My strong feeling is that formally enshrining a very rigid form of recent (6 days/6000 years) creationism is something that will be on the agenda at the GC this year. Any thoughts on that issue? I guess I'm asking whether you think it will be on the agenda, and how that might play out, and also more broadly would that would mean for the size of the SDA 'tent'.

Good question. I hate to sound too optimistic, but I would say that the chances of that are slim. The three Faith and Science Conferences were supposed to be the place for that discussion to take place and when the Young Earth conservatives tried to include very more literalist language, it was rejected by GC leadership, not to mention most of the Adventist scientific community. (Not that theologians and administrations let the work of scientists get in their ways.) But to their credit, some GC leaders really stood up for the status quo on this one, which is about all we can ask right now.

While I am being pollyannish, let me also say that the onslaught that La Sierra University has experienced on this issue is also a good thing. Not the actual Educate Truth attacks, but the fact that LSU and its biology department has survived, thus far. And this could change. But even if something were to happen, the delay shows that at least some high level administrators are reluctant to repeat pain of the past. I'd like to think that there is a growing realization that academic institutions will not be bullied by these relatively small groups of well-funded Adventist conservatives who seek to enforce their worldview on everyone else's children. Of course, things could change very drastically, especially if key GC leadership changes.

It will be interesting to see what comes out on the agenda during the Adventist leadership's Spring meetings. That is where a lot of the agenda is set for the GC session so keep an eye on Adventist News Network and Spectrum.

If SDAs reject both the Biblical and SOP descriptions of a literal 6 day creation, what kind of a rudder does that leave them with? If their beliefs are based upon human "knowledge" rather than upon revelation, they should cease being Christians. Jesus Christ is not a scientific "fact." Neither is God the Father nor the Holy Ghost.

Thanks Alexander: I will definitely be keeping an eye out on this issue, and value Spectrum's role in keeping the members informed.

Hallelujah!

Just because someone donates generously to an institution should not give that person the right to censor the doctrines being taught in religion classes on that campus -- or to be able to call for the termination of a good professor just because he differs from the rich constituent on the long vs. short chronology of the earth.