Wishing Doesn't Make It So

Believer Beware

2009-09-09T08:57:00.004-04:00

I hadn't thought of Mike Warnke in a long time, until I read a recent post at Unreasonable Faith.

I read The Satan Seller growing up. Listened to Bob Larson and a few other speakers eager to tell teenagers how rock music leads to Satanism or was just plain bad for you (twice during my youth I tossed all of my rock music). I believed the reappearing Ouija board stories (even thought my father once threw one away that never came back). Only one adult during that time had anything critical to say: my geometry teacher, who thought that backward masking was rubbish.

Should have listened to him.

I read Adventist World

2009-07-31T12:38:00.003-04:00

The latest issue of Adventist World carries an article called "Creation Wonders: Why special creation matters." It's an excellent brief overview of why it's necessary to believe in special creation in order to be a Seventh-day Adventist.

The article is part of Adventist World's ongoing series on the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Unusually, this article uses four authors:

John T. Baldwin is professor of theology in the Theology and Christian Philosophy Department at Andrews University. Leonard R. Brand is professor of biology and paleontology at Loma Linda University. Arthur Chadwick is professor of geology and biology at Southwestern Adventist University, and Randall W. Younker is professor of Old Testament and biblical archaeology at the same university.

Here's one of the things two theologians and two scientists need the SDA church to know (emphasis mine):

Additionally, the chronological material in Genesis 4, 5, and Matthew 1 are only compatible with a time since creation of a few thousand years, not millions of years (deep time). But why does it matter how long ago it was? Why do we care about time? It matters a great deal, and the reason involves our response to modern scientific interpretations of geologic time and what it says about the nature of God and of the Bible. Deep time and the theory of the evolution of all creatures go hand in hand. Our choice is between deep time plus evolution of life forms, or a recent biblical creation week.

Sigh. There's that clear black-and-white choice again.

In a nutshell, here's why special creation matters to the authors:

If Genesis 1 and 2 can't be read literally, then the Bible cannot be trusted. And if we can't trust the Bible on this issue, how can we trust the other parts of the Bible?
God is love. If God used evolution in his creation process, then he is a cruel God who, instead of the comparatively gentle method of creation described in the first two chapters of Genesis, used a method that resulted in "more than 3.8 billion years of trauma (predation), disease, death, mass extinctions, suffering, countless regional geologic catastrophes of all sorts."
The acceptance of deep time requires "requires the denial of a historical, literal Fall*, a global flood, and a historical Adam through whom sin and death passed to all humanity, and ultimately involves the denial of the need to accept Jesus as Savior through His life and death on the Cross*."
No special creation makes God a liar. God himself wrote the fourth commandment in which he describes himself as the creator of the heavens and the earth, and he did it in six days.

They sum up with the following:

Special creation preserves the integrity of Scripture, safeguards the loving, praiseworthy character of God, establishes the reality of the atonement and redemption, and the soundness of the seventh-day Sabbath.

If one is to believe in and worship a god, one would vote for the loving one (or at least I would). The idea that God is a loving God is deeply comforting to many people, and I have no interest in asking anyone to give up that idea. Keep it. I'd rather you have that one than some of the alternatives.

But the God of the Bible is not the God of warm fuzzies:

By the seventh chapter of Genesis, God has wiped out much of creation with a global flood. Note that not everything created during creation week was destroyed—he preserved light, the sky, sun, moon, stars, and a few animals and humans. Vegetation, nearly all animal life, and almost all of humanity—gone.
During the history of the Israelites, he repeatedly asks them to commit genocide and punishes them when they don't follow through.
If one reads Revelation literally (and Adventists like to read part of it literally and part of it figuratively), God intends to throw anyone who doesn't believe in him into the lake of fire where, some believe, they will burn forever and ever (which, in spite of our other faults, Adventists do not believe).

Perhaps we need to accept that God has a dark side?

*When did we start capitalizing fall and cross?

I read the Adventist Review

2009-07-30T21:06:00.007-04:00

The July 23 issue of the Adventist Review contains an article called Creation and the Certainty of the Second Coming. The article's primary recommendation is that it asks a lot of questions. Many of them are bad, leading questions, but in the current environment one can't help but think that even bad questions are better than no questions. Written by E. Edward Zinke*, the article begins thusly:

Who are we?

Are we the result of a lightning strike in a rich prebiotic soup that formed in ancient tidal pools? Did we evolve from there to self-replicating nucleic acids, then to a primitive cell, on to chimpanzees, and finally to humans? Are we here because the principle of the survival of the fittest guided our proud ancestry? Are we explained and defined by the theory of evolution?

If so, what does that tell us about God, ourselves, and the future?

If our origin is to be explained on the basis of evolutionary process, what does that say for God and His role and influence in the universe? What part, if any, would He play in history and in our lives? Does He know or care that we exist? Is He simply an inanimate powerful force, or a computer-like mastermind? Is He also a person? If so, how does He relate to us?

If He exists, did He initiate the first spark of life and then somehow guide the process of evolution to its intermediary and currently the highest stage of life—called human (a hypothesis called theistic evolution)? If so, why did it take Him billions of years of “tooth and claw” to bring evolution to its current stage of human development? Is His problem one of limited love, limited power, or limited intelligence? If He is a God of love, why did He use the cruel process of the survival of the fittest to create humanity? Could it be that He is a God of love doing the best that He can with finite power? Or is it that He is a God of power and of love, but just not very smart—a little slow, but doing the best He can? And if He is a personal God, a God of love, why did it take Him so many millions and billions of years to get around to telling us about His love?

And that's just for starters! Makes me think of the old days (You may notice that I've left a glaring error in that post. I've left it there on purpose, to remind me of where I used to be.)

In all these questions, there's bound to be a burr in the saddle. Once one starts asking questions, where does one stop?:

What implication does theistic evolution have for the way God acts in the world? If God either cannot or does not behave in the way that the Genesis Creation account describes, then what does that say for other reports of His activities in the rest of the Bible? Did God bring about a worldwide flood and guide Noah’s ark to safety? Did God, Sinai, and Moses actually cross paths? If we have a problem with the miracle of the biblical Creation** account, why would we not also question the miracle of the bodily Resurrection**, the literal, visible Second Coming**, and the creation of the new earth?

So here's my question: How can a people—a movement, if you must—that believes in the direct intervention of God in human history have so much trouble in believing in theistic evolution? Science can neither prove nor disprove the theistic part, but it has plenty to say about the evolution part. The stones themselves cry out. It's written all across creation, in the very fabric of the universe. It's right in front of you, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear. Keep looking. Keep listening.

*"E. Edward Zinke, a theologian and businessman, was a member of the staff of the Biblical Research Institute at the General Conference from 1971 to 1986. He served as president of Ann’s House of Nuts, an international food company, until 2008, when he and his wife sold the company. He serves on the Board of Trustees of Andrews University, on the Biblical Research Committee, on the Sabbath School Lesson Committee, the Faith and Science Council, and is Vice Chair of the Ellen G. White Estate. He was cofounder, past president, and IS current treasurer of the Adventist Theological Society. He is also active at Spencerville Adventist Church, teaching an adult Sabbath School class."

**When did we start capitalizing creation, resurrection, and second coming?

I read Adventist World

2009-07-16T21:06:00.006-04:00

The latest issue of Adventist World carries Angel Manuel Rodriguez's column "Bible Questions." This month's question is "Is it true that some Adventist scientists and theologians no longer believe that God created everything in six literal days?." (It's almost like they're writing just for me these days. Wheeeeee! I'm special!)

In the interest of time (mine, not yours), I'm going to skip over what's wrong with his first two points in favor of the third. What the reader really asks is this: "Is it true that some Adventist scientists and theologians no longer believe that God created everything in six literal days? If so, what can I do to protect my children?" (words in italics mine)

Because this is what Rodriguez says:

Space does not allow me to say more about the tragedy of Adventists who are evolutionists. But I do want to address the concern expressed in your communication about what Adventist parents should do in this situation. I agree that having teachers in our colleges and universities arguing and supporting the idea that natural evolution is the best alternative for the understanding of origins is outrageous. They not only violate the meaning of the biblical text, but also violate the trust the church placed in them by calling them to teach our young people.

Your alternatives are few. Remember, you are paying for your children to obtain an Adventist education; and if the school is not providing what you’re paying for, you have to make a decision. This is what I suggest: Visit our colleges and talk to the teachers about their views on natural evolution and their interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. If you are unsatisfied with their answers, discourage your son or daughter from attending that school. Most teachers in other Adventist schools stand by what the Bible teaches. You may also want to inform the school’s administration about your findings.

There are several pitiable groups of people here. One is the parents. Imagine the shock! Imagine the horror! that their children might be exposed to the evolutionists among us! To you I say: Rather than setting your children up for grave disappointment later, consider allowing them to learn more about how the natural world works. "God did it" isn't science, and it isn't an explanation.

Then there are the aforementioned Adventist scientists and theologians. If there are more than a handful of them who believe that evolution is true, Angel Manuel Rodriguez represents why it's not safe for them to talk about it in the classroom.

Finally, there are the Adventist students. The church as an institution and as a living, pulsing, breathing body cannot afford to continue its policy of refusing to engage with biological evolution. Somebody—and I don't know who—has got to stand up and describe how it's possible to both be a Seventh-day Adventist and also believe that evolution is true. It's got to be someone who matters and someone who can make their voice heard.

Because, you know, the numbers aren't looking so good. I'm not one to imagine that changing this one thing is enough to stem the tide of young adults headed out the door. But changing this one thing might be the beginning of a larger change.

As always, you're welcome to ask me why I care.

I read the Adventist Review

2009-07-11T15:45:00.005-04:00

Here's the kind of letter I would write to the Adventist Review if I could write under my own name:

I feel so frustrated with our church leadership. I am referring to Mark A. Kellner’s editorial “Darwin’s Dead, but Jesus Lives!” (May 14, 2009).

Church leaders keep pretending that there really is no problem between the current interpretation of the Bible and what science is finding. They wonder why so many young people are leaving the church. Part of the problem is that the church’s schools teach the young about how to do things scientifically (math, physics, chemistry, geology, biology), but then the church asks them to ignore the huge gap between the current theology and science. What the church is doing is creating the “God of confusion” for many young (and old) who just can’t reconcile the two.

I didn't write it, but Micheal Godfrey did, and his letter was printed in the July 9, 2009 issue of the Adventist Review. It's the first letter of its kind I've ever read in the Adventist Review. May it not be the last.

It's just the kind of question Bettina Krause ought to have asked in this episode of Intersection:

But there weren't any questions like that. Even Cliff was soft and squishy, and that's saying a lot.

But let's head back to the Adventist Review, where Stephen Chavez reveals a stunning lack of familiarity with basic evolutionary theory:

When a summer heat wave or a particularly threatening virus comes along, “at-risk” portions of the population are urged to take precautions—the young, the elderly, the feeble.

Why? If society is governed by the principle “survival of the fittest,” why be concerned about the weak, the marginalized, the infirm? Why not just let nature take its course?

The same with the current preoccupation with the health of the planet: you can hardly go a week without hearing about how this or that ecosystem is being threatened. Hey, isn’t that what evolution is all about? Evolve or die?

Turn the page, and you can read Jan Paulsen's recent statement on origins again.

Where to Start

2009-06-25T07:34:00.002-04:00

I've been guilty of asking friends to read this blog to gain some understanding of where I'm at. One (apparently) skipped the homework, (apparently) jumped to conclusions, and then recommended a therapist.

There's always been a sidebar section called "Getting Started," but I've just added links to the section called "Some Favorite Posts." It's not the whole blog, but it's good place to start.

The pitfalls of blogging anonymously

2009-06-22T17:22:00.003-04:00

My biggest regret* about blogging anonymously is that I'm unable to share more about myself. I'm constantly editing—no place names, no personal references, no talk about where I work or geographical location or the weather. Nothing about where I grew up, or went to high school or college, how recently I did either, and who was there with me. Little about my family. Does my paranoia show?

Some moments I fantasize about the day I'll begin a post with the words "My name is [insert real name here]." What comes next will inevitably be bittersweet—there is no happy event that will push me toward disclosing my identity, but I'll also be glad at last to tell you the fuller story of who I am, where I came from, and how I got here. Still edited, but a different kind of editing.

Because I also imagine that being able to share more about me means that you'll feel more comfortable sharing more about you and your experiences. Being able to share more about our lives means better connections, and I can always use a few more of those.

Just so you know.

*"Regret" may not be the right word. Can't think of anything closer.

I am almost

2009-06-21T21:12:00.002-04:00

I am
two spies short of trusting and
a slingshot shy of killing giants.
I am
tailgated by Baalish priests and
stuck in my own moat of unbelief.
I am
without an Eli to calm the dark and
whisper, "Go back and listen again."
I am
skin away from Davidic lures and
walking knee deep in floodplains.
I am
the eleventh leper who overslept and
the would-be mason that never went.
I am
wandering in a manmade desert and
my mind can't find the well.
I am
hands full of dirt without divine spit and
tugging on your robe like an idiot.
I am
standing underneath the cliff and
it's raining demonic pigs.
I am
up too high in the sycamore and
just one boat away from overhearing.

I am
almost.

Zach Kincaid

The Return of the Blogger aka Vera

2009-06-21T18:54:00.004-04:00

So many things about which to blog. They're all sitting in folders, virtual and physical, waiting for the day in which I would take them up and write again. That day has now arrived.

The tiny statement that pushed me over the edge* comes from a recent Spectrum blog post by Bonnie Dwyer, in which she talks about Jan Paulsen's recent statement on origins. Here's the line:

With a six-day creation and evolution acknowledged as being necessary parts of an Adventist school curriculum, the statement stakes out new ground.

I've previously mentioned the two official church statements on the matter—An Affirmation of Creation and Response to an Affirmation of Creation—and it's worth quoting—again—from the first:

Creation is a foundational pillar in the entire system of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine—it bears direct relationship to many if not all other fundamental beliefs. Any alternative interpretation of the creation story needs to be examined in light of its impact on all other beliefs. Several of the Faith and Science Conferences reviewed alternative interpretations of Genesis 1, including the idea of theistic evolution. These other interpretations lack theological coherence with the whole of Scripture and reveal areas of inconsistency with the rest of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. They are therefore unacceptable substitutes for the biblical doctrine of creation held by the church.

Any questions?

*And here you thought it would be the David Assherick dustup. You're not far from wrong, but other considerations prevented me from commenting on that in a timely fashion. That won't keep me from commenting on it in an untimely manner.

"Go back down the mountain...

2009-05-01T09:38:00.003-04:00

"Go back down the mountain, my heart," Suukmel advised serenely. "Listen to Isaac’s music again. Remember what you thought when you first heard it. Know that if we are children of one God, we can make ourselves one family in time."

"And if God is just a song?" Ha'anala asked, alone and frightened.

Suukmel did not answer for a while. Finally she said, "Our task is the same."

Mary Doria Russell, Children of God (Ballantine Reader's Circle)

EGW shows up in the strangest places

2009-02-18T22:35:00.003-05:00

All you SDAs know exactly what I thought when I saw this post title over at Pharyngula:

SOP for prophets

UPDATE: Ellen G. White is held to be a prophet in the Seventh-day Adventist church. She had visions; wrote books, articles, and countless letters; and was a co-founder of the Seventh-day Adventist church. The term "spirit of prophecy" is often used among Adventists to refer to her or to her writings. And it's sometimes abbreviated to SOP. I didn't even think twice when I read the headline—it took the article to clarify its meaning.

Some habits die hard.

Courage Campaign

2009-02-09T10:00:00.003-05:00

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Watch it. Sign the letter. Tell your friends.

May you enjoy a peaceful holiday season

2008-12-25T13:17:00.001-05:00

The ancients watched the winter solstice
The sun shrinking from the Earth
The shortest day, the longest night and then the new year's birth.
But what the ancients couldn't know
Now clear to those with eyes to see
That summer here is winter there
And day to you is night to me.
It all depends on where you stand
Six billion different points of view
I'll honor yours if you honor mine
And then with grace we'll see this through.

Harold Ramis, quoted in The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People, page 213

I am often asked by...

2008-12-17T15:37:00.003-05:00

I am often asked by believers why I abandoned Christianity and how I found meaning in the apparently meaningless universe presented by science. The implication is that the scientific world-view is an existentially depressing one. Without God, I am bluntly told, what's the point? If this is all there is, there is no use. To the contrary. For me quite the opposite is true. The conjuncture of losing my religion, finding science, and discovering glorious contingency was remarkably empowering and liberating. It gave me a sense of joy and freedom. Freedom to think for myself. Freedom to take responsibility for my own actions. Freedom to construct my own meanings and my own destinies. With the knowledge that this may be all there is, and that I can trigger my own cascading changes, I was free to live life to its fullest.

This is not to say that those who are religious cannot share in these freedoms. But for me, and not just for me, a world absent monsters, ghosts, demons, and gods unfetters the mind to soar to new heights, to think unthinkable thoughts, to imagine the unimaginable, to contemplate infinity and eternity knowing that no one is looking back. The universe takes on a whole new meaning when you know that your place in it was not foreordained, that it was not designed for us, indeed, that it was not designed at all. If we are nothing more than star stuff and bio mass, how special life becomes. If the tape were played again and again without the appearance of our species, how extraordinary becomes our existence, and, correspondingly, how cherished. To share in the sublimity of knowledge generated by other human minds, and perhaps even to make a tiny contribution toward that body of knowledge that will be passed down through the ages, part of the cumulative wisdom of a single species on a tiny planet orbiting an ordinary star on the remote edge of a not-so-unusual galaxy, itself a member of a cluster of galaxies millions of light years from nowhere, is sublime beyond words.

Michael Shermer, How We Believe, 2nd Edition: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God, pages 236-237

In case you were wondering

2008-12-10T20:13:00.000-05:00

You know the Bible 100%!

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Take More Quizzes

More on faith development

2008-12-08T21:50:00.007-05:00

I cannot stress enough how much my identity was wrapped up in being a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church, although I experienced some tension in that identity. For example, in the classic are-you-an-Adventist-first-or-a-Christian-first discussion, I was always a Christian first. I didn't agree with all church doctrines and historical interpretations, and as an adult I read EGW rarely. But I could not imagine myself outside of the Adventist church (Christian or not), and a great deal of what I shrank from was what other people would think.

When I look at the list of things that can lead to the breakdown of Stage Three faith, I am struck by all of the things in my experience that didn't directly contribute to it, including:

Perceiving a clash between authorities
Leaving home
Attending university
Traveling abroad
Marriage

and one giant thing that did: knowledge from outside influences. All it took was a comment by an online friend (addressed to someone else) and a book.

I still feel as if I'm experiencing some of this:

For the first time, a student may entertain and investigate alternative views about the origin and history of life. For many, these new views will appear contradictory and seem to require an either/or choice. Faith struggles with the need for certainty as it slowly becomes a personal choice.

while simultaneously experiencing this:

Later in Stage Four, if growth continues, the logic of clear distinctions and abstract concepts steadily fails to make sense of the more complex adult world, and one feels the need to press toward a more multi-leveled approach to life. Influences from science, philosophy, and certain theologies may suggest not only different ways of putting the puzzle of religion and science together, but also alternative ways of constructing one's identity that do not require a neat fit.

Fowler's research suggests that people spend from five to fifteen years in Stage Four faith (if one can even call what I have faith; I don't). I might as well get comfortable.

Faith Development Theory

2008-12-07T22:17:00.001-05:00

Back when I first grasped some implications of the theory of evolution, I wrote down some questions:

Does God fit into this?
If not, then what?
If so, then how?
What about sin?
What is sin?
What in the Bible is true?
Is Jesus even necessary?
What about the Sabbath?

For the most part, these questions remain unanswered to my satisfaction. I revisit them from time to time, but they are not as all-encompassing (or brain-frying) as they once were. If there are answers, they may come; they may not.

One of the helpful resources I've read is a chapter in Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical, and Theological Perspectives by Graeme Sharrock (the chapter, not the entire book) called "Faith Development in a Scientific Culture" in which Sharrock briefly discusses faith development theory and describes the stages of faith development (based on James Fowler's model) as it relates to the Genesis creation story. Here I am going to quote stages three and four.

Stage Three: Synthetic-Conventional Faith—With the onset of adolescence and the arrival of abstract thinking, a world of possibilities opens up that forces a crisis in identity. A person's experience of the world now extends beyond the family to peers, media, employment, and societal groupings. Faith must provide a coherent orientation amid a network of offers, synthesize values and information, and lay a basis for a new self-consciousness. Stage Three faith typically structures the environment in interpersonal terms; it is strongly conformist in that it is attuned to the expectations of others, seeking identity and affirmation yet without the ability to maintain autonomous judgment or an independent perspective. Beliefs and values are tacitly held—a person dwells within them without being able to objectify them for examination—and in a sense is unaware of having them. Dependence on external authorities for the synthesis of a personal perspective is combined with abstract reasoning. Hence, many teens are attracted to idealistic movements and ideas that seem to offer security and absolutes. The authority of parents may be replaced by that of teachers or religious figures or rock singers. The young person may be well aware of this shift yet be unaware that his or her values are still being determined and delivered by others.

Adventist teens will usually accept the literal interpretation of Genesis if that is what is taught to them by trusted authorities. They become "creationists" just as their public school counterparts become "evolutionists." Interest in doctrines as abstractions from the Bible exists in a few intellectually oriented teens, as absolutist teachings give one a sense of identity within an ideological system.

Stage Four: Individuative-Reflective Faith—The synthesis achieved in Stage Three is only relatively stable and can be threatened by knowledge from outside influences or by crisis experiences. This can happen when the person perceives a clash between authorities and feels the need for independent evaluation. Encounters with other cultures or radically different ideologies (leaving home, attending university, traveling abroad); personal tragedy such as prolonged illness, death of a close friend, marriage, or divorce; collapse of public criteria for morality (Watergate) or a sense of the implausibility of one's childhood beliefs in wider society—all these contribute to the breakdown of Stage Three faith and lead one to reflect upon one's own beliefs, values, and commitments. In late adolescence, a young man or woman is developmentally ready to begin to take seriously the burden of responsibility for his or her own lifestyle and worldview. The transition to Stage Four is underway when unavoidable tensions with one's upbringing exert themselves and doubt concerning the claims of previously unquestioned authorities arises. It is time to begin to "think for oneself."

Stage Four most appropriately forms in young adulthood, but many adults do not construct it until their thirties, forties, or fifties, if at all. There is a double development: the self, once stable in its identity and faith structure shared by an interpersonal group, now claims an identity no longer defined by a group. The Stage Four person now seeks order with a new set of questions: How do I know that is true? (asking for method of verification), and What does it mean? (seeking understanding). Stage Four faith "demythologizes" the tacit faith of Stage Three with an acute sense of distance between the past and the present. Conceptual meanings replace conventional definitions as reason replaces external authorities in the personality. Some, especially those undergoing secular education, may find themselves afloat on a sea of ambiguity as all authorities fade, and they may possibly reject altogether the religion of previous years.

In this stage, belief in creationism may be questioned along with other beliefs. For the first time, a student may entertain and investigate alternative views about the origin and history of life. For many, these new views will appear contradictory and seem to require an either/or choice. Faith struggles with the need for certainty as it slowly becomes a personal choice. Later in Stage Four, if growth continues, the logic of clear distinctions and abstract concepts steadily fails to make sense of the more complex adult world, and one feels the need to press toward a more multi-leveled approach to life. Influences from science, philosophy, and certain theologies may suggest not only different ways of putting the puzzle of religion and science together, but also alternative ways of constructing one's identity that do not require a neat fit. Restless with the self-images and uncertainties of this relativistic stage, the Stage Four person may become disillusioned with his or her own compromises and experience a gnawing to re-appropriate meaningful symbols from childhood.

I see myself as having largely moved from Stage Three to Stage Four, with hints of Stage Five. But your eyes are tired. You may rest until I write more tomorrow.

Gay marriage according to Keith Olbermann

2008-11-12T01:29:00.004-05:00

He told them this parable:...

2008-10-17T12:52:00.000-04:00

He told them this parable “No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’”

Luke 5:36-39, NIV

Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

2008-10-10T22:16:00.001-04:00

Normally, you must be a subscriber to access content at Adventist Today, but during the month of October they've opened up the site to everyone.

So now's your chance to read Ervin Taylor's four-part (so far) series called "Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma."

However, I recommend staying away from the series if you prefer unambiguity.

The latest from the Adventist Review

2008-10-10T21:17:00.006-04:00

The newly-designed Adventist Review came today. First, something from editor Bill Knott on what to expect from the new Review:

Fresh, unambiguous explorations of key Bible teachings on creation, the Sabbath, the sanctuary, and spiritual gifts to make the vital truths of Adventism accessible to readers of every age and background.

And from associate editor Roy Adams:

Biblical foundations are under attack—Creation, Sabbath, marriage, fidelity. The battle is joined; and the contestants—visible and invisible—have taken the field. It boils down to a battle between good and evil, with no room for indifference.

Too often we Adventists come across as lethargic, bereft of courage, hedging our bets, rolling with the tide, even scoring for the other side. In the intense controversy over "intelligent design," for example, the courageous voices seem to be coming from outside the church. Others are taking the heat and the scorn, while we generally play it safe. But the issues at stake are too large for silence. Neutrality is not an option.

So it looks like we can expect further unambiguity from the Adventist Review.

The good news is that unambiguity makes a lot of people very happy.

Dialogue

2008-10-10T21:15:00.001-04:00

"I've lost my spiritual companion," he said. "I may forgive you, but it won't hurt any less."

Religulous, and skeptics

2008-10-07T00:16:00.004-04:00

I recently joined a local skeptics group. In response to this news, there was weeping (me) and gnashing of teeth (my husband).

The day of the first meeting, I told him that I was going shopping after work and that I wouldn't be home until late, which is what I'd intended to do. In the end, however, there wasn't enough time to do both, so I skipped the shopping and went to the meeting. It wasn't until the next morning that he noticed that I hadn't bought any milk. I avoided the first "Where were you last night?" but not the second. I hadn't planned to tell him at all, but neither did I intend to lie about where I'd been.

To say that he didn't take it well is an understatement. At one point, he wondered why we should even stay married (a valid but nevertheless painful question), although it's fair to say that he quickly backed off on that issue. He made several derogatory statements about atheists and their kind, and then wondered why I wasn't applying the same intensity to my spiritual life.

These days, I don't tell him when I'm going to a meeting. "I'll be home late," I'll say, and he knows what that means, and then we don't have to talk about it. There's plenty else on our agenda, anyway, enough to pretend that there isn't a gaping hole over there. You can see it, I know. Thank you for noticing it. No, you don't need to draw me a picture. I can see it just fine if I turn my head.

The group itself is a fascinating mix of former Christians and the never-religious. As in any group, there are one or two challenging personalities (not unlike my own church), as well as some really great individuals. I'm not the only member with a Christian spouse who is distressed by their partner's lack of faith, nor am I the only member who doesn't want their face in any photos because of potential fallout to family members.

Religulous opened last Friday, and our group made plans to see it on Sunday evening. I wanted to invite my husband but was pretty certain that he wouldn't want to go with the group (and I can't say that I would blame him). So I asked him on Saturday if he wanted to go see it with me. "Absolutely not," he said, then paused. "Have you thought about the impact it would have on your spiritual life?"

"No, I hadn't," I said. And as it turns out, he needn't have worried.

Although the movie had its funny moments, I was underwhelmed. How many times can you hear someone say that religion is stupid before it begins to wear thin? Not so many, it turns out, but I was the sole minority in this opinion. Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter called it "often hilarious but relentlessly shallow" and that about covers it for me.

The nature of our intelligence...

2008-09-22T12:20:00.002-04:00

The nature of our intelligence is such that it is stimulated far less by the will to know than by the will to understand, and, from this, it results that the only science which it admits to be authentic are those which succeed in establishing explanatory relationships between phenomena. The rest is, as Malebranch puts it, mere "polymathy."

Marc Bloch, The Historian's Craft, page 10

There is no reasoning someone out of a position he has not reasoned himself into. People are drawn into these enthusiasms by no mechanism that has anything much to do with rational thought. In their own minds, however, explanatory relationships between phenomena are exactly what they see.

Clive James, Cultural Amnesia: Necessary Memories from History and the Arts, pages 61-62

Dialogue

2008-09-18T12:05:00.003-04:00

Marc at Kickin' the Darkness recently wrote a post called HOWTO: Talk to an Evolutionist Without Being Dismissed as Ignorant and Stupid. It's worth a read even if you're not a creationist or IDer.

I thought I'd heard everything, but this is a new one: