that went out entitled Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU. The blog that I had linked to in my previous article to the pdf file of the email removed the file The letter is unsigned and thus of little real value for any substantive meaning. When it was attached to the blog I figured it had that blog"'s support so it seemed of some importance. But if we have no one standing behind the email anymore it of little use other then a curiosity of what some anonymous people think. Who really cares what people who don't even stand behind their beliefs of opinions say? But then I saw a recent news article on the AToday.com website where they reported what people who had seen the email said. From the Atoday article: "Sources who have seen the email have told Adventist Today that it contained dishonest and unethical allegations." Which I thought was kind of sad that their news team had not even seen the email even though I had posted the link and it had been circulating around the internet. So I decided I would post it as plain text taken from the PDF email except this does not have the pictures or the names and addresses the email included. I have not taken the time to fix the formatting since as I say it appears no one stands behind it so it is now a curiosity. But since the news continues on the issue here it is [though just because I am posting it does not mean I stand behind it in anyway, this for informational purposes only]:

Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 1 of 8
Walla Walla University (WWU) is a Seventh-day Adventist University located in Washington State. The board that controls WWU is chaired by the President of the North Pacific Union Conference - Max C. Torkelsen II. John McVay, the 23rd WWU president and former Dean of the Seminary at Andrews University has chosen to step down from his position and return to teaching.
The presidential search committee1 announced an opening2 and is recommending3 Alex Bryan to serve as president of Walla Walla University. Alex Bryan is currently the senior pastor of the Walla Walla University Church and has affirmed his willingness to serve as president. The committee will formally present this recommendation to the university's Board of Trustees at a special meeting that has been called for Sunday, July 1, 2012, at the offices of the North Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in Ridgefield, Wash., at 10 a.m.
As a group of constituents, alumni, educators, pastors, church members, medical professionals, students and parents, we feel that Alex Bryan, at this point in time, is not a good candidate for the next WWU president as evidenced by the concerns expressed in this document.
Out of multiple areas of concern, three follow as to why Alex Bryan, at this point in time, should not be appointed as WWU’s next president: 1) his background, 2) his educational experience, and 3) his views and relationships with spiritual formation.
1) Alex Bryan’s Background
a. Created a “Sunday service” church and left Seventh-day Adventist employment. Alex Bryan began his ministry at the New Community Fellowship in Atlanta in 1996 under the blessing of conference administration. However, the methods used to reach secular young adults resulted in the creation of a “Sunday service” and, as the conference administration was considering his termination, Alex Bryan resigned his denominational employment in 2002 and remained independent for the next five years. The resulting Sunday observing church still meets and its web site is here. The church meets Sunday from 10:30 AM to 12:05 PM. The current pastor is Alex’s brother, David Bryan.
Note: Alex is not currently affiliated with the church he helped start, even though current websites, e.g. corporationwiki and Manta list either Alex Bryan and David Bryan or just Alex Bryan as the current pastor.
Documentation shows how the church Alex Bryan started described itself in 2004, while Alex Bryan was the pastor:
“We are an independent, interdenominational, evangelical church. ‘Independent’ means we are our own organization, not legally connected to any other church. ‘Interdenominational’ means we welcome people of all faith traditions. ‘Evangelical’ means we emphasize the gospel of forgiveness and life transformation through personal faith in Jesus Christ, and we affirm orthodox Bible doctrines. See our ‘Statement of Faith’ for further details.”
1 The search committee members were: Max Torkelsen, John Loor, Lanny Hurlbert, Bob Folkenburg, David Prest, Bruce Thorn, and Barbara Prowant, and WWU VPs Ginger Ketting-Weller and Steve Rose, two faculty, one staff, and one student.
2 The announcement for the presidential search and job position is located here.
3 On 6/15/2012 the committee recommended Alex Bryan to be the next president: Link to WWU Recommendation.
Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 2 of 8
(http://www.thenewcommunitychurch.com/phpBB2/faq.php#23 accessed September 24, 2004. 3:42 PDT).
In 2004, meetings at this church occurred on both Saturdays and Sundays; today the web site shows only Sunday services.
For a detailed study of the failures of these types of break-away churches, see the following study.
b. Professional degree in emergent church spiritual formation. Received his Doctor of Ministry4 degree from George Fox University, under the direction of the spiritualist and Emerging Church leader Leonard Sweet.
c. Invited his mentor, a self-admitted spiritualist and leader of the emerging church movement, Leonard Sweet, to Southern Adventist University, to speak for Vespers Jan '09 and attempted to indoctrinate the Southern University Theology faculty by bringing Sweet to speak with them specifically.
d. Opening his pulpit (April 2012, both services) at Walla Walla University Church to emerging church leader Shane Claiborne, a proponent of the “Kingdom Now” theology embraced by the emerging church movement and a teacher of universalism, and founder of the New Monasticism movement. Claiborne’s staff admitted one of their objectives, while at WWU, was to recruit WWU students to join them in the work of their ministry.
e. Alex Bryan has called Ellen G. White a 19th century mystic. He has stated this from the pulpit and included references to this in his book5, page 22, “In 1842, during this era of Advent hope, fifteen-year-old Ellen White6 had a mystical experience.”
f. Openly promoted Roman Catholic Mystics and Contemplative authors at the Adventist Forum on Spiritual Formation, October 2011. These authors included: Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, Brennan Manning, and Henri Nouwen. See the last page for a photo and comment on his book promotion.
g. During his sermons he often quotes from leading emergent church leaders, such as Leonard Sweet and Catholic contemplative authors such as Brennan Manning, and many more.
Note that these authors are also listed as “My Favorites” on his brother’s blog, the current pastor of the Sunday church Alex helped to start. Also, these authors and their books are listed on Alex Bryan’s blog as “Must Reads,” shown on the last page of this document.
h. Belittling Adventist doctrines in favor of mystical experiences during his One project sermon February 2012, Seattle Wa. He suggested that our fixation on doctrine and identity as Seventh-day Adventists has kept us from becoming a great religion.
4 The Role of Human Emotion in Christian Discipleship, dissertation by Alex Bryan, March 2009.
5 The Green Cord Dream by Alex Bryan, 2012. Pacific Press Publishing Association.
6 Note that Alex Bryan uses the name “Ellen White,” but at 15 years old, her name would still be Ellen Harmon, she married at 19 years of age.
Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 3 of 8
Summary of Alex Bryan’s Background
Alex Bryan’s background shows that he is capable, while having good intentions, of leading those under his charge in the wrong direction. He can get in trouble. He desires to be a soul-winner. We commend this. Still, results have been problematic. In Georgia-Cumberland, the price was alienation from the Seventh-day Adventist church, and a decision by the conference to terminate Bryan from employment. (He resigned before being terminated.) This resulted in a separation of the Congregation from the Seventh-day Adventist church. Most of the group became a Sunday observing church under Bryan’s leadership.
With Bryan’s history of resigning from Seventh-day Adventist pastoral ministry before the conference could fire him, pastoring a church on Sunday, leading what became a congregational church, one asks, how is it that he is under consideration for the presidency of one of our Universities? He states that he has learned from his mistakes, and the Georgia-Cumberland conference rehired him and placed him as an associate pastor for Mission and Ministry on the staff of the Collegedale Church, to be mentored by the Senior Pastor, in December 2007.
Bryan’s inexperience contributed to the loss of the church plant entrusted to him. Georgia-Cumberland conference leadership sought to implement a plan for corrective ministry action by placing him with a strong pastoral team. This plan was not carried to completion because of Bryan’s 2009 call to the WWU church.
Bryan wrote in 2009, “We also need, in this local church revolution, a major transfer of funds from the many layers of governance back into local settings.” 7 Such thinking is similar to the ideas which led to Bryan’s resignation from the ministry in 2002.
His failure to properly shepherd his misguided Roswell, Georgia flock is disappointing. Former Seventh-day Adventists today are worshiping in the church he started, now led by his brother.
Less than 5 years ago, Alex Bryan was associated with the leadership of a Sunday observing non-SDA church outside Seventh-day Adventist denominational employment. This experience is not compatible with being appointed the president of a Seventh-day Adventist University.
Bryan continues to promote Spiritual Formation in his church. One assumes, as President, he would continue this injection of Spiritual Formation into the WWU campus. We should “Stay away from non-biblical spiritual disciplines or methods of spiritual formation that are rooted in mysticism such as contemplative prayer, centering prayer, and the emerging church movement in which they are promoted.” Elder Ted Wilson, President of the General Conference, July 3, 2010.
2) Educational Experience
a. The presidential search process started with a document that outlined the job description of the new president. This document concluded with 10 performance expectations, the 10th being:
“Possess significant senior leadership experience, and have an earned doctoral degree and teaching experience at the college or university level.”
There are three “expectations” identified in this single expectation item. Bryan does not “significantly” meet any of the three:
7 Adventist Today, Winter 2009 edition, page 9. “The End of American Adventism?”
Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 4 of 8
Expectation of “Significant senior leadership experience.” The announcement recommending Alex states that this is met by “Bryan leads a pastoral staff of 10.” The ten are actually five associate pastors, an office manager, worship director, treasurer, and two custodians.
Expectation of “Have an earned doctoral degree.” Alex Bryan has a Doctor of Ministry, a professional degree designed by Universities for pastors to obtain for becoming professional ministers. It is not an academic degree like the PhD, which is meant for academic scholars who wish to work as professional researchers or in academics as professors or administrators.
Expectation of “teaching experience at the college or university level.” Bryan has taught classes at the university level, but the experience gained by his teaching would qualify him to be hired as a teacher at the Assistant Professor level, an entry teaching position, requiring nearly six years of successful teaching at this level to obtain the rank of Associate professor. The rank advancement requirement is based on the value of experience. Remember, 5 years ago Bryan was pastoring a Sunday-observing church.
b. Walla Walla University needs a president with a working knowledge of higher education, with demonstrated success as a good teacher practicing sound scholarship and engaged in research -- within a context of being in unambiguous support of the Seventh-day Adventist church, its teachings and its mission. His teaching experience is limited to that of part-time contract teacher while maintaining a full-time pastor’s position.
3) Views and Relationship with Spiritual Formation
a. Introduction of Spiritual Formation. Alex Bryan has indicated that Spiritual Formation shall be incorporated in all venues of the WWU church.
b. Attitude and Communication.
i. Perception of humility issue. Several attending the WWU Adventist Forum of October 2011, dealing with Spiritual Formation, described him as cocky and arrogant. He reported that “he had not lost two minutes sleep” over the concerns expressed by others about his introduction of Spiritual Formation from the leading emergent church authors of the world. Bryan needs to be willing to listen to people having differing opinions from his own concerning Spiritual Formation.
In one case, a long time member of the WWU church was dismissed from volunteer duties by Bryan, when there was a disagreement with him over the introduction of Spiritual Formation in the WWU church.
ii. Your opinion is not of interest: In the same SDA Forum, Alex was asked questions dealing with concerns about Spiritual Formation in the WWU church by several church members. These were either disparaged or ignored. See Figure 1 on the last page.
Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 5 of 8
c. Ecumenical Focus
i. Some constituents were at the One Project gathering February, 2011. Bryan presented a bowl with puzzle pieces that he used to demonstrate that the SDA church, even as we are unique; we are only one of the pieces of the puzzle.
ii. He speaks often of the need to be ecumenical. This emphasized joining with other denominations and leaving behind our Adventist distinctiveness and practice. For example, at the ONE project, Bryan stated that if a Seventh-day Adventist called themselves part of the “remnant church” then they are “arrogant and extremists.”
d. Doctrinal Concerns
i. Seventh-day Adventist beliefs are rarely presented from the pulpit. The Three Angels’ Messages, the Sanctuary message, the Remnant, the distinctive messages of Adventism are not being heard.
ii. Bryan writes (Winter 2009 Adventist Today pg 10) “We need pastorates, pulpits, committees, boards, and initiatives filled with very young adults. Not tokens. Not the one 27-year-old who is really a 77-year-old in a 20-something body.” Bryan should take the opportunity to visit a GYC annual meeting. He would observe over 7,000 young people on fire for the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist church8 which is no small “token.” Statements like these tend to run down the conservative young and old alike and act to disregard the wisdom of elders.
iii. Parents weigh many things as they determine which university they will entrust with their precious financial resources. They send their children to Seventh-day Adventist institutions because they are Seventh-day Adventist institutions.
Bryan’s influence from the pulpit presenting Spiritual Formation principles in place of the distinctive message of the Seventh-day Adventist church should not be propagated throughout a University via the president-level influence.
We believe Alex Bryan should not be WWU president at this time. Please consider choosing an interim president until an academically and spiritually qualified candidate can be chosen.
If you agree that there are concerns with Alex Bryan being appointed president at this time, please call or email the chair of the board of trustees at WWU and express your concern.

[Snip names and addresses]

8 Their identity is defined as: “A youth-initiated and-led movement of Seventh-day Adventists from diverse backgrounds, united in a common commitment to serious Bible study, intense prayer, uncompromising lifestyle, and boldness in sharing Christ with others.”
Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 6 of 8
If you know any of the board members of WWU, please express your concern to them directly, as they will be voting whether to appoint Alex Bryan as the new President on July 1, 2012. Here is a list of the board members that will be voting whether or not to appoint Bryan as the next president of Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 7 of 8
Figure 1. Alex Bryan displays his favorite Spiritual Formation books at the Adventist Forum meeting held at Walla Walla University, October 2011.
He described these books as “the most helpful.” Bryan described how others, with differing views about Spiritual Formation from his have spoken negatively against these “helpful” books. He says his favorite authors have been “lambasted in some very poorly written books that are very popular in Adventism right now by the way, there are three of four of them which I will not name that are doing great destruction and are very poorly put together (he holds up the books shown above and reads the names of his favorite authors) Manning, Foster, Yaconelli, Foster, Willard, Eldredge, Foster, Manning - so yea, I think the comments made about those authors – I would disagree” and then shakes his head and speaks inaudibly.9 At the end of his statement, he is asked why the Seventh-day Adventist church’s president would speak negatively about the content of those books, Alex is silent and does not answer the question and goes to the next question.
9 Adventist Forum DVD, time stamp 1:11:43 to 1:12:12.
Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 8 of 8
Figure 2. A screen shot from Alex Bryan’s blog page, showing his “Must Reads” page. Bryan recommends reading Contemplative Pastor Eugene Peterson, Emerging Church leader Brian Mclaren’s Generous Orthodoxy, and Universalist Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis.

Group Opposes Pastor Alex Bryan

There is a new controversy going on from the Adventist Traditionalists. It concerns the Pastor of the Walla Walla University Church; Alex Bryan possible appointment to become the New President of WWU. I personally was a little skeptical of such an appointment since his educational experience seems to be greatly lacking when it comes to being the President of a University, but then Presidents of universities are probably mostly political appointments made up of who you know not what you know, I can't be too upset about it.

The Traditional Adventists seem to object to Bryan based largely upon his use of other Christian thinkers and writers. Under the rubric spiritual formation and the new Adventist fear that is popular in certain articles over on Adventist Today about the emerging church movement. Most specifically see the rantings of Herbert Douglass.

Here is the PDF article currently going around the internet expressing the concerns of some of these Adventist Traditionalists. It only has any power of persuasion if you are already afraid of new ideas of spiritual formation and the emerging church. something of course against any good Traditionalists conceptions as... well tradition is all you need. I find it hard to take this people seriously but I realize that they are on an arc of ascendance in Adventism. My thinking is they will rise and they will drive the rest of the people out of the church, creating their very own self fulfilled prophecy of the shaking (and Ellen White prophecy not a Biblical prophecy).

Really you think they would be more concerned about Bryan as a Pastor of an influential church rather then being a University President. But I don't pretend to understand their thinking. I am just passing it along.

The Specifics of Sameul K. Pipim's Failure

There has been a lot of discussion on Dr. Pipim's sexual misadventure because of his proposed rebaptism (now canceled). You can read about it at Spectrum and Atoday, click the proceeding links for the articles. The question seems to be was it actually rape. They have a transcript of the telephone conversation which is rather interesting and I assume pretty responsible for Pipim's resignation. Reading it though does not seem to resolve the real question. Rebaptism is not the problem, I don't even think such things are necessary but the question for the denomination is to allow this man to be placed in any type of authority if he is indeed a sexual predator. There really has to be a lot more investigation and openness from those involved, if not then accept him back as a member but invest no authority in him again. We are to forgive but we are also to protect and we as a church must balance those ideas.

Creation 7th day folly

There is an interesting article and conversation on Atoday.com regarding the trademark violations of the self described Creation Seventh day Adventist church (sometimes identified with 7^th instead of seventh, hereafter CSDA). The article's title and opening line reads:

“Should These Men Go To Jail Because of a Church Name?

Submitted: May 16, 2012

By Andrew Hanson
Should the Seventh-day Adventist Church seek to put people in jail because of their non-violent religious beliefs? That is the bottom line to the long story of a little, independent congregation and the General Conference attorneys.”

As a news article it begins somewhat poorly as the SDA church never set out to send anyone to jail as there really is no jail sentence available for trademark violations, they simply sought legal protection from the misuse of their trademark. The whole idea of jail comes from the CSDA members putting back up signs which the court had taken down. Thus the whole affair with jail no longer has anything to do with the SDA church but with violations of court orders. If the CSDA folks want to pretend to be martyrs for violating US and international laws that is their business but it is hardly something that can be blamed upon the SDA denomination.

For a background of the story see the video links on the above Atoday.com article as well as look at the actual findings of the court in 2006 against the CSDA group. Case No. D2006-0642 Here are a the main decision findings from that case:

The Panel does not believe that the freedom to practice religion or the deviation from fundamental doctrine constitute defenses cognizable under the Policy to invalidate the protection afforded Complainant by its registered Marks.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant, for purposes of this proceeding, has enforceable rights in the Marks.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Marks in which the Complainant has rights pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

The Panel finds that persons interested in finding religious information are Internet users and consumers within the meaning of the Policy. Respondent is using Domain Names which are confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy. Therefore, he is attracting Internet users and misleading consumers searching for Complainant.

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

An additional factor found to support a finding of bad faith is Respondent’s actual knowledge of the Complainant’s Marks when Respondent registered the Domain Names. When considered with the attraction of Internet users using a likelihood of confusion, the Panel finds this evidence sufficient to support a finding that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).

Respondent advises the Panel that he has been commanded by YAHWEH to employ the name Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church in describing the true religion and fellowship of His spiritual kingdom on Earth. Respondent must obey God rather than men.

The Panel finds that the defense of waiver offered by Respondent is not sufficient to nullify the bad faith of Respondent. 
 

Now it seems from the conversation on the Atoday website from CSDA members that their claim to not follow the judicial decisions of United States courts is because they feel that God has given them the name and they must follow God. The followers also make the point that because the CSDA group does not follow the courts ruling that they be held in contempt of court; they claim to be subject to being jailed because of the SDA church. Of course if there was no governmental action to back up a judicial finding there would be no reason for courts at all. That the government takes these actions is in the courts interest as well as in the plaintiffs interest thus the use of contempt recommendations by SDA Lawyers. I would rather see our courts maintain effectiveness by holding those in contempt when the court's ruling is violated. They can always appeal and when the court asks for simple and reasonable actions there is little excuse for the CSDA to refuse and expect no consequences for their contempt of court.

Here are some of the CSDA comments about why they must refuse to follow the courts ruling:

----

2) We believe that He has given us a name that reflects this faith, and although it was always clear it would cause controversy, we did not shrink from this duty because of the fear of man's judgment.  The idea that Christ still speaks to His people seems to immediately trigger the adrenaline glands of some. --David Aguilar

----

I would be pleased if you are willing to understand what the issue here really is.  We did not and will not just flip a coin and choose a "name for ourselves."  We have not co-opted a corporate name for our own benefit.  Those who make such accusations are deluded liars. (It actually hurts me to speak with such force of words.)

Two believers in Jesus and the Adventist message saw visions from God that commanded us to take the name "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" as the name of our faith and practice of religion. "Let every fact be established by two or more..."

Many believe Moses received tablets of stone on which the commandments of God were engraved with His own finger.  "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" is engraved in every heart of our brethren by the Spirit of YAHWEH.  If this were the case for you, would you give credibility to the advice of other "helpful souls?" -- Pastor Chick

----

If one actually followed this kind of logic then anything regardless of legal finding would have to be accepted as part of religious liberty. “We were told by two of our members who saw visions from God that we should break into the video store to supply our church with audio and video equipment”? This is the real danger of these CSDA folks. They pretend to be standing up for religious liberty when they are not at all standing for it they are destroying it. Their arguments would make all laws useless and all deluded people free from prosecution. They would destroy the entire nation because of their selfishness. This logic is seen by another comment of Pastor Chick who misapplies the Roman/Jewish conspiracy against Christ 2000 years ago with the court case in 21^st century America. He writes:

You posed the following questions for contemplation:--Should the Seventh-day Adventist Church seek to put people in jail because of their non-violent religious beliefs?
I would suggest a parallel question:  Should the Jewish Church have sought to have the Christ arrested because of His religious beliefs that led to His authoritative claims?
 --Is it really necessary for our Church to put these two men in jail?
My parallel question:  Was it really necessary for the Jewish Church leaders to influence Pilate in arresting the Prince of Glory and putting Him to death?
 --Do church members and pastors think that this is an appropriate way for the Church to deal with splinter groups?
My parallel question:  Did the constituency of the Jewish Church think the treatment of Christ by their leaders was appropriate for His dissident doctrine, divisive activities, and authoritative claims?
 --Is there a Bible basis for enforcement efforts that go so far as to put people in jail?
My parallel question:  Was there an Old Testament basis for the efforts put forth by the “leading men” to have Christ arrested, scourged, and eventually killed?

Here again we see the self centered nature of their argument. To disagree with their positions is equivalent to the persecution of Jesus Christ. They assume they are the Christ position, they are the good and true followers. Again Pastor Chick when responding to the religious liberty position of a previous commenter:

Pastor_Chick

If you knew my Father, you would know me.  If you loved my Father, you would love me.  If you did the will of my Father, you would appreciate the works that I do, for they are the works of Him who lives in me.

There is no confusion in the Church of the Living God.  His people are perfectly untied as one with the Father and His Son.  They do always those things that please Him.  What they hear from the Father, they do. Amen.

Later he writes:

Good point!  After all, God's armies have always been the large ones, right?

Let's consider the days of Noah, for example.  The Messiah said it will be same when He comes back; so, you DO have a good 92% on your side.  But, I will rely on the prophecy of One who said, "Few there be that find it."  I hope you understand -- this is no "riddle."  It is life and death – eternal.

Here is the argument that because they have been ruled against and that most people do not support their position they must be on God's side. The majority is the enemy so if one is on a minority side they are on the side of God.

We need to pray for and if you know any of these people help them learn how to actually think rather then to manipulate information. This does seem to be a true lunatic fringe, and there should be a good deal of concern for mainstream Adventists as well that our denomination seems to breed people that think so strangely. Has the teaching of Adventism over the last 100 plus years created these strange offshoots. Now that is an interesting question.

A Response to When is logic illogical

There is a common problem we see with many Adventists as they talk about Genesis.  They assume if you do not accept the literalistic six days of creation then you don’t believe in God’s involvement at all. One would think that with the theory of Theistic Evolution that would not be a problem (“Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation” Wikipedia). It incorporates the divine supernatural activity of God in the direction of evolution. But most Traditional Adventists find it easier to create the straw man argument. That argument is that of naturalistic evolution where random chance and life from non life is the only explanation offered against their literal view of six day creation. That is why so many of them such as Clifford Goldstein and David Read so commonly present the opposition to their literal creationism as Seventh-day Darwinians or Darwinians respectively.  As this blog has pointed out in a previous article both of those terms are inaccurately used. Seventh-day Darwinians without even having a definition! Even when frequently used by Clifford Goldstein, he can’t be bothered to define his own term, it simply is meant as a slam against his opponents. Not based upon what they believe or espouse but upon his distortion of their beliefs. That is why his opponents are never mentioned by name or their statements are ever quoted.

This atmosphere in the Adventist media has pervaded the dialog so when Bruce Justinen wrote his response to my article “the need for logic” he presents logic as opposed to the supernatural. This technique allows them to buttress their literal creation story as supernatural and if you don’t accept their traditional literal version of the creation story you don’t accept anything supernatural. This is how Bruce expressed it:

For some, this is not good enough, they must know.  So they hypothesize, they imagine, they fill in the blanks, they logic that which it is not subject to logic.  “The fiery furnace, Jonah and the great fish, the sun moving backward, the axe head floating ...”

The Straw man arguments are logical fallacies, but they are a frequent method of manipulation…at least until the fallacy is pointed out and then it is clear that the logic of their position is in fact not logical but a fallacy stated as a fact. The art of propaganda is to keep repeating something long enough that people then accept it. But merely repeating a lie does no one any good. It does not lead to a good discussion and it certainly does not lead to any sort of reasoned argument and will never lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

But the original question is not is there or was there supernatural activities. The very term theistic evolution should disabuse someone of that idea.  That it does not, shows that their position is not based upon logic but upon misinformation. The use of misinformation is contrary to a well reasoned argument (logic). Let us remind ourselves of the definition of logic:

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

That the logical principles should be overlooked because one claims supernatural beliefs is perhaps one of the strangest arguments one could make. As Bruce wrote:

“What I think he fails to see is that logic has not been cast aside by.  It is that Adventism has always chosen the logic of the Supernatural over the logic of science.   We simply turn to the Supernatural.  If I may paraphrase Webster “not subject to explanation by Me...or anyone I know.”

“But as Christians we make choices as to what we will believe.  We realize we do not have all of the information – all of the time.  The Bible does not claim to give us all of the information on Creation or a host of other subjects, it gives us what it gives us, there may be more, there probably is – a lot more.  I don’t know.  And there lies the conundrum – I don’t know.”

First there is no logic of the Supernatural. We can’t study the supernatural we study what others have said about the supernatural and with logic we make inferences of possible relationships between the natural and the supernatural. Theistic evolution supposes supernatural activity that correlates with the physical evidence on the planet and the visible universe.  Thus life is still produced by God but the technique used is not that assumed by traditions.  As science learns more we have redefined our interpretations, as we see evidence which makes our previous belief seem less probable.  God is not removed but his methods of activity are interpreted in less traditional ways.

If Christians were more logical they would see that their interpretations of the Bible have indeed changed through time as people learn more. As Bruce says he does not know. When one does not know something the logical thing to do is not to simply stand on the traditions but to acknowledge that there may in fact be other methods of interpretation of the Biblical stories. So as he says the Bible does not claim to give us all the information on Creation so why do so many Christians feel that their traditional interpretation is the only possible solution. If they don’t know, if their answers are clearly inadequate why not allow for the possibility of other methods of interpretation and other theories of origins.

The false logic of only accepting the tradition of a literal 6 day creation or young earth creation and then distorting other Christian theories of origins is the problem.  The discussion gets nowhere because one side is trying to use logic and the other refuses to use logic, pretending that they are, but in fact treating their beliefs and traditions as if those things represent logical arguments. This is not to say that this is the problem of all Christians, for there are people working in Creation Science or Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution, all these can work on understanding the Creation yet none of them have or are likely to present a scientific theory of origins, since each has to use the supernatural and the supernatural is outside of our investigative processes.

We can’t just resort to supernaturalism as a belief on origins because then we have nothing more than a series of religions each with their own supernatural origin beliefs. To make the case that way we would have to prove our particular belief to be the only possible religion and once we have proved our religion alone is right then we would submit that are particular belief is the correct view of supernatural origins. Our logic then will be used to set forth our particular religion or denomination or church as the correct and only true and verifiable belief. That is a losing task, and it deflects from God to a religious tradition which is usually simply a group of narrowly accepted interpretations.

We will ultimately get nowhere if we ignore sound reasoning and following logical explanations for our beliefs. To ignore the scientific evidence is not logical or persuasive, we must do better, and we must, as Bruce said admit we don’t know and if we don’t know we can’t exclude options and possibilities and alternative explanations. Right now our church is at that threshold…will they be humble enough to go forward and seek to progress in understanding or go backward and assume that only our tradition is the acceptable belief for our church and its members.

When is Logic Illogical; guest Comment

                                       WHEN IS LOGIC ILLOGICAL

                            (A response from Bruce Justinen 5/2012)

As we punt, bat and kick around the continuing debate over the validity of the Creation story of Genesis 1 and 2, as literal or not, we should consider the logic of the supernatural.  Is it possible that our purported logical thinking is in fact illogical?

Webster’s Dictionary defines “supernatural” as: “...not subject to explanation according to natural laws;”  “Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature, miraculous.”  In other words, not necessarily subject to logical explanation or analysis.   Stephen J. Gould, the now diseased Harvard biologist was quite comfortable acknowledging that there were things he did not know and in fact were not knowable to him by the science (logic) for which he was so esteemed.   He termed it “non overlapping magisterium.”   He was right in his basic premise, but perhaps naïve in feeling a neat line could be drawn between the realm of faith and that of reason.  And of course, he and others wished to draw that line far into what most Christians would complain was in fact God’s territory!

1 Corinthians 1: 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:  “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”  20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

This verse is only applicable in the context of the “supernatural”.  That is, it would be “foolishness” to label everything we merely disagree with as “foolishness” just because we have these handy-dandy verses available to us as Christians.  It is only when there is a conflict with the Supernatural, the “not being subject to explanation...” that we can lay hold of I Corinthians 1:18-20.  The formula applies only when Science is contrary to the Supernatural.

We do not seek to be silly here.  Science, Physics, Genetics, Paleontology, etc. all have merit. In fact, our standard of living, the comfort of our homes, our jobs and lifestyles are dependent on the sciences.  I am not debating science or even evolution, I do not understand nor do I act as an apologist for God in this debate, He does not need one.  There is simply too much I can say “I don’t know” and “I haven’t heard all God has to say on this yet”.  And I probably won’t hear His side until after Jesus comes.

For some, this is not good enough, they must know.  So they hypothesize, they imagine, they fill in the blanks, they logic that which it is not subject to logic.  “The fiery furnace, Jonah and the great fish, the sun moving backward, the axe head floating ...”

Ron Corson wrote recently “What appears to be happening in Adventism today is that logic has been cast aside. When we lose that we have nothing. We have no reason to exist and we have no reasonable way to fulfill a mission for God and no way to fulfill that mission because we have lost the key elements to communicate.”

What I think he fails to see is that logic has not been cast aside by.  It is that Adventism has always chosen the logic of the Supernatural over the logic of science.   We simply turn to the Supernatural.  If I may paraphrase Webster “not subject to explanation by Me...or anyone I know.”

But as Christians we make choices as to what we will believe.  We realize we do not have all of the information – all of the time.  The Bible does not claim to give us all of the information on Creation or a host of other subjects, it gives us what it gives us, there may be more, there probably is – a lot more.  I don’t know.  And there lies the conundrum – I don’t know.

I will be forced to wait for my explanation.  I willingly suspend judgment or leave in God’s hands those areas I cannot know.

Do I understand the different climates of the Galapagos Islands?  No!  Does the earth seem very old?  Yes!  Do I possess Megaladon teeth both serrated and non-serrated teeth that would suggest that their teeth “evolved” over a long period of time?  Yes!   Do I understand how Jonah could live for three days inside a whale?  No! 

In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences, in answer to the tensions between science and religion, made this statement in a publication it titled “Science and Creationism”.  “Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

Adventism believes that they occupy one realm and that they glorify each other and that where one must make a choice which to believe and this is not often but does happen.  When we have to choose which to go with, where to place one’s faith in, we choose the Supernatural.  We do this, having faith that all of the answers may not be apparent to us but that the answers do exist.

But I know that in the world of the Supernatural, things don’t always seem as they appear.  Even though science is ever before me in all its logical wonder, so is the magic of the Supernatural and it has the greater sway over me.  Not that I mistrust science, I don’t.  It is just that I know the One that invented science controls it and I trust Him more.

However, I do have enough to say to a dying world: “Trust the Supernatural, there is hope there.  The logical world, for all I can see, has not delivered on its promises.”

So am I held up to possible ridicule?  Possibly.  But given a choice of trusting my logic, your logic or anyone else’s logic or trusting God, I choose the Supernatural God.  If that is illogical, so be it.

The need for Logic

Recently I received a comment on this blog from Adventist Today Editor J. David Newman, in part he wrote:

“You write well although you and I will never come to any sort of agreement because your logic is beyond me just as my logic is beyond you. It seems that we are speaking two different languages.”

A couple years ago I had an extended dialog with David Newman on the subject of death before sin and he could not fathom anything other then taking the Genesis chapters 1 and 2 as literal method of interpretation. You know the perfect world with talking snakes thing, with trees given names like the “tree of life” and the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”.

His claim was that we were talking past each other, basically what he is saying in the above comment. I would have liked to have posted those conversations but he did not want me to. I think the reason he did not want them posted is not because we were speaking a different language but because we were speaking with different presuppositions and facts. But his facts were mostly beliefs and when you compare beliefs with actual factual information beliefs don't seem so compelling.

Not long ago there was a news program and Rachel Maddow was making a statement about the supposed wage gap between men and women. To this another panelist Alex Castellanos stepped in to explain some of the reasons for wage differences. Her response was: “Wait wait wait, don't tell me the reasons do women make less then men...” If one rejects reasons to focus upon statistics do the statistics really matter anymore? No in fact they become excuses. We see a lot of this type of miscommunication in the world of politics, but it is also just as frequent in the world of religion.

It is most frequent with the fundamentalist mindset that claims that the Bible is the word of God, so if God wrote the story of Genesis through the hand of some person, God was telling the literal, historical and scientifically accurate truth. That presupposition precludes any logical or reasoned variance with their belief. Their belief is not even accurate as the Bible does not claim to be the word of God (click this link for more) in the first place but that does not really matter as their belief is the primary thing. When people refuse to use logic then logic has no effect on them. When people want you to ignore logic then their arguments have no effect on the person who wants to be logical; who wants to have well thought out reasons for their positions. Thus Newman's statement is somewhat true. “...I will never come to any sort of agreement because your logic is beyond me just as my logic is beyond you.” The problem is that we could communicate if he was using logic. That is the reason for the existence of what we call logic. That way people can get together and discuss and work out ideas and effectively communicate.

What appears to be happening in Adventism today is that logic has been cast aside. When we lose that we have nothing. We have no reason to exist and we have no reasonable way to fulfill a mission for God and no way to fulfill that mission because we have lost the key elements to communicate. For Adventism to progress it must begin to think critically once again. (see the following quote on Critical Thinking):

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following :

• understand the logical connections between ideas
• identify, construct and evaluate arguments
• detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning
• solve problems systematically
• identify the relevance and importance of ideas
• reflect on the justification of one's own beliefs and values
  

Has Reason found a place to die?

I am constantly amazed at the positions some Christians make when it comes to science and religion.

For example here is another quote from J. David Newman over on Adventist Today:

I see that discussing uniformitarianism in any depth seems to "fiighten" many of you.  Maybe it is because if we do challenge that concept a lot of things could change.  But let me switch points a litte.  Grossmont College in California has a powerpoint presentation call The Assumptions of Science.  In Four panels they listed the assumptions.  Here are just a few of them.
The world is real.
The real world is knowable and comprehensible.
There are laws that govern the real world.
Those laws are knowable and comprehensible.
Those laws don't [radically] change according to place or time, since the early stages of the big bang.
Nature is understandable.
The rules of logic are valid.
Language is adequate to describe the natural realm
Human senses are reliable.
Mathematical rules are descriptive of the physical world.

However it was panel 5 that caught my attention.
Assumptions are accepted without proof.
They form the basis of all scientific thinking.

This is what I have been trying to say that whether we use the Bible or Science we first have to agree on our assumptions.  And scientific assumptions are accepted by faith not by proof.  And the way we come to those assumptions determines which ones we will accept.   Thus the atheist will come to the subject with a different set of assumptions from what the Christian will have.

Which means we should be open to question the assumptions.

http://disciple21century.com/assumptions-of-science.htm

I looked at the powerpoint presentation and it is pretty accurate. However Newman did not note the footnote at the bottom of the page which reads:

Just to make the point as clear as possible, these assumptions of science, like all such assumptions cannot be demonstrated to be correct as #5 correctly states.

In fact the presentation also addresses the supernatural in slide #8

Limitations of Science

Science can't help us with questions about the supernatural.  The prefix "super" means "above."  So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural."  The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.

So notice what those many assumptions are. The world is real...how do you prove that, perhaps it is just a part of some dream inside some creatures head? The rules of logic are valid...how do you prove that maybe what we think is logical is simply based upon are biological inheritance and we actually have no choice in what we choose? These are the assumptions that the power point slide is addressing, the logical assumptions of life. We can provide all kinds of evidence for most of the things on that list but proof is much more difficult because proof has to be able to defeat any other possible objections to the theory. So science accepts the logic of the evidence but often can't provide the proof.

But why then if Newman read that slide presentation did he assert anything against Uniformatarianism. Wikipedia begins it's article on Uniformatrianism with this:

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.

Simplified; what we see is reality and the reality is not judged by whatever claims to the supernatural may exist. So Newman thinks he is challenging the concept and science because he asserts supernatural activity. But science is not meant to deal with supernatural events and pleading to supernatural events can not change science in the slightest. It would be like putting science back to the middle ages when spirits caused bad whether or the even more ancient belief that spirits caused diseases. Science comes to its assumptions not on faith but by applying logic to the reality we see. Just because it can't be proven does not make something based simply on faith. That should be true for every Christian as well, we come to faith by the evidence.

I am very concerned for the future of Adventism as long as its adherents persist in their practice of twisted logic. But I have to grant that I can't prove that logic should never be twisted or that logic is the best and only solution to problem solving. But it is the best that we have now, based upon the evidence from the use of logic and the misuse of logic; that is real world application. But they can assert their faith without evidence and the wisdom of abandoning scientific methods...where faith just becomes what anyone wants to believe and therefore any faith is equivalent to any other faith.

It is sad to watch a segment of the Christian religion self destruct. But it appears to me to be what is happening when the traditionalists take over reasoning for the church.

Rationalizing the Bible

Continuing on the related subject of the last two blog articles, Clifford Goldstein's insistence that a theist evolutionist explain to his satisfaction his Biblical suppositions and the next article on the paradigm shift in theology that is coming to Adventism and Christianity. I would like to begin by quoting a comment from the Editor of Adventist Today magazine J. David Newman:

“Now those who have followed my exchanges on various threads know that I believe in a short creation and not one of millions of year. I believe this because of my presupposition that I understand nature through the bible. Others work from the presupposition that they make the bible fit into their understanding of science. My main concern is the issue of why Jesus Christ came to die for us and how sin and death relate to what he saves us from. I have not yet read anyone with an evolutionary veiw point explain how to fit the bible concept of a time without sin and without death into the evolutionary framework.”

There are a couple of notable things in this quote. First the understanding of Nature through the Bible. The Bible is not and has never been about nature, you could argue it is about human nature or maybe even the nature of God or the nature of characters in the stories of the Bible but it is really not even in the slightest bit about nature. Even the agricultural nature statements like early and latter rains are about a specific geographic area's weather. So they are in themselves not even about nature as one very limited version of nature. You don't learn nature from the limited examples, you have to broaden the base of knowledge to come to understand nature.

So the question is why does Newman think to understand nature by the Bible? I imagine he took Biology in high school or college and even if he took the theology students science course their textbook was not the Bible. So what he is really saying is that he has rationalized his understanding so that he can claim it is from the Bible. No Gregor Mendel for him, genetic inheritance is from the Bible, perhaps the story of Jacob and the spotted sheep produce his understanding of inheritance of physical traits. It could be like the article linked to above about Jacob and the spotted sheep which is from some publication that says it is “Science in Christian Perspective” which seems to be more about finding the science behind a miracle and thus validate their religious beliefs. By such reasoning Newman means that he understands nature based upon his assumed Christian positions. Thus the assumed position in recent 6 day creation period, based upon the assumption that the Genesis story was intended as a literal and historical representation of reality.

What is important to notice here is the way a shorthand term is used, “I understand nature through the bible” That is not what he means surely. He means he has certain interpretations he applies to Biblical texts and he rationalizes that such understanding defines his knowledge of nature as well. You can see why the shorthand is used...it really does not sound to clever when you unpack the information in the shorthand verbiage. Let me just define rationalization here so that we are clear:

“to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.”

The first part of the above quote is shown to be a rationalization and we can move on the the more important information and really the reason for this article. Newman says:

“My main concern is the issue of why Jesus Christ came to die for us and how sin and death relate to what he saves us from. I have not yet read anyone with an evolutionary veiw point explain how to fit the bible concept of a time without sin and without death into the evolutionary framework.”

Here I am on my second page of this article in the word processor and I am just getting to the most important part, why not just separate it into a second article. The answer is that though the material and subject matter are different, his presuppositions are the same. That is they are traditional Christian perspectives masquerading as this is what the Bible says, interpretation can only be via traditional views. Shorthand verbiage, “in the Bible”, that's what “the Bible says”, and of course, I am judging nature “by the Bible”; these are often just rationalizations.

But what Jesus' Atonement did is subject to what your presuppositions are. If the point is reconciliation between God and man it does not really matter how the separation first occurred, what matters is that it is the reality we live with. We are not really any better off because we have a story about the first sin on earth whether it was thousands or millions of years ago. What our ancestors may have done at some point in time is not that useful for us. I think my answer to what Jesus did by the atonement will be quite different from Newman's. As for the so called Bible concept of time without sin or death. Well even with the story in Genesis it is preciously short. Again that time that he wants explained is not necessarily what the Bible means, inspiration has the affect that it works upon people differently when they have different facts in front of them.

A good example is the verse where Jesus says:  

John 12:24 I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (NIV) 

Nature if judged by the Bible requires that seeds die, cease respiration, but science tells us seeds that no longer respire are dead and they don't ever grow again...a farmer can tell you that as well even before they determined how to find out the germination rate using other methods besides actually germinating seeds. Now it may be that at one time the ancients really thought the seed died because it was buried, but we know now that is not the death of the seed. Has the meaning been lost because we now know that the seed did not really die? So is the point of the Genesis story to tell us about a time when death of any kind did not exist. Doubtful, there is nothing in our world that would allow us to conceive of a world with no death. We eat plants they die, we eat fruit the cells die, if bacteria did not die they would reproduce so quickly that they would cover the earth 50 feet deep in a month, if the bacteria didn't do it then the insects would. It simply does not work on any level we know of. Yet you don't see the traditionalist trying to explain the nature of life during that supposed length of sinless time. No they only want you to explain what happens with theistic evolution. God can make everything work in their perfect world of rather limited time in the Genesis but don't expect them to allow God to do anything if God chose to use some form of evolution.

The sad thing about this is that they think they are being so logical and so certain that they are “in the Bible”. But while they maybe in the Bible so can the theistic evolutionist, it is just that they are using different interpretation criteria and facts to arrive at their beliefs. No doubt we are far from figuring it out...Probably both sides, the young earth creationist and the Theistic evolutionist. But the young earth creationist seems to have stopped trying to understand and just begun to defend their interpretations. Thus they don't really grow any longer, they assume they have the truth but what they really have is traditions that are called truth. It stops their growth in practically every area of theology, from origins to the the atonement to inspiration. It is really time to begin to grow again.

The Paradigm Shift in Adventism

There is nothing more uncomfortable then to actually change. To change requires the acknowledgment that what you once thought or did was incorrect in some way. Christian's love to use it in reference to repentance, but they don't ever seem to want to think that it may be something they have to do in their own beliefs and doctrines. Adventist most certainly have a particular paradigm.

The originator of the term paradigm shift wrote of paradigms as:

“...paradigms, including many that are far more specialized than those named illustratively above, is what mainly prepares the student for membership in the particular scientific community with which he will later practice.” (Page 11 from the 3^rd Edition)

 While Kuhn writes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions about science his philosophy equates well with many other areas of study including Theology. Each denomination builds up their leaders in their paradigm and thus they all work from within that paradigm. As Kuhn concludes the above paragraph by saying:

“Because he there joins men who learned the bases of their field from the same concrete models, his subsequent practice will seldom evoke overt disagreement over fundamentals. Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i. e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition.”

Most of us are quite aware of how the traditionalists work in religion. They are not out of step with any other area of study. We all begin with a particular set of principles and we try to fit them with reality.

The blog History and Theology summarizes Kuhn this way:

“...In short, Kuhn offers an analysis of how a scientific community accepts, discards and embraces new theories. He argues that a scientific community accepts a theory, which he calls a paradigm, over others, because one paradigm is more successful than the others in solving a few problems that a group believes to be important. However, to this point, he quickly adds that no paradigm is perfect. In fact, it is the imperfections of these paradigms (he actually calls them anomalies) that can lead to paradigm shifts.[2] However, it is important to keep in mind that these changes do not come quickly or easily,[3] but when they occur, Kuhn views them as shifts in worldview.[4] He even more provocatively, at times, calls these changes, conversions. He writes, “The transfer of allegiance from paradigm to paradigm is a conversion experience…”[5] The applicability of Khun’s work is enormous for many different fields of study.”

The above blog then lists some important points for consideration the last being this:

5. All people should look for anomalies in their worldviews and be honest about them.

The anomalies of a paradigm are always the problem and they are also the spur that moves to new views, to the actual paradigm shifts. If you ignore them and teach others to ignore them then the old paradigm works just fine but of course you are not being honest with yourself if you ignore the anomalies. When it comes to creation vs. evolution we often see the anomalies ignored by the paradigm of the creationists and even when the idea of evolution with God's involvement is used the creationist simply ignores the theistic part of the newer view. Thus they ignore the mountains of scientific data and even ignore those who try and reconcile the science with the mystical.

Paradigm shifts are rarely quick and easy transformations. But for those growing up with more open views toward knowledge and less concrete certitude the paradigm shift is already taking place. For example many Christians have no problem accepting the ideas of evolution with their Christianity while others stuck in the previous paradigm cannot fathom how this can be done. You can't explain it to them because it is outside their particular worldview. But that worldview is theirs, it is what their paradigm has set forth and they don't want to change their worldview even if others have changed.

As Kuhn writes on page 67: “Furthermore, in all these cases except that of Newton the awareness of anomaly had lasted so long and penetrated so deep that one can appropriately describe the fields affected by it as in a state of growing crisis. Because it demands large-scale paradigm destruction and major shifts in the problems and techniques of normal science, the emergence of new theories is generally preceded by a period of pronounced professional insecurity. As one might expect that insecurity is generated by the persistent failure of the puzzles of normal science to come out as they should. Failure of existing rules is the prelude to a search for new ones.”

The Adventist church is in this painful process right now. The question is can the church look at the anomalies and be honest with itself or ignore them and maintain a concrete but functionally problematic paradigm. In fact this paradigm shift is far from just about young earth creationism, it is about the nature of atonement, the value of our eschatology and the authority of some of our traditional ancestors as well as the meaning and purpose of inspiration. Thus the problems have mounted and the tendency to ignore has lasted a long time. So if Kuhn is correct and he certainly seems to have a good grasp of the issues, then the Adventist church is due for a paradigm shift. But as Kuhn says the next paradigm will likely have its own problems. Unfortunately there is no giant leap to all the answers. But that seems to be the way that progress works, slow steps forward in understanding with new understanding bringing forth new anomalies.

Redefining Theology, Goldstein and Genesis

There was an interesting comment over on the Spectrum Magazine blog concerning Clifford Goldstein's March 2012 article in the Adventist Review, the subject of my previous article. In the comment section one atheist/former (you have to know his history of comments to know this fact it is not present in this comment) Adventist writes:

“All of you seem to have skipped Cliff's challenge: "For years I’ve been asking someone to give me a reinterpretation of the texts, based on the Darwinian worldview, that doesn’t undermine almost everything we believe: the trustworthiness of the Bible, the origin of sin and death, the character of God, and the meaning of the cross."

In the interest of not repeating the same old arguments and posts we've seen so many times before, why not seriously address his point. Cliff's argument is not with science per se; his point is that he is not willing, under any circumstance, to give up on the Christian gospel. If evolution allowed him to keep his faith intact, he would be happy to acknowledge the science behind it, if I read him correctly. The reason I think he is so angry at you is that he believes that you're eroding the ground upon which Christianity is built.”

I think this raises an important observation, Goldstein has not seen anyone produce a theistic evolutionary response that leaves in tact all of Goldstein's theological assumptions. No one really tries to answer Goldstein because it can't be done and contain all of Goldstein's assumptions that make what Goldstein considers the gospel. In brief what does his view of the trustworthiness of the Bible mean. Well he means that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal and historically accurate. Something no theistic evolutionary accepting Christian would accept. So to Goldstein to deny the literalness denies the trustworthiness of the Bible. But for those of us who accept theistic evolution trustworthiness is not based upon literalness.

The origin of sin and death is not really the topic of the first chapters of Genesis. Sin is not even mentioned until the story of Cain and Abel. Death is mentioned as a consequence of actions. Because of Adam and Eve's actions the tree of life is removed from their access. The story is hardly about the origin of sin and death, even Adventists seem to acknowledge that sin originated with Satan and Satan is not even mentioned in the Genesis story. He is a later addition to Jewish thought and then attributed to be the serpent of old in the book of Revelation. So even to the Adventist the subject is not the origin of sin.

What Goldstein means by the character of God I don't know, I would guess from his article he is thinking; how can God create through a system of death where animals and plants grow change and die and evolve. Apparently it is OK for God to make animals become predators upon others and virus and plants to attack and kill a host because God is upset by human sin. But he has to draw the line somewhere and he choses the evolution of nature to be somehow contrary to the character of God. Personally I don't see any problem with death before Adam and Eve, the assumption that it is not involved in the Genesis story seems wrong to me as the people in the story eat. So they are destroying cellular material and that is death. This is not a real problem unless you take the perfect world idea to it's logical conclusion, bacteria would grow and exponential rates and cover the earth in less then a week (maybe even 24 hours) if there was no death. The story is not trying to tell us there was no death, that is something people like to read into the story. Goldstein's assumptions are part of the things read into the story and he wants them maintained when they should be let go.

Last is his meaning of the cross. Goldstein is a forensic atonement person. I don't accept the substitutionary atonement, so I really would not find my meaning of the cross to be the same as Goldstein. In fact I think the substitutionary atonement theory speaks terribly about the character of God.

So can anyone do what Goldstein wants done? No, because what he wants is to find his beliefs encompassed with a totally different understanding of theology. His view is traditional but that hardly makes it correct. Traditions come and go, they are constantly adjusted and changed and just because they are traditional does not prevent their evolution. But that is what Goldstein wants; his tradition to be maintained, if not he can't accept anything else. But that really does not leave him in the position of authority in rejecting other views. It only means he won't look at anything other then the way he sees things.

The atheist commenter on Spectrum wants us to admit that the idea of evolution destroys the gospel. It does not, it destroys the fundamentalist or the traditionalists gospel. But is that really a bad thing?