Very few people can deny that there are divergent and incompatible views within the Seventh-day Adventist Church over its doctrine of Creation. Based on naturalistic interpretations of scientific data and through the use of contemporary higher criticism in the interpretation of the Bible, some Adventist scholars now:

(a) hold a long, rather than short, chronology for the age of our earth (i.e., they measure the age of the earth in millions, instead of thousands, of years);
(b) advocate views that reinterpret the days of Creation to represent millions of years, instead of the six literal days taught by the Bible;
(c) argue for gradual, uniformitarian deposit of the geologic column in millions of years, instead of catastrophism (such as described in the Biblical account of the Flood in Noah’s day);
(d) maintain that Noah’s Flood was a local event, not a global, universal catastrophe;
(e) insist that there was death in the animal kingdom long before the creation and fall of Adam and Eve, and that there will even be death in the new creation.

In the opinion of those pushing these new views of Creation, the traditional Seventh-day Adventist view is not based on a correct understanding of the Bible, but rather on nineteenth-century church tradition, cultural influence, and the writings of Ellen G. White.

The supposedly “correct” understanding of Scripture is the one presented by the methodology of higher criticism (the historical-critical method). This liberal methodology has left many students in our institutions confused. It has produced a generation of preachers, Bible teachers, church leaders, editors, and publishers who are unsure of or who seek to reinterpret some of our historic beliefs and practices. It has also shipwrecked the faith of many youth and new believers, whether they be in Seventh-day Adventist classrooms or churches.

In 2001, in response to questions being raised by some within our ranks about the Seventh-day Adventist teaching on Creation, the General Conference Executive Committee at an Annual Council authorized a three-year series of “Faith and Science” conferences. These conferences were begun in 2002 (Ogden, Utah) and concluded in August 2004 (Denver, Colorado) with an “Affirmation of Creation” report that was later presented to and received by the General Conference Executive Committee at the Annual Council in Silver Spring, Maryland, October 11, 2004.

In this article, I will briefly summarize the nature and implications of the theological and methodological issues that have been raised in recent years by those who are attempting to revise the church’s position on Creation.

Faith and Science Conferences (2002-2004)

Three Faith and Science Conferences were conducted between 2002 and 2004 to increase clarity regarding the church’s understanding and witness about the Biblical account of origins. Two of these were called “International Conferences” because of the widespread international representation from theologians, scientists, and Church administrators. The first (Ogden, Utah, in 2002) was designed to acquaint participants with the divergent explanations within the church for the origin of the earth and life. The last “International” conference (Denver, Colorado, 2004) summarized the key issues that had been discussed during the three years, and drafted an “Affirmation of Creation” report for consideration by the church’s leadership.

Sandwiched between the two “international” conferences were “Regional or Division-wide” conferences at which the issues on Creation were discussed locally. In all, seven of the church’s thirteen divisions conducted their own division-wide or regional conferences.  Among these was the North American Division’s (NAD) Faith and Science Conference that took place at Glacier View Ranch, Colorado, August 13-20, 2003.

Given the fact that many of the revised views on the Creation doctrine are being propagated by church scholars and leaders from North America, it was not surprising that the 2003 NAD Faith and Science conference at Glacier View drew a lot of attention. The importance attached to this conference was evidenced by the stature of people present at the meeting. Besides scholars (scientists and theologians) from the leading Adventist institutions in North America, the Biblical Research Institute, and the Geoscience Research Institute, there were also several church leaders (including GC vice-presidents and the NAD president), pastors, lay people, and editors of the church publications Ministry, Adventist Review, and Signs of the Times. Also present were the editors of other Adventist publications, both liberal and conservative. In all, there were about 120 attendees.

The papers presented at the 2003 NAD Faith and Science conference were preselected, and the presentations covered a wide range of areas: philosophy, theology, biology, physics, paleontology, geology, time, Biblical inspiration, the writings of Ellen G. White, etc. On the whole, leading proponents ably presented opposing views, with special focus given to Creation, the age of the earth, the Genesis Flood, the great controversy, and death.

Some may justifiably consider the Faith and Science Conferences as an unnecessary waste of time and a distraction from the church’s mission. However, as one who participated in two of the three Faith and Science conferences—the 2003 North American Division conference and the 2004 International conference—I believe the discussions were helpful to the church in two major ways.

First, the conferences enabled the church to clearly understand the theological and methodological issues at stake in the debate over Creation. The “Affirmation of Creation” report that was prepared at the end of the three-year series of discussions not only upheld the church’s historic position on Creation, but in my opinion the conferences clearly revealed that the revised views on Creation are Biblically illogical, inconsistent, and erroneous.

Second, the Faith and Science conferences revealed that the revised views on Creation are incompatible with the Adventist message and mission. And if, indeed, the new views on Creation are false, then as deceptive teachings they are harmful to the eternal welfare of souls, and wherever and whenever they are taught or preached they endanger the unity of the church. Consequently, as a necessary protection of the church's integrity and identity, such erroneous views cannot be entertained within the church’s big tent. For if the church embraces theological pluralism and its program of an “inclusive” or “common approach” to the problem, such a cohabitation of truth and error would be detrimental to the life and mission of the church.  

    The SDA Understanding of Creation
The Seventh-day Adventist view of Creation is reflected in three important documents: (1) Fundamental Belief #6 (formulated in 1980); (2) the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . .: A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (1988); and (3) Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, vol. 12 of The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (2000). Among other things, these important works affirm the following features as essential to a correct understanding of the SDA doctrine of Creation:

(i) God is Creator of all things.
(ii) Scripture contains the authentic account of His creative activity.
(iii) The Creation record in Genesis 1 and 2 is literal and historical.
(iv) Creation occurred in six literal, continuous, contiguous 24-hour days.
(v) At the completion of God’s creative work at the end of the six days, He Himself declared it “very good.” Therefore, all evil and death we see in the world today is the consequence of the Fall.
(vi) A literal six-day Creation is the foundation for the seventh-day Sabbath; without a literal six-day Creation, the seventh-day Sabbath is meaningless.

In recent times however, with the possible exception of the first one, all of the above six essential elements of the Adventist doctrine of Creation are being questioned by some within our ranks. Those who are challenging the longstanding Adventist teaching employ a number of arguments (theological, methodological [i.e., hermeneutical], and scientific) to argue for a revision of our historic understanding of Creation.

This article focuses on the theological and methodological (or hermeneutical) arguments being advanced in favor of the revised view on Creation. Other writers in this volume have addressed the scientific objections to the church’s Biblical position.

The Calls for Revision in the Church’s Doctrine on Creation

Despite the fundamental importance of the “how” of Creation, proponents of the revised view on Creation think otherwise. They insist that the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 describe primarily the Who of Creation, but not necessarily the how or how long. To them, issues associated with the “how” and “how long” of Creation are matters of “doctrinal minutiae.” In the words of one such scholar, “strictly literal interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2 . . . are not essential to Seventh-day Adventist faith and life.”

Since they consider the “how” of Creation to be of little doctrinal importance, the advocates of change have adopted a pruned version of the Adventist teaching on Creation. The essential contours of their revised doctrine include the following:

“Literal interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2 are the result of theological tradition and cultural influence; . . . they are not essential to Seventh-day Adventist faith and life.”

“The different accounts (e.g., Genesis 1 and 2, Proverbs 8) may suggest different sequences of events and different methods of creating, but God is always the Creator.”

“A common ground approach would suggest that one could retain Creation and Sabbath without necessarily linking them together.”

“The Biblical Flood is of monumental proportions; but to argue that it was necessarily a worldwide flood in our sense of worldwide is going beyond the Biblical evidence.”

“The common ground” eschatology should simply view God as One “Who comes to restore the world.” It should not matter whether we “envision a New Earth where there is still death and a certain amount of controlled mayhem” or whether it is “a world without death at all.”


Some Theological Implications

The suggested revisions in the traditional Seventh-day Adventist position on Creation undermine the authority and reliability of Scripture, impugn the character of God, overturn key aspects of the doctrine of salvation, overthrow the foundation for morality, and seriously erode distinctive doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

1. Denial of Literal Six-day Creation: First, denying a literal six-day Creation implies that:

(i) if Adventists continue keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, they must reinterpret its origin and significance;

(ii) if Sabbath observance is retained, there would be no solid basis for seventh-day worship, setting the stage for the end-time recognition of Sunday sacredness in place of the true Sabbath;

(iii) if the Bible's authoritative record of Creation, which Jesus Christ confirmed (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 2:27-28), can be so easily set aside, we can also ignore its authority in other areas (e.g., morality and lifestyle).

(iv) the denial of the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2 questions the fact that Adam and Eve were real figures who lived in space and time. But the Bible teaches that there was a historical Adam. This historical Adam was connected
(a) to Noah by the Genesis 5 genealogy;
(b) to Abraham by the Genesis 11 genealogy, and to the human race by the Luke 3:34-38 genealogy.
(c) To question the historicity of the Adam of Genesis 1 and 2 is to place oneself at odds with Jesus and Paul, who both believed that “in the beginning” God created a historical Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4–“Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female . . .?”; 1 Timothy 2:13–“For Adam was first formed, then Eve”).
(d) Notice also that Paul and Jude link the historical Adam to Enoch and Moses (Jude 14–“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints . . .”; Romans 5:14–“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses . . .”).
(e) To reject the Biblical account of Creation and the literal Creation week overthrows the foundation of marriage. Did God ordain marriage as a sacred covenant between male and female at the beginning, or did marriage just arise because it promotes survival and procreation? This question raises ethical concerns about the morality of homosexuality, and goes to the heart of the current discussion about gay marriage and civil union of homosexuals.

2. Death Before Adam and Eve: The proponents of change in the traditional Adventist understanding of Creation teach that there was death before the creation and fall of Adam and Eve. The implication is that death was part of God’s plan for the development of life on this planet. This new view raises major theological questions:

If animals were dying millions of years before the existence of human beings, then

(i) death (even of animals) is not the result of human sin. But the Bible says that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), and that because of sin “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Romans 8:22).

(ii) Also, if death came before sin, Paul’s statement that “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Romans 5:12; cf. 8:22) is not trustworthy; neither can we believe that “as by the offence of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One [Christ] the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life” (Romans 5:18).

(iii) Pursuing this argument to its logical end raises serious doubts about the necessity and efficacy of Christ’s death for our sins, the possibility of human redemption, and the likelihood of Christ’s Second Coming and a new creation (see 2 Peter 3:1-15).

(iv) The proponents of change also imply death in the earth restored. But the Bible teaches no death before the Fall. Hence God created “every green plant for food for animals (Genesis 1:30). Animals were not created as predators, nor will they be predators in the New Earth (Isaiah 65:25). There will be no more suffering, pain, or death (Revelation 21:4).

(v) A God Who will heap cruelty upon animals for billions of years must be a cruel God, a torturing God. This kind of God is not a loving God, but a sadist God. A God Who will terrorize creation in order to bring something good out of it is not the loving and benevolent God of the Bible. Besides casting a shadow on the character of God, such a view also implies a certain kind of hell before the Fall.

3. Denial of Universal Flood in Noah’s Day: The Bible teaches that God’s judgment of the antediluvian world by Flood was the “undoing of Creation” (or “de-Creation).To deny the global Flood in Noah’s day is to deny the New Testament testimony that a global Flood destroyed the antediluvian world (cosmos in Greek, from which we get our English world “cosmic”):
(i) Jesus says the Flood in Noah’s day “swept them all away” (Matthew 24:39);
(ii) Peter says that God “did not spare the ancient world [cosmos], but preserved Noah with seven other persons. . . . when He brought a Flood upon the world [cosmos] of the ungodly” (2 Peter 2:5); “a few, that is eight persons were saved through water” (1 Peter 3:20);
(iii) Paul states that Noah “condemned the world [cosmos]” (Hebrews 11:7).

The above New Testament statements suggest that a local flood would not have ended the antediluvian world.

Moreover, to deny the historicity and universality of the Flood is to deny the judgment by fire at the end of the world. But New Testament Flood typology assumes and depends upon not only the historicity, but also the universality, of the Flood to theologically argue for the imminent worldwide judgment by fire (2 Peter 3:6-7). Just as there was a worldwide judgment by water causing the unbelieving antediluvian world to perish, so in the antitype there must needs be a global end-time judgment by fire to destroy the wicked.

Finally, the universal Flood not only links Creation (protology—the teaching about beginnings) with the new creation (eschatology—the doctrine of end-time or last-day events ), but the doctrine of judgment also teaches human accountability to God—a crucial element of morality or ethics. Without accountability, there can be no moral obligations, and hence no genuine morality or ethics. Conversely, only the Biblical teaching of divine, purposeful Creation and universal judgment can provide a legitimate basis for morality and ethics.

4. Denial of an Adventist Distinctive: In short, the denial of the Adventist doctrine of Creation for naturalistic evolution is a denial of a key pillar of the Seventh-day Adventist faith. It simply doesn’t make sense for one to be a “Seventh-day Darwinian.” In the words of Clifford Goldstein,

If evolution is true, then the Adam and Eve story becomes null and void. If that’s null and void, what happens to the Fall? Without the Fall, the cross becomes an empty gesture, which destroys any grounds for the Second Coming. Thus, it seems impossible to reconcile Adventism with evolution. Someone can be one (an Adventist) or the other (an evolutionist), but not both. All of which comes to the real point of my article: considering that evolution and Adventism cannot be reconciled, should we be paying people to stand in our classrooms or pulpits and promote evolution?

    Why the Theological Disagreements/Tension?

How do we explain the differences in views on the doctrine of Creation? It was evident at the NAD Faith and Science Conference that participants ascribed different reasons for the shift in views.

For example, some suggested that the disagreements are due to differences in “temperament profile.” Others maintained that it is the attempts to marry “mutually exclusive world views (natural and supernatural) that provide the tensions and issues with which some Adventist scientists [and theologians] wrestle.” For others, it was a lack of appreciation of “the complex literary structure” of Genesis 1 and 2. Still for some, it was due to an unwillingness to be open to “new understandings” or “clearer understanding” of Scripture.

In my opinion, the theological disagreements on Creation arise from different methods to arrive at truth (i.e., different epistemologies) and to different attitudes towards the Bible (Biblical inspiration and interpretation).

1. Different Methods of Arriving at Truth (Epistemology).

Epistemology raises questions for Bible-believing Christians regarding the starting point for discussions on theological issues. As far as Creation is concerned, the key epistemological question is: Should our doctrine of Creation be built on observation, introspection, or on Biblical revelation? One's response determines whether the Bible or the hypothesis of naturalistic evolution will provide the grounds for ascertaining, for example, whether or not Genesis 1 and 2 teach a literal-day Creation—an issue that affects the validity of the seventh-day Sabbath.

The shift from the sole authority of Scripture to empirical data is remarkably illustrated in the case of a former Adventist university president and General Conference vice president. After reviewing theories of continental drift, fossil records, and radioactive isotope dating, he concluded that:

animals [were] living in the earth . . . millions of years before these [continental] plates separated. And, moreover, as I got to looking into the geologic column, I had to recognize . . . that the geologic column is valid, that some forms of life were extinct before other forms of life came into existence. I had to recognize that the forms of life that we are acquainted with mostly, like the ungulate hoof animals, the primates, man himself, exist only in the very top little layer of the Holocene, and that many forms of life were extinct before these ever came in, which, of course, is a big step for a Seventh-day Adventist when you are taught that every form of life came into existence in six days. . . . I had felt it for many, many years, but finally there in about 1983 I had to say to myself, That’s right. The steadily accumulating evidence in the natural world has forced a reevaluation in the way that I look at and understand and interpret parts of the Bible.

Agnosticism, the End-Result. It should be noted, however, that giving up the Bible’s teaching on origins may lead to theological skepticism or agnosticism. The experience of a former Adventist, a grandson of a General Conference president, illustrates this danger.

In the introduction to his book The Creationists, he explains how he gave up his Adventist views on a literal Creation and became an agnostic:

Having thus decided to follow science rather than Scripture on the subject of origins, I quickly, though not painlessly, slid down the proverbial slippery slope toward unbelief.
. . . [In a 1982 Louisiana Creation-evolution trial, he elected to serve as an expert witness for the evolution cause, against the Creationist lawyer, Wendell R. Bird. At that trial, he continues,] Bird publicly labeled me an “Agnostic.” The tag still feels foreign and uncomfortable, but it accurately reflects my theological uncertainty.

In summary, the slide into the abyss of theological uncertainty begins with a departure from the Bible as the Christian's sole norm of authority. Then follows a reinterpretation of the Scriptures according to the extra-Biblical knowledge, whether from science, experience, tradition, psychology, or other sources. As the retired General Conference administrator himself said: “The steadily accumulating evidence in the natural world has forced a reevaluation in the way that I look at and understand and interpret parts of the Bible.”

Ellen G. White’s Comment:

God has permitted a flood of light to be poured upon the world in both science and art; but when professedly scientific men treat upon these subjects from a merely human point of view, they will assuredly come to wrong conclusions. It may be innocent to speculate beyond what God's Word has revealed, if our theories do not contradict facts found in the Scriptures; but those who leave the Word of God, and seek to account for His created works upon scientific principles, are drifting without chart or compass upon an unknown ocean. The greatest minds, if not guided by the Word of God in their research, become bewildered in their attempts to trace the relations of science and revelation. Because the Creator and His works are so far beyond their comprehension that they are unable to explain them by natural laws, they regard Bible history as unreliable. Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments, will be led to go a step further, and doubt the existence of God; and then, having lost their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity.

These persons have lost the simplicity of faith. There should be a settled belief in the divine authority of God's Holy Word. The Bible is not to be tested by men’s ideas of science. Human knowledge is an unreliable guide. Skeptics who read the Bible for the sake of caviling, may, through an imperfect comprehension of either science or revelation, claim to find contradictions between them; but rightly understood, they are in perfect harmony. Moses wrote under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and a correct theory of geology will never claim discoveries that cannot be reconciled with his statements. All truth, whether in nature or in revelation, is consistent with itself in all its manifestations.

2. Different Attitudes Toward the Bible (Inspiration and Hermeneutics).

In the course of the discussion at the Faith and Science Conference it became evident that, besides different methods of arriving at truth (epistemology), Adventist scholars also hold conflicting views about the Bible and its interpretation. The following are some of the troubling questions that were raised:

1. Basis of SDA Doctrine of Creation: Tradition or Scripture? Is the church’s traditional doctrine of a literal six-day Creation based on “unwarranted traditions” or solidly upon Scripture? Historically, Adventists have maintained that their doctrine is based on a correct understanding of the Bible. But at the Faith and Science Conference some argued that the church’s insistence that the days of Genesis 1 had to be literal, consecutive days is “based on the best understanding at the time they [church doctrines] were formulated.” Or, as another stated, “strictly literal interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2 are the result of theological tradition and cultural influence;
. . . they fail to take seriously the evidence of the actual Scripture text.”

2. What Is the Source of the Creation Account? How does revelation/inspiration work in the Creation account of Genesis (and Scripture in general)? Specifically: Did God reveal all the information in Genesis 1? In other words, is the account of Genesis 1 fully inspired, or not? That is to say, did the Holy Spirit only inspire “the author in some way” as was asserted by one of the proponents of the new views? Did the events described in Genesis 1 actually happen as described—in seven days, and in the manner and order in which the Bible states? This issue has to do with the historicity and trustworthiness of the Creation account in Genesis 1 and 2.

3. Literal Historicity of Genesis Vs. Other Biblical Doctrines. What is the relationship between one’s understanding of the literal historicity of Genesis 1 and other teachings of the Bible? For example, does a belief in death as a result of sin, in marriage as being blessed by God, in the Sabbath as a day of rest ordained by God—require the literal, chronological, historical reading and understanding of Genesis 1? Until recently Adventists unanimously have said “Yes.” But now some within our ranks do not think so. The question is: Can a Bible-believing Adventist consistently extricate these doctrines from a literal historicity of the Genesis Creation account?

4. How Did the New Testament Writers Use the Old Testament Creation Passages? While acknowledging that the New Testament writers believed in a literal six-day Creation and global Flood, proponents of the new views on Creation attempt to discredit the New Testament writers’ understanding of the Old. (a) Did the New Testament writers misunderstand the Old or did they, led by the Spirit, bring out the Old Testament’s full meaning? (b) Did the New Testament use a faulty method of Biblical interpretation, that is to say, did they use a “different hermeneutical approach than ours, more in line with the rabbis of Jesus’ day, in some ways, in their willingness to take Scripture out of context and squeeze old truths into new situations that might or might not be analogous”? (c) Did the New Testament writers “draw metaphorically from earlier [Old Testament] work as if it were literal, yet without the author necessarily believing the source to be literal”? To put it rather bluntly: Are today’s church scholars “smarter” and better interpreters of the Bible than ,say, the apostle Paul, Peter, or John? Does a scholar’s  PhD, ThD, DMin, MD, or any other Ds make a scholar wiser than an inspired writer of the Bible?

5. The Use of Extra-Biblical Data. Should an insistence on sola scriptura (the Bible and the Bible only) require interpreters to interpret Scripture solely on the basis of the Bible itself, and not by any extra-Biblical data—whether modern (archaeology, science, psychology, public opinion, etc.) or ancient (e.g., data from ancient Near Eastern cultures, Jewish, Greco-Roman, and traditions of the church fathers, Reformers, SDA pioneers)? In other words, should Scripture be its own interpreter? And what is the proper role of extra-Biblical data in Biblical interpretation? At the NAD Faith and Science Conference, one church scholar and university administrator stated that while at face value the Bible clearly teaches a global Flood, he opts for a local flood because of the supposed evidence from science and archaeology. For him, science and archaeology—not the inspired Bible—constitute the highest norm of authority.

6. The Place of Ellen G. White. Given the fact that the Bible itself teaches us to listen to God's true prophets, and given the fact that Seventh-day Adventists recognize Ellen G. White as a recipient of the true gift of prophecy, what should be the relationship between her writings and the Bible? Should her inspired counsels and insights on Creation-evolution be given more weight than the theological/exegetical insights of any uninspired authority or expert, whether church leader or scholar?

7. New Light From the Spirit. Can the Holy Spirit lead believers today into “new truths” or “new light” that contradict truths already established in His inspired Word? Should we embrace the revised views on Creation as “new light”?

8. The Question of Science and History. Which authority should be accorded the higher authority when the interpretations and conclusions of modern science and secular history conflict with that of Scripture?

It is obvious from the above questions that the divergence of thought on the Adventist doctrine of Creation raises some hermeneutical (or methodological) issues. In a sense, these questions are not new. They are essentially the same kinds of issues that are engaging the attention of the church as it still debates the legitimacy of the higher-critical method in a Seventh-day Adventist method of Biblical interpretation.

Conclusion

While other important questions can also be raised,  in my opinion, the issues outlined in this article constitute the key theological and hermeneutical questions in the current Seventh-day Adventist conflict over Creation. Behind the new proposals regarding the Adventist doctrine of Creation is the liberal methodology of contemporary higher criticism (historical-critical method).

In my opinion, those who are pushing the revised views of Creation within our ranks are simply intimidated by the current interpretation of the scientific evidence. They seem to believe that the paradigm of naturalistic evolution is the best explanation of the scientific data, seemingly unaware of the fact that the evolutionary theory is itself facing formidable challenges.

Given the fact that evolution and Adventism’s doctrine of Creation are incompatible, we must honestly ask whether it is right for the church to continue paying people to stand in our classrooms or pulpits and promote evolution. In this connection, I would like to call attention to the following counsel by Clifford Goldstein.

For anyone, especially our young people, struggling with these issues, I say: Keep seeking with a fervent and honest heart. As long as you stick to the Bible (and Ellen White’s books and articles) you will not go wrong. For those among us who have already decided—despite the Bible and Ellen White—on evolution, there are plenty of other churches for you. Ours isn’t one. And to those teaching in our schools who believe in evolution and yet take a paycheck from the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I say: If you honestly reject a literal six-day Creation in favor of theistic macroevolution, fine; now turn that honesty into integrity and go somewhere where you won't have to cloak your views under the anfractuosities of language.

The above counsel may not be “politically correct.” But it is the truth. I pray that church leaders and institutional administrators who have oversight over who preaches and teaches in our Seventh-day Adventist churches and institutions will see the wisdom in the above counsel and have the courage to insist upon such integrity.

Endnotes

Will Be supplied later . . .