Historian Ronald Numbers of the University of Wisconsin published a book almost a decade ago titled The Creationists. Its subtitle is The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. As evidenced by at least three recent developments, Seventh-day Adventist creationism is still evolving. Although this is as it should be, these transitions suggest that our church would be wise when formulating official statements about such issues to say no more, or less, than Scripture does.

One of these developments has actually been underway for some time. It is the idea that the very first verses of Genesis may refer to events long before the creation of life on this planet when "God created the heaven and the earth" and then perhaps left the earth "without form and void" for an uncertain length of time. This interpretation makes it easier to reconcile the apparent antiquity of the universe with accounts of a more recent creation of life on earth.

A second development is the partial reconsideration of what some Adventists and others have called "flood geology." This is the view that evidence suggesting that the universe and life on this planet have existed for a long time may have been caused, not by gradual developments, but by rapid ones associated with the flood in the biblical story of Noah. Some leading Adventist creationists now doubt that it is wise to attribute as much of the geological evidence to this deluge as their predecessors did.

These Adventist creationists do not wholly deny the importance of this flood for understanding earth history. Their point is more circumspect: "flood geology" may explain some, perhaps much, of the evidence, but not all of it. Although "flood geology" has been the primary explanatory theory among many Adventist creationists for a number of years, it is beginning to share the stage with other proposals.

A third development is the willingness of some influential Adventist creationists to concede that in the history of the universe some forms of death may have preceded human sin. Some now hold that the death of microscopic organisms may have occurred before humans first sinned. One leading Adventist creationist recently told me of his hunch that small animals such as mice may have lived and died in their natural cycles before sin. Although the differences among such views are worth noting, they both agree that some forms of death may have been widespread before humans lost their way.

Developments such as these have long been noticeable among less traditional Adventists who have thought it best to update creationism. Now they can also be detected among some who think of themselves as maintaining our church’s historic views. This is why these three developments are noteworthy.

As they always have and always will, and although the pace is slow and uneven, Adventist views of natural history are still evolving. How should our church respond?

In ethical matters, our church emphasizes basic principles of lasting value and allows for diverse and changing applications in a spirit of mutual forbearance and accountability. Our church should relate to debates in religion and science in a similar fashion. Its official statements should adhere to the primary and pervasive themes of Scripture and leave room for people to reconcile them with the scientific evidence in more than one way as our conversations continue and as our knowledge increases.

If our church does not do this, if it becomes too particular and specific about such issues, it will repeatedly find itself in the uncomfortable position of having to revise its official pronouncements as our understanding of God’s revelation in Scripture and in the natural world evolves.

Human understanding, whether theological or scientific, is not static but dynamic. It is therefore important that our church not tie itself too tightly to any theory as to how and when God created all good things. The primary and pervasive themes of Scripture are what count for daily Christian living. We should emphasize them in our official statements.

What are some of these important themes? That God is the ultimate source of everything true, beautiful and good; that the material world of which we are a part is neither an illusion nor a realm of intrinsic evil; that God values both human and non-human forms of life, and so should we; that our bodies are not prisons that temporarily incarcerate our souls, but temples of the Holy Spirit; that human beings are created in the image of God regardless of differences in race, gender, nationality, economic class, philosophical point of view, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or age; that men and women are equal in being and value and should be treated as such; that human sin is neither necessary nor attributable to God; that in Jesus Christ, God is reconciling the entire universe and all of its inhabitants; that there is only one thing God will not do to achieve this reconciliation and this is to override the measure of freedom each creature possesses; and that the persuasive power of God’s love will ultimately triumph.

Christian history confirms that churches rarely experience difficulties when they adhere to the primary and pervasive themes of Scripture in their official statements. But when denominations cling too firmly to one interpretation of Scripture, or when churches endorse one set of scientific theories, in the long run the results have often been negative.

Christian leaders in the times of Galileo and Copernicus were right to maintain their conviction that the universe ultimately is God’s creation, as is everything good within it. But they were wrong in insisting that the important themes of Scripture can be read properly only through the eyes of those with geocentric worldviews, even though at one time these may have been the best alternatives. It has taken hundreds of years to undo the adverse consequences of their mistakes and this healing process is not yet complete.

Far be it from us to repeat such mistakes by officially pronouncing more, or less, than Scripture does!

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE