The Bible makes many extraordinary, even magical, claims about the nature of human history and about the nature of reality in general.  Of course, so do many other fairytale books and well-loved moral fables.  What, if anything, makes the miraculous claims of the Bible any different?  Why should anyone believe in the historical existence of talking donkeys and snakes, a truly virgin birth of an incarnate God-man, people raised from the dead, someone walking on water, splitting the Red Sea to walk through on dry ground, the creation of all life on this planet in just six literal days, a worldwide flood that destroyed every land-dwelling animal except for those on Noah’s ark, and on and on and on?

Some people choose to accept as historical facts certain specific miraculous stories within the Bible, such as the virgin birth of Jesus and his resurrection from the dead, while they reject other stories as just too far fetched, such as a literal six-day creation week.  But, upon what basis does one accept the magical claims of the Bible on the one hand, but reject those on the other?  If one is going to give the Bible any kind of authority to present truly fantastic or miraculous events of any kind, how then is one going to pick and choose which miraculous stories are more or less likely true within the same book? – stories which are all equally presented as historical facts, intended to be taken as such by the biblical authors themselves, within the pages of the Bible?

It seems to me that there is very little reason to accept certain fantastic Biblical stories as historical facts while rejecting others that are presented in essentially the same manner as fable or allegorical.  If one is to be rationally consistent, one must either accept or reject all of the historical (and futuristic) claims of the Bible as the biblical authors intended them to be understood, or reject all of the fantastic, miraculous or magical claims of the Bible all together.  I really don’t see how one can rationally have it both ways?

This was essentially the point of James Barr, a well-known secular scholar of Hebrew at Oxford University.  For example, Barr argued that it is quite clear that the author(s) of the Genesis narrative intended to convey to their readers, to us, a literal historical account of God’s creative act in the formation of life on this planet. I don’t think even liberal secular scholars of Hebrew would deny this, as Barr explains:

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience. (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984.

Now, Barr never did believe that the Biblical account of Creation or the Noachian Flood actually happened as described (He has since passed away).  Barr was just pointing out the fact that the writer/compiler of these stories did in fact believe that the stories he wrote about happened as described and he wished to convey this to his readers. This concept has important implications for Biblical credibility, in my mind, with regard to other equally fantastic claims about historical and future realities.

Of course, there are those who accept the fantastic claims of the Bible “by faith alone” without any need to appeal to anything other than the Bible to support the credibility of the Bible’s claims.  The same can be said for those who make the very same claims for the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon.  For these people, there is no argument beyond, “My Holy Book said it.  I believe it.  That settles it.  No discussion or further investigation is necessary.”

But is there any means by which one might rationally discern which Holy Book, if any, is most likely credible in its fantastic claims?  After all, they can’t all be true since they make conflicting claims as to the true miraculous nature of reality.   What then is there upon which one can be a Christian and believe the claims of the Bible as being most credible? without turning off one’s brain?

Of course, the so-called “higher biblical critics” argue that there is no such rational option – that the stories of the Bible are simply ancient legends or fabrications produced for various social and political purposes.  As one contributor to this forum, Abe Yonder, put it, “Of course any reasonable person knows the creation story is not literal, but fundamentalists are not reasonable, they believe everything the Bible says no matter how absurd… The book of Genesis began with Chapter two verse three. [T]he seven-day creation story was added by the Deuteronomist at Babylon during the fifth century BC (See Harper’s Bible commentary).”

If this is the true version of history, and the Biblical version is nothing more than legends and fable, what does this say about Biblical credibility regarding its fantastic metaphysical claims that cannot be tested or evaluated in a potentially falsifiable manner? – such as the resurrection of Jesus? the future resurrection of the dead in like manner? or eternal life in our future heavenly home?

For me such claims, if true, effectively undermine biblical credibility with regard to anything other than what can be explained by human imagination in the production of moral fables.  There is no more really solid hope for the future, for a better life after this one or a superhuman power to free me from my attraction to sin and self-destruction.

However, if the “higher critics” are wrong, if the Bible can somehow be shown to be reliable in those empirical claims that can be tested and investigated, then that changes everything – at least for me.

So, as just one example, let’s look at the claims of the higher critics regarding the origin of the Books of Moses, or the Torah, in particular. The view of most modern critics is still based on the well-known, still popular, and yet fundamentally flawed “Documentary Hypothesis”. “The documentary hypothesis (sometimes called the Wellhausen hypothesis), holds that the Pentateuch (the Torah, or the Five Books of Moses) was derived from originally independent, parallel and complete narratives [labeled J, D, E, and P], which were subsequently combined into the current form by a series of redactors (editors).” These editors supposedly compiled these independent accounts into one work some 500 years BC during the time of the Babylonian captivity.

Now, consider that the documentary hypothesis has been challenged, since it was first proposed in the late 1800s, quite effectively I might add, by numerous Biblical scholars. Consider, for example, the arguments of Rendsburg (1986) where he demonstrates the linguistic unity and artistry of the composer of all of Genesis. For example, the “J” and “E” sections share a large number of theme-words and linking words, puns, etc.

It becomes simply incredulous that J wrote 12.1-4a, 12:6-9 about the start of Abraham’s spiritual odyssey and that E wrote 22:1-19 about the climax of his spiritual odyssey, and that these two authors living approximately 100 years apart and in different parts of ancient Israel time and again chose the same lexical terms. Surely this is too improbable, especially when such examples can be and have been multiplied over and over. Admittedly, a corresponding word here or there could be coincidental, but the cumulative nature of the evidence tips the scales heavily against the usual division of Genesis into JEP…

The evidence presented here points to the following conclusion: there is much more uniformity and much less fragmentation in the book of Genesis than generally assumed. The standard division of Genesis into J, E, and P strands should be discarded. This method of source criticism is a method of an earlier age, predominantly of the 19th century. If new approaches to the text, such as literary criticism of the type advanced here, deem the Documentary Hypothesis unreasonable and invalid, then source critics will have to rethink earlier conclusions and start anew.

- Rendsberg, p. 104-105

It seems then like “the Documentary Hypothesis and the arguments that support it have been effectively demolished by scholars from many different theological perspectives and areas of expertise. Even so, the ghost of Wellhausen hovers over Old Testament studies and symposiums like a thick fog, adding nothing of substance but effectively obscuring vision. Although actually incompatible with form-critical and archaeology-based studies, the Documentary Hypothesis has managed to remain the mainstay of critical orthodoxy.”

For a further review of the fundamental problems with the Documentary Hypothesis here is an interesting introduction: Link

As an interesting aside, note that ‘the documentary hypothesis was originally based on the supposition that the events in the Torah preceded the invention of writing, or at least its use among the Hebrews. This is because Julius Wellhausen lived in the nineteenth-century, but nineteenth-century notions about ancient literacy have been completely refuted by archaeological evidence. The documentarians have not updated the documentary hypothesis to take this into account, so we still find them assigning very late dates to their hypothetical sources of the Torah…. Archaeology has shown that writing was common during the time in which the events of the Torah were to have taken place.’

– Kenneth Collins, The Torah in Modern Scholarship

As evidence of this, consider that the Ebla Tablets, written some 2200 years BC, prove that writing, even alphabetic-type writing, was in existence well before Moses. Some of the statements about creation found on these tablets also seem to parallel the Biblical creation narrative, suggesting that the Genesis creation story, or something very similar to it, was known well before the “Deuteronomists” or even Moses came on the scene. These tablets also speak of a flood story like that of the flood story in the Bible. The Ebla Tablets also mention the names Abraham and Isaac, suggesting that such names were known and common during this time. They also tell of two sinful cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, and mention all five of the cities of the valley in the same order mentioned in the Bible. This is in the face of “higher critics” who had claimed that Sodom, Gomorrah, Ur and other Canaan cities of the Bible never did exist. However, the Ebla Tablets showed the Bible was correct and that the critics were wrong (yet again). And the list goes on and on.

This is just one of many many examples of the credibility of the Bible being proved superior to those of its “intellectual” critics.  The scholarly critics have been shown to be consistently wrong, over and over again, in their claims regarding ancient history while the Bible has proved true.  How then can one but conclude that the Bible is by far the most accurate history book known to modern man?

So, if you’re going to go with one’s track record, who has demonstrated the most credibility over time? the Bible or its critics?

In 2010 Sergio Silva published an interesting article in the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society entitled, “Development of the Fundamental Beliefs Statement with Particular Reference to the Fundamental Belief #6: Creation.” In this article Silva explains the process of how the current wording of Fundamental Belief #6 of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, our statement of belief on creation, came to be.

In reviewing this topic also consider reading:

A New Statement of Fundamental Beliefs by Lawrence Geraty

Uncovering the Origins of the Statement of Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs by Fritz Guy

Preserve the Landmarks, a summary, by EdTruth Staff

According to Silva, when the language for our fundamental beliefs was first being discussed in 1980, a committee (X–1535) was tasked with proposing the wording for FB#6.  Their original proposal read as follows:

That the book of Genesis contains the only inspired, reliable chronicle of the Creation of the world, and that God [the Father], with Christ and the Holy Spirit, is the Creator of all things.  In six literal days the Lord made heaven and the earth and all living things upon it with their supporting environment.  The Lord then established the seventh day as the Sabbath, a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work.  Man was originally created in the image of God, but his fall into sin in response to Satan’s temptation in the Garden of Eden resulted in the progressive defacement of that image.  It also led to marring God’s handiwork in Creation and to the worldwide flood in the days of Noah.  Through Christ, God will eradicate sin and its results from the universe and at the close of human history restore the pristine perfection of His Creation in a new heavens and a new earth.

This recommended wording was received by the “committee of twelve” for final review. Dr. Lawrence Geraty was a member of this committee as was Dr. Fritz Guy who served as secretary. According to Guy, the language originally submitted to the committee was felt to be too specific and narrow.  So, as Guy remembers, Geraty produced the first draft of a completely new statement on Creation (Link) and, after editing by the committee and others, it read as follows:

God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity.  In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week.  Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work.  The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it.  When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God.

According to Guy, this rewrite was felt to be necessary to be more inclusive – as he explains below:

The only ‘official position’ of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is stated in Fundamental Belief #6, where the language is deliberately Biblical, and broad enough to accommodate various views about Earth’s natural history.

In other words, as Silva explains, “This means that Fundamental Belief #6, as it reads today, can be used to support any approach to the biblical account of Creation, including progressive Creationism, theistic evolution, etc.”  This is important to note since both Drs. Guy and Geraty refer to themselves as “progressive” in regard to their Adventist faith.  In short,  Dr. Guy is an open and unabashed theistic evolutionist who believes that life has existed and evolved on this planet for hundreds of millions of years (see Understanding Genesis, p. 53). Consider, for example, comments he wrote in his 2009 article, Realities for Adventist Theology in the 21st Century:

At the present time there seems to be no good reason to doubt the gradual development and increasing complexity of life over an extended period of time. The fact that this recognition complicates our theology hardly justifies discounting the overwhelming empirical evidence… [We need to start] incorporating into Adventist thinking the idea of a gradually increasing complexity of living organisms over a long period of time as an alternative to the traditional paradigm of a six-day creation less than ten thousand years ago. We need to move beyond a jig-saw-puzzle model of theology, which involves the idea of an interlocking set of convictions such that significantly changing one part destroys the whole. If that were the case, the whole would be completely dependent on each of its parts; and the credibility of Adventism as a whole would be hostage to a short history of life on planet Earth. (pages 8 & 9)

Dr. Geraty, on the other hand, is a bit more guarded in his public statements on creation, but also seems to be quite supportive of theistic ideas or at least those who are trying to promote such ideas.  Consider, for example, Dr. Geraty’s praise for the conversion of former General Conference Vice President Richard Hammill to “progressive” Adventism after his rejection of the literal creation week (Link) (It is also interesting to note that Richard Hammill happened to be the chairman of the Editorial Committee responsible for framing the Adventist Fundamental Beliefs in 1980). Such comments are very hard to overlook despite the occasional lip service that Dr. Geraty occasionally pays to the “fundamentalist” Adventist position on a literal creation week (see Link).

In this regard Dr. Geraty’s comments published in Spectrum in 2010 are most telling:

Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.

Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference. Since when is salvation by correct knowledge anyway?

Dr. Geraty has also personally challenged the world-wide nature of the Noachian Flood, arguing that the author(s) of Genesis are most likely talking about a local flood.  In the book, Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives Dr. Geraty wrote:

“Was the Genesis flood worldwide? There is no evidence for that as of now, but it certainly covered the world known to the author.  It is the opinion of most experts, and little reasonable doubt remains (although some would dispute this) that the events of Genesis 6-8 must have taken place within a limited though indeed a vast area, covering not the entire globe, but the scene of the human story of the previous chapters.”

Dr. Geraty stands here in direct and very open opposition to the historical position of the SDA Church on this issue.  He also, at the same time, challenges the SDA understanding of the inspiration of Mrs. White who clearly claims that she was shown by God that the Noachian Flood was indeed world-wide in nature and was responsible for the formation of much of the geologic an fossil records.  In short, what Dr. Geraty does here is fling the door wide open for the mainstream interpretation of the fossil record as representing millions of years of life existing and evolving on this planet.  How he can then claim, before certain audiences, to be opposed to theistic evolutionism and actually supportive of literal six-day creationism is difficult to understand if not downright deceptive.  His mixed messages, depending upon his audience at the time, seem to me to be politically driven rather than a matter of true personal conviction (see the following Link for further discussion of Dr. Geraty’s views on creation).

It is also interesting to note, in this context, that both Drs. Guy and Geraty were presidents of La Sierra University and brought in science, and even religion, professors to teach there who also happen to reflect their own “progressive” views on Earth’s history.

In any case, when originally brought to a discussion on the floor of the General Conference Session of 1980, Ariel Roth expressed his concerns with the wording of FB#6 proposed by the “committee of twelve”, suggesting the need to include thoughts from the Spirit of Prophecy.  E. J. Humphrey, who inquired about the possibility of including the words “six literal days,” which would clearly distinguish Seventh-day Adventists from many other denominations.  In support of the latter, John V. Stevens stressed that one of the purposes for rewriting the fundamental beliefs and including a statement on Creation was to make what Seventh-day Adventists believe “more easily understood by those not of our faith”; thus, adding the words “six literal days” to that statement “would certainly let the world know what we believe.”

Despite these suggestions from the floor, the statement created by Dr. Geraty was voted upon and became the official statement of the SDA Church on creation.  And, this more open statement has born fruit, to include the current situation at La Sierra University where long ages for life existing and evolving on this planet are taught as the true story of origins to our own sons and daughters.  As David Asscherick originally observed in his now infamous letter to church leadership:

It is a matter of incontestable fact that naturalistic evolution is being taught at La Sierra University. This is not in and of itself a bad thing. Evolution should be taught at our denominational universities.” He continued, “But it should be taught as a competing and inimical worldview to the biblical worldview. (read more…)

The situation at LSU, and some of our other schools to a lesser degree, remains essentially unchanged since Asscherick’s letter was written (April, 2009).  Despite the heated nature of the controversy, most of the professors of science, and even of religion, at LSU continue to support and promote within their classrooms modern evolutionary theories of life existing and evolving on this planet, in a Darwinian manner, over hundreds of millions of years.

However, some good has come from this discussion.  At the very least the membership of the church at large are more aware of what is taking place in our own schools and what is being taught as truth to our sons and daughters who are being sent, at great expense and sacrifice, to supposedly “SDA” schools that advertise true “Adventist” education.  Also, it was most encouraging to see Ted Wilson, our new General Conference President, propose an effort to reword FB#6.

Certainly unexpected by many was the motion brought to the floor by Dr. Ted N. C. Wilson, the newly elected president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. On the one hand, Wilson’s motion was in part a response to various requests to clarify the Fundamental Belief #6 as requested by some voices in the International Faith & Science Conferences (2004), the Faith and Science Council, the Michigan and Northern California Conferences. On the other hand, his motion reflected his comprehensive vision for the church’s mission and his life of service to the church.

Wilson’s motion included a request to approve the statement “A Reaffirmation of Creation,” which more clearly stated the Adventist understanding regarding origins, based on the interpretation of Genesis 1-11. In addition, his motion included a request that the General Conference Administration initiate the process of integration of Fundamental Belief #6 and the statement “A Reaffirmation of Creation.” The motion was enthusiastically carried and strongly supported.

In summary, it is not an overstatement to say that Wilson’s motion voted on the floor of the General Conference in Atlanta, GA on June 30, 2010 is a remarkable development to be remembered in Seventh-day Adventist history as part of the great leap forward, leading us to a new reformation.

Read More…

By Sean Pitman

Ervin Taylor

Ervin Taylor, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California, Riverside. He is also a long-time supporter, executive publisher, and contributor to the “progressive” journal Adventist Today and is a fair representative of the face of “progressive” Adventism in general. As an ardent progressive Adventist, he has been a fairly active antagonist against some of the historic pillars of Adventism to include the efforts of this website to support and promote the stated goals and ideals of the Adventist church as an organization within our own schools – especially regarding the church’s position on origins.

It has never been a secret that Dr. Taylor is adamantly opposed to the Church’s position on a literal six-day creation week a few thousand years ago, promoting instead the mainstream evolutionary view of the origin of life over billions of years on this planet, or that he openly questions many of the other “fundamental” doctrinal positions of the Adventist Church.  At one of his lectures a few years back he was asked what he would tell his own granddaughter if she were to ask him for evidence of God’s existence, to which he replied, “I don’t know.”  Just yesterday he essentially repeated this very same agnostic perspective in one of his comments within this forum:

I have always been attracted to the position of Christian agnosticism. (Many, many years ago, at PUC I gave a talk with that title, as I recall, during a week of spiritual emphasis.) (Link)

What does it mean to be a “Christian agnostic”?  or an “Adventist in good and regular standing” when one believes in very few of the “fundamental” goals and ideals of the organized church?  And, perhaps more importantly, why would our own Adventists leadership invite a “Christian Agnostic” to come and regularly lecture our own young people, at schools like PUC and LSU, on the virtues of agnosticism?  to promote Christian ethics without promoting the promise and sold hope of Christ?  and the future reality of our world made new as it was originally intended to be (without the use of the evils of pain and death employed by natural selection or the ‘survival of the fittest’)?

Of course, when presented with specific questions regarding his various beliefs that directly undermine the fundamental positions of the church, Dr. Taylor, and others like him, argue that they believe in the “family model” of Adventism whereby one need not believe in or support the doctrinal positions of the church in order to be considered a good member or even an official representative of the church.  Evidently, one does not even need to be all to sure as to the evidence supporting God’s very existence to be a good “Adventist”.

Yet, when pressed, Dr. Taylor says, perhaps for political reasons in certain settings, that he does actually believe in God and in Jesus as the Son of God, born into this world from a virgin woman and raised from the dead after three days to ascend to heaven to intercede for us with the Father.  It seems strange to me, therefore, that Dr. Taylor and those like him seem so eager to accept the fantastic metaphysical claims of the Bible when it comes to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but reject much of the rest of what the Bible claims regarding historical realities which seem to disagree with their own understanding of mainstream science.  How is the Bible remotely credible on the one hand while being so far off base on the other?

Dr. Taylor suggests that those who actually believe all of what the Bible claims about historical realities are living in Alice’s Wonderland.

If a belief in the what the Bible says about about the origin of life on this planet is like living in Alice’s Wonderland, then so is a belief in the far more fantastic metaphysical claims of the Bible regarding the origin of Jesus, born of God the Father to a virgin woman, raised from the dead after three days, and taken to Heaven to commence with the rest of the Plan of Salvation for those who claim to believe in such fairytale nonsense! – like Dr. Taylor!

Why do those like Dr. Taylor claim to live within one Wonderland, full of irrational baseless nonsense, but laugh at those who accept all of what the Wonderland Book has to say about the place?

I suggest that such individuals, as brilliant as they think they are, aren’t being consistent with themselves. They’re trying to fit within two “incommensurate worlds”. It simply doesn’t work… Mr. Hatter.

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come… But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

2 Peter 3:3-6; Isaiah 5:21; Proverbs 26:5; 1 Cor. 1:18

By Shane Hilde

Educate Truth has confirmed Marta Tooma, former LSU Board member, never talked to the biology department prior to her removal as board member. According to a statement from Larry Becker, head of LSU PR department, the three board members that were removed “failed to operate within board processes.” According to Wisbey et al., all three board members were in contact with the biology department. However, only two of the board members who attached their name to the statement had spoken with the biology faculty. Alvaro Bolivar and Tooma had no contact with the biology faculty, yet Tooma was removed and Bolivar stayed. Keep in mind the LSU administration was well aware of the joint statement before it was sent to the Adventist Review. A statement from LSU reads:

The La Sierra University Board of Trustees expressed its concern to the officers of the North American Division over the precipitous action taken to publicize the “Joint Proposal” without adequate prior consultation with the La Sierra University administration and board…

“Adequate” prior consultation means the administration was aware the document would be published. Also, the Associate Provost for General Education and Academic Support at LSU, Barbara Favorito, edited the joint statement, yet it appears LSU administration did nothing to stop the statement from being sent out or even suggesting that it be delayed. The double standard LSU is exhibiting spells agenda–an agenda to oust board members who have challenged Wisbey every step of the way.

La Sierra University’s Board of Trustees took two actions during an October 11, 2011, meeting. Both actions relate to a currently circulating document titled “Joint Proposal of individual La Sierra University Faculty and Trustees.”

Affirmation of document approach

The La Sierra University Board of Trustees has been addressing the issues surrounding the teaching of origins and has emphasized a balanced approach that encompasses the Church’s belief of origins as well as a presenting a rigorous scientific curriculum.

The conceptual framework outlined in the “Joint Proposal” is not inconsistent with faculty efforts, but failed to recognize normal and established governance protocols. The Board of Trustees affirms the working document, prematurely published as the “Joint Proposal” in the Adventist Review, and encourages the La Sierra faculty to integrate it into the work of the Task Force on Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs and Values that is proceeding through the standard university curriculum processes.

The board will continue to attend to this matter.

Concern over document distribution

The La Sierra University Board of Trustees expressed its concern to the officers of the North American Division over the precipitous action taken to publicize the “Joint Proposal” without adequate prior consultation with the La Sierra University administration and board, especially in light of the ongoing discussions with Adventist Accrediting Association and Western Association of Schools and Colleges over issues of university governance and institutional autonomy.

Statement released at La Sierra University’s website.

The Adventist Review
By Mark A. Kellner

A statement by a group of biology professors and trustees at La Sierra University, a Seventh-day Adventist Church-owned school in Riverside, California to affirm and incorporate the church’s position on creation at the classroom instructional level alongside traditional scientific approaches has been welcomed by officers and educational administrators of the North American Division, the regional entity of the church which provides oversight and accreditation to church-operated institutions.

The joint statement, prepared and signed by six LSU biology professors and a group of trustees, offers hope of a peaceful resolution to tensions that have surrounded church and public media accounts of the curricular differences between the university’s teaching on origins and the doctrinal positions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

“We’re pleased to see the dialogue move to a new and constructive level,” says Larry Blackmer, vice-president for education for the North American Division. “When you’re trying to build a bridge, you pay special honor to those who help engineer the foundations and the architecture that will support future traffic, and we consider this development one that has considerable positive potential.”

In their statement, the faculty members and trustees said “two core principles” were behind their proposal:

First, “affirmation and incorporation of the Biblical concept of creation, including the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 and 2, as a faith position at the classroom level, when questions of origins are discussed.”

Second, a “continued teaching and research in the various disciplines of the modern sciences according to the most up-to-date and rigorous standards of the published science, to which we contribute as practicing scientists and active faculty, including the data which highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various models.” (Read more)

Read the full texts of the both the LSU biology faculty/trustee statement and the response by the North American Division leadership.

The Press Enterprise
By David Olson

The legal wrangling in a case involving the resignations of three La Sierra University employees has veered into questions of religious freedom and the university’s accreditation.

The three sued the university in July. They contend Ricardo Graham, the chairman of the La Sierra board and a top Seventh-day Adventist Church official, illegally coerced them into resigning after hearing a recording of the three criticizing Graham and two top Adventist education officials. Two remain at the university as professors, but not in their previous administrative posts.

The three acknowledge in their suit they were “very critical” of the officials after an April meeting that discussed concerns about the Adventist-affiliated university’s adherence to church teaching. An Adventist church body has criticized La Sierra for not doing enough to present church teaching on Biblical creationism in its science classes.

Graham, the Pacific Union Adventist conference Graham heads, the Adventist church’s education division and the two education officials also are named in the suit. (Read more)

Educate Truth shares the following news from McCuneWright, LLP.

On July 28, 2011, the law firm of McCuneWright, LLP, on behalf of Dr. Jeffry Kaatz, Dr. James Beach, and Dr. Gary Bradley, filed a complaint against all responsible parties as a result of actions taken against them and La Sierra University in a June 10, 2011 meeting, in which these three long-time and dedicated employees were forced to sign resignation letters.

Read Filed Complaint
Press Release

From a subsequent article by The Press Enterprise dated July 28, 2011:

Richard McCune, the attorney for the three plaintiffs, said his clients are worried that the forced resignations are “not only hurting them personally but harming the university they have devoted their lives to.”

The ironic thing about this statement is that LSU is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.  If these men are so concerned about any harm that may come to LSU, why then are they suing LSU itself?

It seems also like Dr. Gary Bradley, one of the plaintiffs in this case, changed his mind about how to proceed:

Bradley, the biology adjunct, said in his e-mail that he was devastated by the turn of events that has led to his resignation, though he gave no explicit indication that he plans to fight the termination on legal grounds. “I’m not ready to quit…. I have many important projects underway here now and many other people will be inconvenienced by my sudden departure,” he wrote.

“If you are among those who welcome this transition, I request that you celebrate with dignity,” Bradley added. “If you are among those who find this transition upsetting, I ask that you not turn it into a war.”

From Inside Higher Ed, June 15, 2011

By Sean Pitman (7/19/11)

In a recent comment posted to this website, Dr. Lawrence Geraty, retired president of La Sierra University, has affirmed his own belief in the Adventist position on creation ( Link ).

For the record, 1) I am NOT a theistic evolutionist nor have I ever suggested it to be “the true model of origins.” 2) I have NEVER suggested anything like the view that conservative Adventists (of whom I count myself) are “the type that fly planes into buildings.” (Hopefully that denial will make less “scary” the fact that I have been the president of an Adventist institution.)

Why would Dr. Geraty feel the need to clarify his position on origins with the use of such strong and dramatic language? Could it be that his position has been less than clear given many of his past statements and actions as president of LSU?  Consider, for example, Dr. Geraty’s comments published in Spectrum in 2010:

Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.

Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference. Since when is salvation by correct knowledge anyway?

Consider also that Dr. Geraty, during his term as president of LSU, hired science professors (Larry McCloskey and Lee Grismer in particular) who were known supporters of mainstream evolutionary theories and who had a history of undermining the Adventist position on a literal six-day creation week.  While Dr. Geraty is correct in saying that he was not directly responsible, it was Dr. Grismer, the “Reptile King“, who told students that those who believe in the literal creation week are, “The ones who fly airplanes into buildings”  ( Link ).  Students also warned Dr. Geraty of Dr. McCloskey’s attack on the Adventist view of origins yet Dr. Geraty did nothing to help these students or to counter the influence of those who were actively promoting mainstream evolution at LSU during his term as president ( Link ).  Instead, he told everyone who would listen that all of the professors at LSU are “creationists” in full support of the fundamentals of Adventism.

Dr. Geraty had to know that such claims were very deceptive if not outright lies.  He could only have seen himself clear to make such claims based on the current wording of FB#6 that Dr. Geraty and Dr. Fritz Guy helped to draft. Drs. Geraty and Guy interpret the current wording of FB#6 as allowing for non-literal views of the creation week.

Also during Dr. Geraty’s term, theologians like Dr. Webster and Dr. Guy (also a former president of LSU from 90′-93′) gave lectures to LSU students telling them, “Nobody takes the Genesis account of creation literally.” ( Link ).

It is somewhat difficult, therefore, to take Dr. Geraty’s claims of support for the Adventist perspective on origins seriously given his support for those who are most active in attacking the fundamentals of the church – especially when Dr. Geraty himself refers to those who do hold to the importance a literal creation week as view as radical right-wing tea-party fundamentalists  ( Link ) one could hardly be blamed for misunderstanding Dr. Geraty’s true position.

The confusion only increases when one considers things like Dr. Geraty’s statements in apparent support of Prof. Ervin Taylor who argues for the reliability of mainstream radiocarbon dating interpretations (which Dr. Taylor presents as clearly falsifying the SDA notion of a literal creation week in recent history; Link ) Dr. Geraty has also personally challenges the world-wide nature of the Noachian Flood, arguing that the author(s) of Genesis are most likely talking about a local flood.  In the book, Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives Dr. Geraty personally wrote:

“Was the Genesis flood worldwide? There is no evidence for that as of now, but it certainly covered the world known to the author.  It is the opinion of most experts, and little reasonable doubt remains (although some would dispute this) that the events of Genesis 6-8 must have taken place within a limited though indeed a vast area, covering not the entire globe, but the scene of the human story of the previous chapters.”

Dr. Geraty stands here in direct and very open opposition to the historical position of the SDA Church on this issue.  He also, at the same time, challenges the SDA understanding of the inspiration of Mrs. White who clearly claims that she was shown by God that the Noachian Flood was indeed world-wide in nature and was responsible for the formation of much of the geologic an fossil records.

It is also rather difficult to ignore the impression that Dr. Geraty strongly favors the “progressive” movement within the Church given his public support for the actions of those like Elder Hammill. When former General Conference Vice-President Richard Hammill became a “progressive creationist”, turning his back on the fundamental SDA doctrine of a literal 6-day creation week, Dr. Geraty seemed to be very pleased indeed as he introduced Hammill with the following words of praise:  “I could hardly have imagined inviting our speaker to share his testimony on his journey as a progressive believer.  But to his credit, he is one of the few converts to Adventism that I know who, after his retirement, has truly made a transition to a progressive faith.” ( Link )

Given such public statements and actions in favor of those attacking the church from within, together with his own published comments on the topic of origins, it is very difficult for me to accept the sincerity of Dr. Geraty’s support for the Adventist position – to include the literal nature of the creation week and the Genesis narrative as a whole.  While Dr. Geraty has been rather emphatic in his denial of “theistic evolutionism” I’ve yet to see him clearly state his support for the historical reality of the literal creation week, the worldwide Noachian Flood, or the relatively recent creation of all forms of life on this planet (i.e., within the last 10,000 years).  As always, Dr. Geraty is less than transparent in the language that he uses.  He redefines terms for himself and uses words in ways he knows many people will misunderstand what he’s really saying.  He continues to describe the professors at LSU as “creationists”, in full support of Adventism, knowing full well what this term means for most people, while also knowing that many of LSU’s professors do not support the Adventist concept of a literal creation week much less a recent arrival of all life on this planet or a worldwide Noachian Flood.

In short, I would ask that Dr. Geraty at least be forthright about what is being taught at LSU and his own personal responsibility for the current situation in play – the current creation/evolution controversy within and beyond the walls of LSU.