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.
6 comments:
The problem is much more basic than what you present. The church continues to insist on what it must know is not true, that the Bible is THE word of God. In addition, the church continues to advocate a meaning of faith that is not even supported by the Scriptures that they claim to be authoritative.
The Bible may be holy book but it is holy because Jews and Christians say it is holy. One only has to look at the history of the Bible to understand that it does not constitute a blueprint of the Creator's actions in His universe. Until the church is honest enough to admit that all knowledge comes from the Creator and the Bible is just a part of it we will continue to stunt the development of the human race.
Regarding faith. Only religionists have what the church defines as faith. Yet, Paul clearly teaches that ALL men have the measure of faith. Either Paul was wrong or the church is wrong. In this case the evidence shows that the church is wrong. Faith is not a system of truth. Without faith scientists could not do their work for they could have no confidence in their instruments. A definition of faith that excludes agnostic and atheistic scientists cannot be valid.
This is not a time for faith. This is a time to have faith in the evidence we observe; it is a time for honesty. If we are not prepared to abandon what we have always believed for the cause of peace on earth maybe we are not ready.
As a student who studied the basic biological sciences including Paleontology. Evolution requires accepting as fact a lot that is not demonstrable with huge gaps in reality. I believe that SDA institutions and faculty should adhere to the teachings of the church. The responsible thing for Faculty to do if they cannot concur is to leave the institution. The SDA constituency send their children to Church institutions to maintain the integrity of their faith.
The scientists may debate in their professional circles to their hearts desire but they should not hijack the classroom.
Paulsen did the only pragmatic thing at this point without tearing the Church apart.
The same people talking about honesty in the scientific field have been dishonest in their claim to faith.
I think the question becomes, is the teacher's highest allegiance to the church's teaching or is it to truth? I would never argue that teachers promote evolutionism as a philosophy. As I indicated in the blog, Christian teachers have a responsibility to affirm faith. But that can be done while exploring current scientific thinking.
On the other hand, established scientific evidence raises real questions about some established teachings. To ignore those conflicts is not responsible either. To seek to resolve them is surely part of our mission. Yet resolving them may mean rethinking both our science and our theology. That is what I am arguing for.
That, surely is part of the role of Christian higher education -- Not merely to maintain the status quo, as comfortable as that may seem for parents (and we are talking about higher education here, not the indoctrination of children), but to refine the boundaries of truth.
Paulson has chosen to express his confidence in the church's dogma rather than trusting the Creator to take us through this.
Why do we choose to hold on to a definition of faith that does not reflect what is taught in the Bible? If faith is a religious concept Paul would have to be in error to say that all men have been given the measure of faith. Faith is a human concept. Every science has to exercise faith in his ability to observe and in his instruments. Faith is about progress.
Ready for what, DAL? Belated I know, but after reading these comments again it strikes me that DAL's position seems to lead to a complete rejection of Christianity. That's what happens when we "abandon what we have always believed." Unless I am somehow misunderstanding you.
And while I am not privy to the details of the LaSierra controversy, no one has pointed out that an understanding of the theory of evolution is critical to any intellectual Christian. How can you claim to disagree with something if you don't even know what it is? Why does it have to be a choice between intellectual honesty and supporting the church position? A critical thinker needs to be aware of both sides of an argument. And too often Christians have turned evolution, and other secular theories into caricatures and straw men to be laughed at, knocked over, and burned. I'm sure we can all agree with that.
That said, those of us who choose to remain traditionalist (interpret Genesis from a literalist standpoint) are no less "enlightened" than the more pragmatic in the Christian community (those who readily accept the well-based conclusions of the scientific/secular community). After all, since when has pragmatism been the sole criterion for truth? What do we really care about here?
Post a Comment