Clifford Goldstein's "Seventh-day Darwinians" in our July 24, 2003, issue brought heavy mail. Like all columns in the Review, Goldstein's view and tone represented himself only, not the editors or the church. So long as columnists keep within the parameters of the fundamental beliefs of the Adventist Church, we give them considerable latitude.
                                                       --William G. Johnsson, Editor.

would like to ask if Goldstein's article now represents the tone and attitude of the Review, the North American Division, and leadership of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church. I hope not. I would hate to see our attempts at apologetics take on the pugnaciousness and anger expressed by a leader of our church in this article. It is not the personally held views of Goldstein about creationism that I find objectionable. Nor his assertion that he represents the beliefs of millions of Adventists concerning creation. He no doubt does. It is his polemical tone and "in your face" approach that I find unpalatable.

I do not fear the debate. I do not fear being wrong in my beliefs. I have changed many of them over my lifetime when I heard better arguments or ideas than mine. I believe that Scripture teaches that those who have the truth have nothing to fear. I do fear Goldstein's attitude. I fear that others in our church may adopt the insensitivity and callousness that came through loud and clear in his prejudicial statements. I fear that others in our church will lower their inhibitions and begin to spout hatred, rage, and vituperation in the guise of a brave new world of Adventist orthodoxy, of which Goldstein represents himself as the self-elected model. I respect the right of Goldstein to offer his views. I respect the rights of anyone, as does God, to hold their views, even if those views are not to believe in God. It was God in Christ, who, with tears in His eyes and a sob in His voice, grieved over those who wouldn't accept the grace He offered. I detected none of that in this article. An observant man, Marshall McLuhan, once said, "the medium is the message." Which message came through in this article?

I know many friends in this church who are genuinely perplexed over how to resolve the teachings of the Bible and the observations of the natural world. This article did nothing to help them move forward in gaining insight or knowledge. It did make them afraid to pursue the issue. Who will help them now? Maybe Darwin will. Goldstein left little option otherwise.

Dave Evans
Kettering, Ohio

It is with sadness that I respond to Clifford Goldstein's "Seventh-day Darwinians," in the July 24 Adventist Review. I realize that many feel strongly about the literal six-day creation, but I am sad that the editor of our Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide is so very confident in the traditional position that he broadly denounces those who see the issue differently than he does. I am sad that he has such a narrow definition of who can be a Seventh-day Adventist.

I am an active Adventist who has been educated in the Adventist educational system. I am happy Goldstein feels total contentment with his understanding of this issue, but not every Christian has a journey or temperament similar to his. I am sad that Goldstein has "no respect" for those who may be grappling with the tension of science and traditional Seventh-day Adventist dogma. If those in my local church heeded his advice to leave rather than struggle with the issue of evolution, many wonderful people in our congregation would be out the door.

My children have been totally immersed in our denominational educational system. My worry is that as they reach adulthood their faith may be shattered as they may learn some aspects of scientific evidence that do not support the six-day creation. I hope teachers will be available in our educational institutions to mentor them as they assimilate our beliefs with scientific evidence. I hope there will be intellectual support available in Adventist higher education, not just for indoctrination, but support for thorough, careful consideration of evidence leading to a mature faith. I am committed to this church, and I am committed to truth.

Carmen Lau
Birmingham, Alabama

I am so thankful for the stand Clifford Goldstein has taken in "Seventh-day Darwinians." My first exposure to evolution as a viable theory almost two decades ago at an Adventist college was the beginning of my spiritual undoing for a time. I knew instinctively that evolutionary theory and the biblical account of creation are utterly incompatible, so I headed out the door. Through prayer, extensive research on the creation/evolution issue, and a thorough reading of the Biblefrom cover to covermy own faith was revived.

I have watched in amazement and sadness as evolutionary deism (today's god of intellectualism) has made inroads into our church. We wonder why our youth no longer buy the inconsistencies and hypocrisy and are heading out the door, as I once did. They are more observant than we credit them. Is it any wonder that the Sabbath is losing its meaning and the Bible is losing its force and authority among our numbers?

Thank you, Goldstein, for drawing biblical lines. You must know that your effort shines a spotlight on a battle that has, until now, been fought in the dark in the Seventh-day Adventist Church (i.e., our college classrooms). I suspect the battle will get much hotter in the near future. Not an inch can be yielded.

Like you, if I were to lose my Christian faith (and I could not), I could embrace a good number of other ideas, but I could never go back to evolution! The power, integrity, goodnessthe very name of Godare on the line, just as they have been from the start! To uphold the name of God the Creator in this generation I would gladly give my life.

Conna L. Bond
Condon, Montana

As readers of the Adventist Review will know, the General Conference is sponsoring a multiyear International Faith and Science Conference (see http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1538/news.html), which is "designed as a dialogue on questions of science and theology that impact Adventist understanding of the biblical account of the origin of earth and life." The organizers of this conference are doing a commendable job bringing together authorities from numerous disciplines to discuss these issues in a respectful and Christian manner.

It is most unfortunate that Goldstein implies in his article that those who are honestly seeking to lessen the tension between our understanding of God's First Book and God's Second Book are in some manner worse than Nazis! Contrary to what he suggests, the study of God's First Book and His Second Book are both human endeavors.

What the church needs more of are those who, with thoughtful humility, can apply the soothing "balm of Gilead" rather than insensitively drop a "bomb in Gilead."

John Hess
Peru, New York

I generally enjoy Clifford Goldstein's columnsespecially when he shares his personal testimonyso I was disappointed by his polemic in "Seventh-day Darwinians." The timing suggests that it was intended as a shot across the bow of the upcoming Faith and Science Conference in Glacier View, the ongoing three-year dialog between scientists and theologians in the church.

Given Goldstein's counsel to stick to the Bible, I am surprised that he has "no respect" for those within the church who are seeking to reconcile science and faith. These too are brothers and sisters in Christ, and respect is called for (see Paul's respect for James and Jewish law despite his theological disagreements). Members' and students' questions about scientific data won't be resolved by scientists leaving the church.

As for Goldstein's argument that millions of Adventists agree with him, Adventists have never considered majority opinion to be a convincing argument for the truthfulness of an idea, or they'd worship on Sunday. And if, as he insists, "we will never make room for anything other than a literal six-day creation for life here," then we must toss the biblical record, for it mentions creation of life on only three days; days 1, 2, and 4 were for light and inanimate objects. Goldstein will reply, of course, that it was just a figure of speech and wasn't meant to be taken literally. Maybe Genesis 1 wasn't either. At least, let's leave scientists and theologians with enough room to discuss these matters.

Robert Johnston
Lake Jackson, Texas

This is another attack on fellow believers who do not see any problem in accepting ordinary natural science and still believe in the Creator, as most Christians do here in Europe. Why this harsh judgmental tone? Why this bitter condemnation of brethren and sisters who do not think exactly like Goldstein? Does he really want to get rid of me as a church member? Does he want some kind of dictatorship of opinions in the church? All of us know that we do not have any other official creed than the Bible. Could the editors help me with an explanation?

Kristen Falch Jakobsen
Straumsjoen, Norway

In this permissive age where "anything goes" I was happy to hear a man who reminds us that there remain some divine absolutes, pillars that cannot be moved. The church, in a sense, is a big family, and as children we were strengthened by the "family values" as lived and taught by our parents. A warm salute to Clifford Goldstein for "Seventh-day Darwinians."

Dick Rentfro
Thorp, Washington

At least three things perplex me about Clifford Goldstein's July 24 column. First, it says very little about the primary theme of the first chapters of Genesis, John, Colossians, and Hebrews, that in principle the material world is neither an illusion nor intrinsically evil but the good creation of the good Creator. Second, even though numbers of Adventists might find these concessions objectionable, it leaves room for the possibilities of microevolution and a very old universe while taking a firm stand on behalf of a literal six-day creation for life on Earth. Third, the tone of the article strikes me as very "Darwinian."

Goldstein writes that he has "no respect for those who think they can meld" evolutionary theory and Adventist life and thought. "There are plenty of other churches for you," he declares to Adventists who see things differently. "Ours isn't one." The column's mood reminds me of the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. "You'll have to fight us for every extra minutemuch less your millions of mythological years," it declares.

There is more than one way to pollute Christianity with Darwinian themes. In my view, the least dangerous of these is to be more humble than we sometimes have been about our knowledge of how and when God created everything that is true, beautiful, and good. Far more worrisome, I believe, is an uncritical acceptance of the assumptions that life is inherently conflictual, that competition rather than cooperation is the way to succeed, and that addressing complex issues with "fight talk," refusals of respect and threats of exclusion can be appropriate, even in a Christian community of faith.

David R. Larson
Loma Linda, California

Clifford Goldstein is to be commended for his stand against theistic evolution in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Yet he seriously undermines his position in the last paragraph by expressing doubt about the age of the earth. Scripture testifies that "things which are seen [the world] were not made of things which do appear [matter]" (Heb. 11:3). In other words, the world was created ex nihilo, or out of nothing. God simply spoke the earth into existence (Ps. 33:6, 9; Heb. 11:3). Ellen White confirms that the earth had no existence prior to its creation: "The theory that God did not create matter when He brought the world into existence is without foundation. In the formation of our world, God was not indebted to preexisting matter" (Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 258). Mrs. White also states that "apart from Bible history, geology can prove nothing" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 112). She is expressing there a profound truth about the limits of science and the necessity of revealed truth regarding origins.

Theistic evolution is not compatible with Adventist belief. Goldstein is, therefore, correct to assert that those who believe and promote theistic evolution have no place within Adventism. That may seem harsh until it is realized that theistic evolutionists are departing from Christianity itself: "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 upon the rocks of infidelity" (ibid., p. 113).

Barry Harker
Flaxton, Queensland, Australia

First, I apologize to anyone offended by my tone. It simply reflected how strongly I feel about the issue, which is: 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?                                                         --Cliff Goldstein.