One positive feature was the tone of the statement. At a time when there are calls for firings and strong action to enforce the status quo, Dr. Paulsen chose to take a conciliatory tone rather than an authoritarian one. That is refreshing. Paulsen also closed his statement by making a pastoral call for Adventist educators to affirm faith in their students. I resonate with that call. I believe that among the things what distinguish Christian from secular education is that irrespective of the discipline, the instructor must be sensitive to matters of faith, and display that sensitivity in the way in which he or she deals with the subject, with the student, and with the student's interaction with the discipline. That is not indoctrination. It is taking responsibility, not just for the student's initiation into the discipline, but for guiding the student's integration of the discipline into his or her belief system.
Yet, I thought Paulsen's statement failed to move the issue forward in productive ways. It essentially left us in the same troubled place. The statement began by urging that we stay close to scripture, then pointing to the currently accepted interpretation of the Genesis account of six literal days of creation. In so doing, Dr. Paulsen seemed to imply that the only way to be true to scripture is to accept the literal account. But he fails to allow for the fact that even a literal reading is an interpretation, and that we may not yet have the final word on the interpretation of Genesis. His statement that faith is "not subject to the findings of science" is, at best, puzzling. It is the findings of science, after all, that has caused us to adjust our interpretation of scripture regarding the shape of the earth and its relationship to the sun and other heavenly bodies. Science has caused us to classify a bat as a mammal rather than a bird (see Leviticus 11:13-19). Science helps us to understand that the sun may not have stood still in the literal sense in the time of Joshua (Joshua 10:12 -14). Our understanding of genetics helps us to adapt our understanding of how Jacob's goats may have become spotted (Genesis 30:27-29). So science certainly has a role in helping us understand what Scripture is saying.
That being the case, it seems to me that Paulsen has prematurely closed the door on any refinement of our understanding of Genesis. Yet, I am convinced that without a serious review of our understanding of Genesis in the light of science, we are left at an irresolvable impasse. Science is not static. Our understanding of scripture should not be either. The present controversy can be a catalyst for scientists and Bible scholars to embark on a mutually respectful search for fresh insights that can enrich our understanding of Scripture in the light of unfolding scientific discoveries. Such a search would not ignore the hard problems on both sides. It would face them and work on them with honestly and intellectual rigor.
This has never happened before in the Adventist church. The dialogue between science and scripture has heretofore been handicapped by an insistence on the part of the theologians that we already know the right answer, if only the scientists would somehow find what it takes to harmonize with scripture or otherwise ignore the facts. But that is not how science is done. Scientists, on the other hand have not always been open to hearing the serious theological problems that get in the way of an easy acceptance of scientific theory. Nor have they always appreciated the limitations of the scientific method in answering metaphysical questions. On both sides there have not always been the greatest respect for the scholarly integrity or spiritual honesty of the other. We need honest inquiry that does not prejudge the end product, and that carefully and respectfully hears all the sides.
Such an exercise will be slow and not likely to produce quick definitive answers. But such patient inquiry is precisely the sort of thing that the academy is designed to produce. It is what well-trained scientists, philosophers and theologians at LaSierra, Loma Linda, Andrews, Walla Walla, Southern, and all the other academic centers in the Adventist higher education fraternity should be encouraged to engage in. Paulsen's statement has short-circuited this process by prescribing the answer. In this regard, I fear it represents a missed opportunity.
