A report on meetings of the General Conference Annual Council, October 11 and 13, 2004, concerning the "Affirmation of Creation" from the Faith and Science Conference, Denver, Colorado, August 2004.

Click here for a copy of the affirmation, which has also been published in the fall 2004 issue of Spectrum magazine.

When the floor opened for comments on the official report of the 2002-2004 Faith and Science Conference Organizing Committee, a steady stream of delegates flooded the microphones for almost two hours. Although most voices supported the document’s affirmation of the Adventist Church’s Sixth Fundamental Belief, concern was also expressed for the possible ambiguities caused by the wording of the report. In particular, affirmations numbers two and four were brought into question. They were as follows:

2. We affirm the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 that life on earth was created in six literal days and is of recent origin.

4. We affirm the biblical account of a catastrophic Flood, an act of God’s judgment that affected the whole planet, as an important key to understanding earth history.

Clifford Goldstein, editor of the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, was one of the first to rise, and he expressed concern for the ambiguity in the fourth affirmation, claiming that it still allowed room for Adventists not to believe in a universal flood that covered the entire earth. He suggested that the word global be added to the statement, leaving no doubt in the minds of its readers as to whether or not the flood covered the entire earth.

Ted Wilson, a General Conference vice president, endorsed Goldstein’s suggestion. Wilson also voiced the shared concern of many for the second affirmation: "I think action we take here will be extremely important in helping the world field to understand what we mean by … six literal days. I understand them to be twenty-four-hour days that are literal. Even with the word literal, it would be helpful [to add] the word contiguous, or sequential," he said.

Other comments followed Wilson’s, supporting the apparent need for clarification of the literal six-day creation. The one voice that seemed opposed to the "clarifications" came from Kent Staunton, a lay member of the committee from Australia, who made the following statement:

It’s interesting, I think, that God didn’t create the world in black and white. He created the world in color. I would be uncomfortable with something that sought to remove differences in the name of unity, for I fear that may be something that is exclusive and creates division.… Words of Scripture are open to have shades and we need to be open to those shades.

Shortly after, the discussion closed with an acceptance of the motion to have a committee from the Council write a response to the report. Two days later, a response came from the appointed Council Committee, chaired by Lowell Cooper, a vice president of the General Conference and chairman of the Faith and Science Committee that had written the original report.

That response, "An Affirmation of Creation," positively enforced the report’s statements of belief. For those who had voiced concern with the lack of clarity in Monday’s meeting, the following affirmation was officially added to the document:

"We reaffirm the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the historicity of Genesis 1–11: that the seven days of Creation account were literal 24–hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature."

Several delegates from the floor stood to voice their approval and support action to affirm the report. However, not everyone felt that the report was sufficient. Cindy Tutsch from the White Estate pushed the question: "Why are we writing a document to clarify [Fundamental Belief] number six when we can let number six speak for itself?"

Monday’s meeting had seen this question alluded to; but now, with the pregnancy of the moment at full term, Athol Tollhurst, former undersecretary of the General Conference, introduced a motion to amend the Sixth Fundamental Belief itself, in order to further clarify its meaning.

Immediately lines formed behind the microphones as delegates raised their voices on both sides of the motion. Again Cindy Tutsch took the floor, stating the need for students in Adventist schools to be kept "safe," claiming that a clarified Fundamental Belief would help them through the ambiguities of the science community. Another delegate voiced concern for students leaving the Adventist school system with ambiguities still in their minds.

In return, Richard Osborn, president of Pacific Union College, raised the illustration of Galileo being excommunicated by the Catholic Church for teaching that the universe did not revolve around the earth. He then posed the theoretical question of what the Adventist Church might hold as truth a century down the road.

A delegate from the Trans-European Division, speaking against changing the Sixth Fundamental Belief, quoted Revelation 22.18: "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book." In response, a short-lived ripple of laughter filled the auditorium before Ekkehardt Mueller of the Biblical Research Institute gave a rebuttal, claiming that the additional words were not changing Scripture, but rather were clarifying them for those who do not understand their original meaning.

The delegates having surpassed the time allotted for discussion, Jan Paulsen, president of the General Conference and chairman of the meeting, closed the floor to any further comments and allowed committee members to give their collective conclusion, at which point Cooper iterated that the committee did not desire a change in the Fundamental Belief, and that the intent of the report was not to change it. "We don’t need to redefine what we believe.… [W]e need to reaffirm it: The old flag still flies," he said, to which a loud "Amen" echoed through the room.

The vote was then made as to whether or not the Sixth Fundamental Belief should be open to change during the 2005 General Conference session in Saint Louis. Only a few hands could be seen raised in support, the overwhelming majority voting against its amendment.

Perhaps one of the most insightful comments came from a delegate from Africa, who observed that the entire discussion was an issue for the North American Church alone. "Whether you add one word or not in your English," he stated, "we will translate it into our own languages, and when we do our people will understand exactly what we mean."

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE