WWU Student Newspaper Publishes Special Issue on Creation-Evolution
by AT News Team
CORRECTED
The student newspaper at Walla Walla University has published a special issue dealing with the discussion of creation and evolution among Seventh-day Adventists over the past three years. The Collegian has a long history of excellent student journalism and has prepared a number of individuals who have served the Adventist movement well in this field.
On a university campus the topic of origins and how the views of science and faith can be understood coherently is always at hand. At a faith-based institution there are times when it boils over. Clearly there is some fear that this special issue will set off a firestorm of anger and un-Christlike behavior instead of leading to the thoughtful study and interaction that the editors are hoping for. The editor-in-chief introduced the issue gingerly, writing, “Personally I wish this wasn’t such a prominent issue. I want to be part of a church that focuses on Jesus and doesn’t allow disagreements over the less important things to pull us apart.”
Some readers are likely to jump on this statement and strongly urge that creation is not “less important.” Others will assert that nothing is more important than Christ.
A news article carefully recounts the emergence of this issue at La Sierra University over the past three years. One observer speculates that perhaps the Walla Walla University administration allowed the newspaper to publish this special issue to prevent the same kind of debacle. The editor sees it simply as part of the tradition at Walla Walla of giving the student newspaper staff the freedom to address topics of their choice.
Not all of the articles were written by students, but many were. These articles provide significant insight into the thinking and faith of Adventist young adults.
A number of articles clearly support the doctrine of the denomination while stepping away from the intricate scientific debates. “I have no doubt that God is the Creator,” writes one student. “I have chosen to trust God about how He created the earth and have not assumed the responsibility of knowing precisely how.”
This special issue includes a strong statement on behalf of the doctrine of creation by Rob Folkenberg III, a theology student, son of the local conference president, grandson of the former General Conference president and vice president for religious activities in the student association. His line of reasoning is theological and pastoral. After describing evolution, rooted in “survival of the fittest,” as “improving life through death,” he writes, “It makes no sense for God to use death to create [the world] and finally … restore a creation that has ‘no more death.’ (Rev. 21:14)” He tells the story of a friend serving as a student missionary at an orphanage in Tanzania, holding the body of a dead baby and telling him, “Death isn’t a part of God’s good and perfect plan.”
There is significantly less space devoted to those who state opinions contrary to the official position of the denomination. No article advocates the standard views of scientists today. Two out of about a dozen pieces suggest some reasons to adopt what is called “theistic evolution” and neither of these want to discard their Adventist faith.
One of these students writes, “While some Adventists believe that a literal seven-day creation week is essential to the Sabbath doctrine and Adventist belief as a whole, other Adventists don’t see the details of creation as a church-breaking issue. God can still make a day of rest even if He didn’t create the earth in 144 hours.”
This is a painfully personal issue to many of these students. One began her article, “My mother is a pastor. My father, a scientist.”
“The Bible is clear on matters of origin,” writes another student. “However, I have seen many times a militant ‘Christianity’ that teaches a literal six-day creation attack those who believe in a figurative six days [and] often those who are attacked by the literal Creationists are Christians themselves, and indeed more Christian than those doing the attacking.”
“It is important to have certain, identified beliefs that everyone can agree on,” writes another student. “It is valuable to re-evaluate when these beliefs cause more division than community. … I worry more about alienation from the larger community than I do about whether or not the belief is valid. … The message and mission of Adventism is not conveyed well if we put ourselves in a position of intolerance. … The more legalistically we define concepts … the more we risk losing opportunities to foster relationships with our communities. … I [am] much more comfortable with doctrine that focuses on how we should live our lives as Christians.”
A number of students from a variety of views expressed their negative opinion about the action of the Michigan Conference, cutting off assistance to any of their employees who might have a child as a student at La Sierra University. “I am horrified,” wrote one student, “that the leaders of an Adventist conference would dramatically condemn fellow Adventists” in this way.
The editors asked for more discussion on the newspaper’s web site, but cautioned against “disrespectful and unnecessary” comments, pointing out that there is a “risk of extensive commenting,” people who repeatedly write verbal volleys instead of expressing themselves one or two times. “This problem is not unique to WWU,” the editorial stated. It is one that “newspaper staffs around the country have been dealing with increasingly over the last few years.” The editors warned that comments that crossed over the line would be deleted.
The students who prepared this bundle of articles are clearly faithful Adventists, committed to Christ and His mission, wanting to live fruitful lives in a world where there are significant differences between the historic teachings of the church and current scientific views. They want to be thoughtful and educated, but more than that they want to enter into discussions in a way that reflects the kindness and fairness of Jesus. That is the bottom line for these young adults and that, more than anything, may be evidence of hope for the future of the Adventist movement.
This special issue of The Collegian can be read on line by clicking here.
If you’d like to view a pdf version of the printed issue, simply follow this link.
It seems to me to be quite healthy for such discussions to occur on adventist college campuses. Further, it is really hard to imagine how SDA colleges and universities can possibly train competent biologists and physicians without teaching modern biology. It must be extremely difficult for people to maintain faith within systems that promote active ignorance of current information. A far better approach would be to teach evidence-based biology with confidence that faith can be strong enough to be open to any credible information. One need not be an evangelical evolutionist, agnostic, nor atheist to examine evidence or the viewpoints or interpretations of others. If faith cannot stand up to fact, there is a problem. Being unwilling or unable to face facts surely gives the appearance of impotence, and when some aspect of a belief system seems false, the whole system can fall like a house of cards. It seems to me that SDA institutions of higher learning would be well-served to promote the education of "thinkers, not mere reflectors" of the ideas of others, and to take to heart the scriptural assurance that "you shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free." I'm wondering whether my own estrangement from the SDA church is really necessary. Perhaps it would not be essential for me to be an outsider if the church had a more open and inclusive attitude toward science.
Since I have never read anything that Joe has posted on the AT web site that has not been said many times over at sabbath school classes and pulpits at progressive Adventist churches over the last two or three decades, I agree with him that he would be a welcome member in good and regular standing at all of these churches. I trust he lives within commuting distance of at least one of those churches.
There is likely to be disagreement here on AToday over whether I should be allowed to darken the door of any SDA sanctuary, and surely some would wonder why I would wish to do so, given some of the sentiments I have expressed. I have, however, sometimes thought I might enjoy attending Erv's Sabbath School class at LLU. But, being 2500 miles away, most of the time, that is unlikely to occur. For awhile I was regularly coming out to La Jolla for some seminars at the Salk Institute, but those were FRI-SUN meetings, so there was no really easy way to schedule in a drive up to Loma Linda. Ah well, it might happen sometime. Here in rural PA there are very few "progressive" folks, SDA or otherwise. Many of the people who like us well enough to socialize with us consider themselves "progressive," but none are SDA. I guess I have only met one SDA person locally. He was an IT guy who was a local deacon or elder, who attended PUC years ago. We had good talks. But he moved away. I do live quite near Hagerstown, Maryland, but I have no idea what sorts of adventists live there–of course, the R & H Press is there. I'd be happy to hear from anyone who knows this area (south-central PA, near Hancock, Maryland, and Berkeley Springs, West Virginia). Anyone may feel free to email me at agingapes AT gmail DOT com.
Hello,
I’m writing in regard to your recent article, “WWU Student Newspaper Publishes Special Issue on Creation-Evolution.” First of all, we at The Collegian are humbled and flattered by your coverage, and glad to see that you’re reading our paper.
However, there are a few inaccuracies we would like to respectfully bring to your attention.
The most significant inaccuracy we found has to do with contributing writers. You write that “All of the articles were written by students” who exhibit the “faith of Adventist young adults.” This is not accurate. The first two pages alone featured four non-student authors, including the chair of our biology department, our director of Village Properties, and two professors from our theology department. In addition, page 11 featured a piece by a professor from the English department, and page 14 showcased a lengthy piece by Dr. Ervin Taylor, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California, Riverside, and one of the co-founders of Adventist Today. All of those articles can be found online under the “We Profess” tab: http://as.wallawalla.edu/
Happily, The Collegian enjoys editorial independence, so your inference that WWU administration allowed us to proceed with this issue in order to avoid a La Sierra–esque fiasco is patently untrue. Although we enjoy a symbiotic relationship of thorough conversation with university administration, all editorial decisions are made exclusively by students, just as the entire publication is produced by students.
If you’d like to view a pdf version of the printed issue, simply follow this link: http://as.wallawalla.edu/dev/
Once again, we’re honored by your kind words about The Collegian, and thank you very much for the great press your article provided for the discussion at WWU. We are well aware that there is a strong legacy here at WWU for quality student journalism, and we strive each week to live up to that strong tradition.
Thanks again, and we’d love to hear back from you.
Sincerely,
Ian Field
Editor-in-Chief
The Collegian | by ASWWU
It amazes me that we actively state in the SDA Church that 'nature is God's second book' and then we don't believe anything that nature tells us. The official church stands solidly with the Roman church of 500 years ago when they excommunicated Galileo Galilei for proposing a heliocentric solar system instead of a geocentric one. We arrogantly think that we know everything about God and about how God creates. Maybe we should re-read Job 38-41 and we would re-evaluate how much we know about God and about how the world was created. Kudos to The Collegian for the bravery to allow it's students to discuss this issue. The church would be far better is we had an open forum where the facts and ideas could be openly discussed without the fear of censorship or excommunication, where members could say 'we believe that God is the Creator but how He created the world we really do not know. We will keep studying and learning.' But oh how dangerous is an open mind–why I think that I have heard that it is in the devil's realm! We really wouldn't want people to think would we? Question? Why the doctrinal dominos just might start to fall.
Way to go Walla Walla and La Sierra!
I agree with the posts here. We can't hide our students from modern science. they need to be aware of what science teaches without being so immersed in macro-evolution that they accept it without thinking because everyone else does. Most of the secular world accepts it on the basis of what scientists tell them, and they reject religion for the same religion.
But we do have a knotty problem with this debate. We can say Jesus is all that matters, but we haven't been able to address the dinasour in the room. How can death have existed before the fall?
We know that Genesis describes a worldview far from ours, and we can't turn back the clock and believe in a flat earth and a sun that moves above the "vault." The ancients were not privy to the information we now have about the cosmos; they wrote the creation story as they understood it, inspired by God. (Our Bible students should be taught this truth.) But God obviously thought it important to include the six-days. Symbolic or not, it is a vital truth and a tribute to creation that was important enough to be included in the ten commandments for all time.
There are major discrepancies in our theology, and most of it is the way it is taught. The truth is in the story–that God created. It is exciting to speculate how and learn the amazing things discovered in physics that actually support a case for God and how He works through natural laws created by Him. Just seeing what humans have done in the last 200 years should tell us that it takes an intelligent mind to make complex things. This is what Christian education should be focusing on rather than debating the things we don't know ( but will know in the future). God works outside our time and space; in another dimension. So does His adversary.
Perhaps God keeps such answers from us for a purpose. Perhaps the answer to the how and when of creation would give us too much certainty to be free to choose.
Hi Timo, I'm not sure how to email you directly.
The comment above is from an email I sent to Atoday staff. They chose to post it, and that's why the handle is different.
The period at the end is not a part of the link. So:
http://as.wallawalla.edu/dev/collegian/uploads/Origins%20Special%20Issue.pdf
Hope that works for you. If not, let me know.
Thanks for your help,
Ian
Well, Joe, you would be wellcome at the Boulder, Colorado SDA church and at the SS class chaired by Gary Nolan, a retired SDA geologist who worked for the Federal government.
Congregations have personalities and unfortunately I cannot say that you would be welcome at every SDA Church.
With the passage of time, I believe that more congregations would welcome you. However, at the same time, there are those who would not and have become more firmly fixed in their ways.
What is the SDA denomination today? One answer is that it is discrete mix of five different groups of people who differ in doctrine and in life-style. If this is accurate, it means that one cannot walkthrough the door of a SDA Church with any assurance of what they will find on the other side. That statement may be a bit exeragerated. But, there is some truth to it.
Gregory,
Come on! I haven't been in any SDA church that asked you to give a belief summary when you walked in the door. They are generally friendly inviting places. Unless one advertises their opinions during a Sabbath school or other conversations, there wouldn't be any reason to treat them differently because of their belief or nonbelief. Most visitors are not going to do that. Most churches will be overly friendly to visitors who are not members.
Over time an assertive person could be resented if they objected to what was said too frequently–that is true in any type of organization. On the other hand I might not feel comfortable in a very conservative church atmosphere that really didn't feed the spiritual person but spent too much time on works/behavior. One can accept differences if the members are loving, caring, and spiritually-oriented, but not if they are obsessed with a certain rigid viewpoint and lack the love. I think that is something you learn over a period of time and not on a first visit.
Hi, old friend, Greg. It is always great to hear from you. I'll stop in when I get to Boulder.
[to those who don't know, Gregory is an SDA chaplain and my former roomate at PUC].
Take care.
Joe
I'm somewhat surprised that any informed observer believes that there is resistance anywhere in the denomination to educating Adventist university biology students with the most up-to-date theories of evolutionary biology. The disagreement, as I understand it, lies in what should be advocated, and the extent to which creationism should be taught or advanced as having a plausible scientific foundation. Fundamentalists want students to learn the most compelling arguments and evidence for evolution in order to equip them to refute evolution and argue in favor of creationism with the maximum degree of sophistication and scientific understanding that can be mustered in favor of creationism.
I don't happen to agree with this approach, and think that science quite convincingly refutes YLC and of course YEC. But I think it is only fair to make sure that we do not distort the position of fundamentalists by ascribing to them beliefs they do not hold. It would certainly easier to attack them if they truly wanted to see scientific data withheld from biology students, or if they wanted to deprive students of the tools that could help them to fairly interpret the data. But I'm not aware of that being the case. Have I missed something?
I wholeheartedly agree that the Church needs to rethink its position on this issue, and allow more room for a creator that is not hawsered to a literal interpretation of the poetry through which the stories of creation are told. But those of us who would like to see the Church open up on this issue need to fairly respond to the arguments that the fundamentalists are actually making, framing those arguments for refutation in a manner that their proponents would find reasonable? This business of trying to caricaturize the opinions and positions of others so they will be easier targets is really unfortunate, and gets in the way of good faith dialogue.
Thanks for featuring the WWU student paper issue edited by Ian Field. I personally admire this intelligent, thoughtful, and faithful young Adventist. After reading his entire issue today I am encouraged by the fact that most of the student authors understood that dogmatism on the interpretation of Genesis was neither necessary nor helpful to Adventism.
While the campus survey results mostly doccumented confusion and misunderstandings, that is to be expected from the Adventist community at large, since there is a strong fear-based campaign being waged against an expanded Creationism. But it seems at least the thoughtful young Adventists are able to see beyond this, thanks be to the yet active Spirit of Truth still alive and well on our Adventists campuses, in spite of the attempts at thought control by the present GC administration.