Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by Glenn Sackett.
The future of the church is certainly at stake here, but not necessarily in the way some frame it. To me the question is this: “Will the SDA church move forward as a people of FAITH who believe that God is the Creator as the biblical story says He is, even though there may remain unanswered questions about details and mechanisms that the Hebrew mind doesn’t address in scripture?” Or “Will the SDA church move forward as a people of DOCTRINE who insist that one particular interpretation, which inserts many non-Hebraic ideas between the lines and letters of scripture, is the only acceptable understanding?”
We must remember that faith and science are different ways of knowing, and that both are historically fickle; in both fields favored doctrines and positions compete with other ideas, both new and old, in a continuing quest for truth. I believe that “truth” is reality, which we humans can only approach in understanding and appreciation, being that we are not Gods.
When my understanding of Adventism was built on a DOCTRINAL core, I worried and fretted about how I would resolve these different ways of knowing. Now that my understanding of Adventism is built around a FAITH core, I not only tolerate, but actually appreciate the significant aspects of uncertainty and mystery in both ways of knowing. When one reads church history or the history of science, it becomes clear that in both fields individuals have paid dearly for having the courage to express ideas that fail to conform to the current approved view, even though their views later became the accepted, better understanding and even became the new orthodoxy. Think of Martin Luther. Think of Montevideo Agassiz who first recognized the action of glaciers before the rest of the scientific community was ready to entertain the idea; he was expelled from the Academy of Science.
Far from turning me into an atheist, the willingness to hold in tension these two different “ways of knowing” has strengthened my faith and increased my understanding of the contributions of science as well as its limitations. I also appreciate both the contributions and limitations of the biblical record. It’s also given me a strong distaste for pseudo-science, whether promoted by political parties or religious groups, driven by cherished ideology rather than by the pursuit of understanding truth/reality. And what about pseudo-theology which uses theological language and tools to promote a cherished ideology – is it any better?
If we are to sustain a Christian/Adventist community in a scientific era, perhaps we should appreciate the wisdom of “Unity in essentials; tolerance on other matters.” As a religious community we can expect and require agreement of the issue of God as Creator, and at the same time be tolerant of diverse understandings of the details and mechanisms of creation.
To paraphrase a friend and mentor: It’s not just that “what you don’t know can’t hurt you” is wrong; what really hurts is “what you know that isn’t so.”
