Comment on GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation by Kevin Paulson.
Dear Geanna:
I am glad you are raising the issues of which you speak. Your observations reveal serious problems of understanding which are rampant within the contemporary church, which are settled when one simply allows the written counsel of God (both Scripture and Ellen White) to define our duty as Seventh-day Adventist Christians.
What troubles me most about your reasoning, and that of so many others who think along similar lines, is that the end result is to almost totally eliminate any form of church discipline. The argument seems to go something like this: “We’re all sinners, and your sin is just as bad as mine, so let’s just leave each other’s beliefs and practices alone and learn to get along.” This may sound agreeable in our postmodern setting, but it is not Biblical. And frankly, I doubt that you yourself would wish to live with the ultimate consequences of such an argument. I am sure there are beliefs and practices you would not tolerate in a church member either. The point is that we need to let the written Word, not our personal preferences and prejudices, guide our thinking in such matters.
I grew up at a time in the church when the exposure and ridicule of hypocrisy was almost a sport for certain ones. Hypocrisy is a terrible thing, to be sure. But it seems that so many who attack hypocrisy within the church seem to offer no solution except to imply a very loosely-structured, open-ended “tolerance” whose limits and parameters they never quite clarify. This may offer a certain catharsis to those who have suffered at the hands of hypocrites in the church, but it offers no practical help to the body of Christ in addressing issues of faith, identity, purpose, and practice.
Again, there may be some who think such issues lead as far afield from the topic of creation and evolution. I frankly disagree. It is imperative that we understand the ranking of issues among us, and how as end-time Christians it is our responsibility to help one another on the upward path toward holiness and victory.
Inspiration defines certain lifestyle issues as tests of fellowship and others as issues of Christian growth. This is not something arbitrary that the church has invented. Ellen White, for example, speaks of alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee as sinful indulgences, but says we cannot say the same about the consumption of flesh meat and other animal products, even though the abandonment of the latter is to be our eventual goal (see 3SM 287-288). In other statement she writes of how meat and dairy products are “not to be classed with flesh meat” (7T 135).
In other words, there are degrees in health reform. Some practices (like smoking and drinking; see Te 166) are to be abandoned as prerequisites for church membership, while others are to be areas of growth which the body of Christ must facilitate and encourage.
You are quite correct in quoting those verses which speak of the indulgence of appetite. This is an area where many, including the present writer, experience struggle. The point is, however, that we have no inspired mandate to measure the physical weight of church employees or members so as to ascertain their level of progress in this area. This is simply one of those areas where the counsel of fellow believers, individual effort, and most of all the empowerment of divine grace are to be decisive.
One point you raise deserves clarification. The writings of Ellen White do not teach total abstinence from caffeine. The fact is that caffeine is not even mentioned in the writings of Ellen White. The reason tea and coffee are condemned is because they are stimulants, and of course the stimulating agent in these drinks is the volume of caffeine present. By contrast, the amount of caffeine found in chocolate is minuscule by comparison. No one, as you well know, drinks hot chocolate to wake up in the morning or to stay up late at night to study for an exam! It is interesting that while hot chocolate was a more popular drink in the days of Ellen White than either tea or coffee, Ellen White says nothing about chocolate despite her many warnings against both tea and coffee.
At the bottom line, to bring our discussion back to the central issue of this forum, the question of how we got here in the first place is very much an issue on which the church has the right to expect clarity from its workers and its members. To compare this key issue of faith and worldview to whether one drinks chocolate or is overweight is not likely to be persuasive to objective observers of this dialogue. There are mountains and valleys, weighty and less weighty matters (no pun intended!), in the faith and practices of the striving faithful. That does not change the fundamental reality that belief in theistic evolution is completely out of bounds for one claiming to be a Seventh-day Adventist, especially as an employed worker.
God bless!
Pastor Kevin Paulson
Kevin Paulson Also Commented
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Dear Robert S:
Let me thank you for your excellent argument on this fallacious comparison between the open advocacy of evolution on an Adventist campus and a person who struggles with overeating. At exactly what point the latter occurs is rarely the same for different people. But your point is devastating about what it would mean to hire a teacher who advocated gluttony. That is the proper parallel to the issue being addressed on this Web site.
It is rapidly becoming clear that those seeking to justify the denial of our faith at the hands of so-called scholars will stop at nothing to fabricate arguments in their defense, no matter how absurd.
God bless!
Pastor Kevin Paulson
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Dear Ken:
You asked about Ben Clausen. I was deeply ashamed of the statements he made during the debate at the GC on the creation resolution. And if in fact he is not prepared to defend the scientific credibility of a literal six-day creation as taught by inspired writings, the Geosciemce Research Institute–and the church which sponsors that Institute–would be far better served without him.
God bless!
Pastor Kevin Paulson
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Dear Ken:
The only definition of God’s compassion that I acknowledge is the one found in God’s Word. We cannot take our own standard of compassion and apply it to what Inspiration says. Rather, we must define our own standards of compassion and morality by the counsel of Inspiration.
Inspiration is clear that the will of God as revealed in its pages is knowable by finite man and must be applied by God’s servants to the faith community (see II Thess. 3:14-15; I Tim. 1:3). The testimony of Biblical history is that the will of God as proclaimed by His prophets and written in the Sacred Pages was understandable by finite beings, and that the latter were held accountable–by man as well as God–for their response to the same.
Let us beware of defining “humility” as ambiguity of conviction. This is a false form of humility not found in the Word of God. I like what Ellen White says on this point:
“Skepticism and unbelief are not humility. Implicit belief in Christ’s word is true humility, true self-surrender” (DA 535).
Elsewhere she writes of the contrast between the style of teaching Jesus used, which exuded authority, with that of the rabbis in His day who made the Bible seem unclear and equivocal:
“But while His teaching was simple, He spoke as one having authority. This characteristic set His teaching in contrast with that of all others. The rabbis spoke with doubt and hesitancy, as if the Scriptures might be interpreted to mean one thing or exactly the opposite. The hearers were daily involved in greater uncertainty” (DA 253).
It is fascinating how so many associate the mindset of the Jews in Christ’s day with inflexible dogmatism. It would seem the above statement portrays the Jews who rejected Jesus in a very different light–one with which today’s “progressive” Adventists might find more harmony than they realize!
God bless!
Pastor Kevin Paulson
Recent Comments by Kevin Paulson
NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
To all participants in the present discussion:
If we’re going to address the issue of how the origins debate should be handled in the public schools, I think we should recognize from the outset that this is most different from the basic question raised by this Web site, which of course is the question of whether theories of origins contrary to Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy writings, and fundamental Adventist beliefs should be promoted in a Seventh-day Adventist classroom or pulpit.
As a strong Biblical conservative, I am constrained both to support the Genesis creation account as well as the separation of church and state. Seventh-day Adventists have historically supported both on strict Bible grounds. As strongly as I oppose within the church the teaching of ideas and practices which contradict God’s written counsel, I oppose with equal strength the efforts of certain Christian to impose Christian teachings and personal values through civil law.
With this in mind, I believe the best approach to origins in a public school classroom is a modified version of a proposal advanced by the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, very much a devout evolutionist. Gould argued that the teaching of creationism did in fact belong in the teaching of science in public schools, but that it should be covered specifically when addressing the history of scientific thought. I would take this further than Gould and say evolution belongs in that section also.
Technically, as I see this discussion, neither creation nor evolution constitutes strict science, as science requires both observation and experimentation, and no one was present when the natural world came into existence. Science can be summoned to support both theories, but at the bottom line, both concepts invariably lead away from science into the realm of philosophy and faith.
As with other issues of theology and morality which at times enter the public square, it has long been my conviction that the objective evidence supporting the Biblical worldview is sufficiently decisive that the spurs of civil coercion need not be used to promote it to the larger society. The Christian community has sufficient resources and a massive popular presence in our culture, and these should be utilized to set before the public the evidence supporting the claims of the Bible and the Christian faith. Most of all, Christians need to focus less on impacting society through politics and more on impacting their neighbors and society in general through the power of a godly Christian example. From my experience, even the most secular minds have trouble gainsaying the power of the latter.
Finally, I think Phil Brantley needs to define a bit more carefully what he means by “mainstream,” when he says creationism is not a “mainstream” view. Does he mean mainstream in terms of accepted scientific thought, or does he refer to popular opinion? If the latter is considered, it might help to note that every poll I have seen indicates a large percentage (often a majority) of the American public at least, holds to a view of origins closer to Genesis than to Darwin.
God bless!
Pastor Kevin Paulson
NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
Perhaps it helps to remember that while Aaron was a facilitator, Moses was a watchman. The latter are the sort of leaders God seeks in a time of crisis such as this.
God bless!
Pastor Kevin Paulson
Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
Dear “Professor Kent”:
You seem to forget, once again, that neither Christ, His love, His forgiveness, nor His cross would be necessary if Darwinian macro-evolution is the story of humanity’s origins.
And once again you give evidence of your embrace of the false dichotomy so popular in modern and postmodern Adventism between “Christ” and the “doctrines.” You insist that correct doctrine will save no one. And you are wrong. Over and over again, in Holy Scripture, truth is declared to be the means of salvation (Hosea 4:6; Matt. 4:4; John 8:31; II Thess. 2:13; I Tim. 4:16). Such truth must be internalized within the heart, to be sure, but it is still the means by which God saves men and women.
You cannot separate Jesus from a literal understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, since repeatedly He made clear in His teachings that He took these events literally. The same holds true for the other New Testament authors. You cannot have the Gospel and evolution too. You cannot embrace Jesus and relegate the Genesis Flood to mythic or mere literary status. It is impossible.
The longer this discussion proceeds, the clearer it will be that you and all others who think as you do are in the wrong church. It is tragic you insist on putting yourself through the needless pain and agony of living a lie.
God bless!
Pastor Kevin Paulson
Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
Though I had briefly reviewed the letter from Jason and Janelle Shives some days ago, tonight was the first time I actually sat down to read the entire document. It is a masterful though tragic account of a most disturbing situation.
I have known Jason Shives for some time, and have admired him for his courage in standing for truth. He and I share a common experience in having both served as president of the Loma Linda University student body.
What is needed is a grassroots movement of godly students like Jason and Janelle, who will not sit and listen quietly to the perversion of truth in Adventist classrooms. Leaders with the courage to act are needed, most assuredly, but when a groundswell of concern from the young becomes evident, they can act with the awareness that the rising generaiton does not, after all, wish to see the church’s teachings trashed, as the liberals devoutly believe.
If the Bible means anything at all, revival and reformation involve drastic changes in the faith and practice of a community which for a time has departed from the written counsel of God. In the Bible story, this has generally meant the removal of unfaithful personnel from positions of influence and leadership. Most assuredly this must happen in contemporary Adventism. If it means closing departments or even institutions until we can staff them with faithful teachers, we must be prepared to do this.
Let us keep in particular our new General Conference President in our prayers, as the task of guiding the denominational ship of state rests to a large degree in his hands.
God bless!
Pastor Kevin Paulson
An apology to PUC
Dear Karl:
I truly appreciate your clarity and your speaking from the heart as you have. PUC is my alma mater also. And the things you have described I have heard described by a number of credible eyewitnesses. This climate of doctrinal indifference and postmodern spirituality, in which any and all viewpoints are given equal value (except of course those actually challenging the undergirding mindset of these folks), is a scandal of unapralleled proportions.
You are so right about constituents and school administrators turning a blind eye. I can only hope this is now starting to change, with the agitation of those like the organizers of this Web site, and the tone set by our new General Conference President.
I truly believe, however, that the real root of this tragedy is not so much postmodernism as those popular theories of salvation in modern Adventism which have devalued the necessity of correct doctrine and practical holiness. Once salvation is seen to be secure apart from correct belief and a godly life, once we accept the lie that error and sin are the unavoidable companions of even the sanctified believer, it became inevitable that erroneous worldviews and sinful practices would become less and less offensive in the church.
We need a thorough revival and a thorough reformation, and a consequently thorough cleansing of the ranks. I have been studying lately the Bible stories of revival and reformation in the faith community. Believe me, the process was never a feel-good, everybody-come-together-unconditionally type of event. False worship was destroyed. Wrong practices were condemned and expelled from the camp. Apart from such real-life consequences, these cherished words become just another empty slogan.
Thanks again, Karl, for your candor.
God bless!
Pastor Kevin Paulson
