Educate Truth shares the following excerpts from The Press Enterprise as a service to readers. Opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Educate Truth.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
By David Olson
A Seventh-day Adventist Church board says the college hasn’t gone far enough to address creationists’ concerns, while a secular commission is worried that the outside lobbying could impinge on academic freedom.
The belief that God created the world in six days is one of the Adventist church’s fundamental beliefs, and the worldwide church’s president in 2009 urged all Adventist university professors to advocate that belief.
University leaders last month publicly apologized for not adequately emphasizing church teaching in biology classes and promised to do more…
“The real crux of the matter is whether the Bible has a privileged position as a source of knowledge,” said Lisa Beardsley, director of education for the worldwide Adventist church.
The inadequate teaching of Biblical creation “is a symptom of a problem,” an indication that La Sierra hasn’t done enough to ensure students are thoroughly exposed to the Adventist worldview, she said. (Read more)
Related articles:
1. Creating Controversy by Jack Stripling
2. More than 5,600 people sign petition in favor of creationism by David Olson
3. La Sierra University debate over creationism continues by David Olson
Educate Truth shares the following article published by the Adventist News Network as a service to readers.
By Mark A. Kellner
La Sierra University (LSU), a Seventh-day Adventist Church-owned school in Riverside, California, will have a year to demonstrate its faithfulness to church teaching on creation, at which time its current accreditation by the Adventist Accrediting Association, or AAA, will be reviewed. The school’s denominational accreditation has been extended to December 31 of next year, with reaccreditation subject to an on-site review by a AAA panel in the second quarter of 2012, and AAA board action in October 2012.
The unusual action followed two years of controversy that has roiled the southeastern California campus and generated extensive comment by Seventh-day Adventist leaders and members across North America and the world church. The La Sierra decision, during which a wide range of options were debated, came among several actions taken the regular biennial AAA board meeting held at the General Conference’s headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, on April 4, 2011.
“Although La Sierra University has deviated from the philosophy and objectives of Seventh-day Adventist education,†the voted action reads, “it is moved that the university be granted an extension of accreditation to December 31, 2012 in order for the university to act upon its commitments and implement changes and enhancements†involving the teaching of origins at the school. The action extending the university’s current term of accreditation did not address the prospect of a new term, up to five years in length.
Accrediting executives’ rationale
“This was a challenging and complex decision,” said Lisa M. Beardsley, director of the General Conference Education Department. “The AAA board took into consideration the report of the AAA team that visited the campus in November 2010, and events that have transpired since, such as the actions of the institutional board, the finding of its special subcommittee, and the open letter published in March by the university. After careful and prayerful consideration, the board expressed its will as a body by means of a written ballot so that all views could be honored.”
Ella Smith Simmons, a general vice president of the world church and member of the AAA board, said, “Given the recent acknowledgement made by the La Sierra University board and administration, this action seeks to create a bridge for the university to meet its stated commitments and the accrediting requirements to give priority to the standards of Seventh-day Adventist education in harmony with the Church’s official beliefs.â€
“The AAA Board has attempted to find a balance between punitive and redemptive help to the university in support of the LSU Board’s recent statements,” added Larry Blackmer, vice president for Education of the North American Division and another AAA board member.
Membership in the Adventist Accrediting Association board includes the director and associate directors of the General Conference Education department; General Conference vice presidential advisers for education; directors of education from each of the church’s 13 world divisions; one representative each from a college/university board chair; a college/university president; an academic vice president or dean; a registrar or admissions officer; a finance officer; an academic department chair of education; a union conference education director; and a local conference education director. Also included are three individuals with international Adventist educational experience; two education specialists not employed by the church; and the General Conference officers — specifically the president, secretary and treasurer.
What lies ahead
In order to retain AAA accreditation, the school administration and board of trustees will, among other steps, have to demonstrate that it is honoring its commitments to “continue to endorse the official Seventh-day Adventist Church statement on creation”; “resource and nurture faculty in an atmosphere in which official Seventh-day Adventist Church positions on creation and origins are taught and honored”; so that the Church’s creation position “is presented in instructional contexts” and also is “presented as the university’s position on origins.”
The university will also have to show it is fulfilling its pledge to develop “specific goals” to assist “LSU students of other faiths to find meaning in and understanding of Seventh-day Adventist values and official beliefs, including those regarding creation and human origins.” According to one of the examples set forth in the voted action, “decisions regarding faculty appointments and development [must be] aligned with board and university commitments to ensure the acceptance and teaching of official Seventh-day Adventist beliefs regarding creation and origins within instructional and co-curricular contexts.”
The AAA is also requiring that LSU’s “board governance structure and function are enhanced to provide fuller participation in its fiduciary responsibility for the university,” again, in keeping with a commitment the school has made.
Decision was a surprise
Following a protracted discussion that lengthened a scheduled three-hour meeting into four hours, the AAA board voted to extend the school’s current church-based accreditation, but did not offer the full new term La Sierra had anticipated. On February 8, La Sierra announced a AAA site visit team’s recommendation “that ‘in their opinion, and subject to AAA approval, La Sierra University should receive the maximum accreditation possible under AAA guidelines.’” The school has since removed that statement from its website.
The accreditation issue — which includes denominational recognition by the church and qualifies a school for certain appropriations from denominational funds — arose following a two-year controversy over La Sierra’s teachings on human origins. Beginning in 2009, critics, including some church leaders, laypersons and LSU students claimed that the school taught the theory of evolution to biology students as the explanation for the origin of life.
Seventh-day Adventists believe “God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made ‘the heaven and the earth’ and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week,” as noted in the church’s Fundamental Beliefs.
La Sierra responds
In a statement to Adventist Review, La Sierra spokesman Larry Becker said, “Although La Sierra University has taken affirmative steps toward resolution of the controversy regarding how creation and evolution are taught in its classes, the AAA Board believed that it is necessary for more time to transpire in order for the university board, faculty, and administration to demonstrate its determination to put in place the steps that the faculty and administration have agreed with the board to implement.”
The LSU statement continued: “University administration appreciates the extension of its current full accreditation as a Seventh-day Adventist university through December 31, 2012. The AAA Board has outlined a specific process moving forward, and we recognize the need for these steps. We look forward to the AAA visit to our campus next year. The board, administration and faculty are already working together to ensure that we provide the outstanding Adventist education desired by our students, our constituents, and our Church.”
La Sierra President Randal R. Wisbey and Ricardo Graham, Pacific Union Conference president and La Sierra trustee board chairman, admitted La Sierra’s shortcomings on the subject in a March 9 open letter.
“We found that only 50 percent of the students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that our Adventist view of creation was presented, and only 40 percent agreed or strongly agreed that our Adventist view was supported,” Wisbey and Graham wrote. “This is not acceptable, and we apologize,” they added.
Further, “instruction at the university, while being strong in many areas, has not adequately presented the denomination’s position on the subject of creation,” according to the document.
And, “there is some evidence that students have not always been respected for their belief in the Biblical creation position,” the March 9 La Sierra statement said.
According to the AAA’s accreditation handbook, “Accreditation of an institution by AAA signifies that the institution has a purpose appropriate to service the educational needs of those in its constituency and has the resources, programs, and services sufficient to accomplish the institution’s goals.”
School’s history
Founded in 1922 as a Seventh-day Adventist academy, La Sierra grew over the years and became a full-fledged college in 1946. In 1967, it merged with Loma Linda University and became that school’s liberal arts wing, reorganizing as an independent institution in 1990.
In 2010, the school reported 2,098 students had registered at the start of the current school year. Last year’s registration of 440 freshman surpassed 2009′s freshman class of 348 by 26.4 percent, La Sierra said in a statement.
]]>
By Educate Truth Staff
Below is the letter former LSU students Janelle and Jason wrote to the GC and Pacific Union in 2004. It was passed on to the GC Secretariat Matthew Bediako and Pacific Union President Tom Mostert, both of whom are currently retired. The letter reveals the one sided presentation of evolution and the obvious agenda of some of the biology professors to instill what they consider to be the truth regarding origins and the historicity of the Bible.
Lee Grismer is described as enjoying “making students and visiting professors look like fools, if they question the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution.”
The biology capstone class, team taught at that time by Gary Bradley and Larry McCloskey, spent the first seven weeks of the course indoctrinating evolution as the best explanation*, according to Janelle. She said the other side of the argument “received no attention,” and that the “biology classes at La Sierra University teach evolution to the EXCLUSION of the Adventist (biblical) view of creation.”
When Janelle voiced her concern over the one sided presentation of origins McCloskey said there would not be any mention of creation science in the capstone class because in his opinion it was not real science. Later in a meeting with McCloskey, Janelle said he told her that he felt God had placed him at La Sierra University to enlighten the students to his beliefs.
The religion department wasn’t much help either in the capstone class in bolstering students’ faith in the biblical creation. The general message was that the Genesis account of creation was not to be taken literally.
This letter underscores the blatant undermining of the Bible and Seventh-day Adventist beliefs occurring at LSU.
*7/21/11 Originally worded “evolution as fact.” According to one of the LSU biology professors, no one in the department teaches evolution as fact.
]]>
Posted by Educate Truth Staff
Editor’s note: The author wishes to remain anonymous, because of the
political climate surrounding the issues being discussed.
Since the 1960’s LSU (formerly LLU-LS – La Sierra campus of LLU, until 1990) has gradually changed. The primary change began in the early 1970’s. A group of LLU-LS faculty initiated a branch church in downtown Riverside, called City Parish. It was probably a good idea, but in the operation of that church over several years a group of faculty with similar goals and beliefs coalesced around a vision for LLU-LS. Their vision was to move the campus away from being a sectarian university that teaches SDA beliefs, and (as was at times openly stated) to take LLU-LS out of the SDA educational system.
The primary persons involved in this faculty group were from various disciplines, including religion, biology, physics, modern languages, math, history, and education. There also were other sympathizers who were not an active part of the group. The “group†worked, over a number of years, to gain political strength with the other faculty. During those years the LLU central administration was based at Loma Linda, leaving the La Sierra Campus with weak leadership in some ways. The group capitalized on that situation and the resulting faculty distrust of administration, to gain political strength.
During that time some members of the “group†proposed and launched an honors program called the Interdisciplinary Program (generally referred to as InterDip). The teaching in that program followed the vision of the “group.†Ronald Numbers was at that time teaching a class on the history of medicine for the LLU Medical School, and also was one of the primary teachers in InterDip courses, along with a LLU-LS religion faculty member. Several LLU biology graduate students were teaching biology labs, and from conversations with InterDip students they learned that the two InterDip faculty had largely convinced these students that life was the result of evolution over millions of years, and not special creation. The biology graduate students requested the Dean of the College to have faculty in the biology graduate program at Loma Linda give a series of lectures in InterDip to counteract this influence. This was done. A few years later a new Dean closed down InterDip, because of the negative influence it was having.
In 1980 the Dean of the College of Arts and Science resigned, and a search committee was formed to choose a new Dean. Somehow the “group†managed to fill all but one position on that search committee. They launched an elaborate process designed to appear very democratic, while actually aiming from the start to install their candidate, who was at that time Dean of the Graduate School, as the new Arts and Sciences Dean. Their plan didn’t work, thanks to the decision of the LLU President. It did result in the choice of a person poorly prepared to be Dean, resulting in a few difficult years for all. That Dean finally resigned after serious decline of his health, the departure of his wife, and other problems.
The “group†had plans for changing some academic departments to better meet their vision, with the priority areas being religion and biology. The Dean of the School of Religion was Kenneth Vine. His views didn’t match the “group’s†agenda. For example he removed one religion faculty from teaching the course on Ellen White when he learned that this person presented a very negative view of White. Vine was near retirement age, and when he retired the “group†was delighted. The chair of the department of biology was far from retirement, so a different strategy was employed. The biologist in the “group†took on the task of diverting the biology department from its commitment to biblical creation, to a more evolution-focused philosophy. In order to do this he would have to become chair of that department. He made serious efforts to accomplish this goal over a period of 5 or 6 years, largely by political maneuvering. The biology faculty were not sympathetic with his vision for the department, and he failed to accomplish it.
When LLU and La Sierra ended their twin-campus collaboration in 1990 the “group†had more success in establishing their political leadership at La Sierra, now La Sierra University. They successfully selected the person of their choice as President of the new University, and in a few years replaced him with another of their favorites. After the biology graduate faculty left La Sierra in 1990 and became the Department of Natural Sciences at LLU, the new chair of the department of biology at LSU was successful, over the years, in guiding the department to follow the vision of the “group,†replacing any interest in a literal creation with teaching that urges the students to accept evolution over millions of years as the true story of origins. There is reason to think the faculty of religion have followed a similar path.
This history has brought LSU to its current position, with some leading faculty seeking to turn students away from the long-established beliefs of the SDA church, to a set of beliefs more in line with many mainline protestant denominations.
]]>We encouraged our son to go to a “Christian” college, as the other members of our family did. He had been offered a full scholarship at a public university, and though we are not wealthy, we do believe in Christian education and so supported AJ’s decision to enroll at La Sierra. That was a couple of years ago.
He enrolled. He began attending classes. I drove from Arkansas to Southern California to visit him, and as we were walking, he told me some of the things his biology class professor had said in a recent class session. He said the teacher had referred to a “time when the earth’s oxygen was less than it is now….” He also made other references that made it sound like he believed in theistic evolution.
I found it hard to believe, so, wanting to be sure AJ hadn’t misunderstood something, I decided to try to contact his teacher to get the scoop. When I tried to reach him, he was “out”. So I asked to speak with the department chairman who was also “out”. I left messages and waited to hear back from someone. AJ’s teacher called me within a short period of time and I asked him whether or not AJ had misunderstood him. He evaded my question. I finally point blank asked him if he believed in theistic evolution. He replied that “was one possible explanation” on a broad continuum. I asked again, “Yes, I understand it is ONE possible explanation, but what do you believe?” He said what he believed was not the issue. I said I disagreed, that what the teacher believes usually comes through to the students in small comments, body language, and unintentional ways, and that we sent our son to a college where we thought the teachers believed in a literal 6 day creation week, as described in Scripture. He asked me which account of creation in scripture I believed in–the first one or the second one. I said I didn’t find the accounts in Scripture to be at odds with each other. He said I wasn’t doing my son a favor by shielding him from the truth. I replied that if that was the “truth” that was being taught at La Sierra, we would not be sending AJ back the next semester. We didn’t. He is now nearing graduation from the University of Central Arkansas where, at least he was expecting to meet up with evolutionary theory. And surprisingly, the professors he has had here address the issues more straightforwardly than the teacher at La Sierra did. At least you KNOW where they stand right up front.
After talking with AJ’s teacher at La Sierra, the Department Chairman also called me back. I explained my concerns and went into detail about the conversation I had had with AJ’s teacher in that department. I was surprised to hear the Department chairman support the same position as did the teacher I spoke with. Although he assured me that he and the others in the biology department believed in a Creator God, and that there are many things that just cannot be biblically explained, he clearly came down on the side of a long period of earth’s history–i.e. theistic evolution, rather than a literal “creation week”.
I have a Master of Science degree. My husband has two masters’ degrees and a doctoral degree. We are not sheltered. We do not expect that everything will fit neatly into nice little boxes when we study the issues of creation/origin of man. What we did expect and did not get, was teachings that present evidence supporting intelligent design as the position we, as SDA’s espouse. I have studied many of these on my own and I know there is information supporting both sides. But the students know which side their professors lean toward, and it is very confusing for them to think they’re in a class taught by a teacher who believes the biblical account, only to discover the teacher is teaching the same kind of things being taught by secular professors.
I did contact the President’s office at La Sierra and told the nice lady I spoke with what my concerns were, and that our son would not be attending there any more. I was very sad–not just for my son, but for the other kids who were probably more than confused by what they had been taught in the past, and what they were now hearing from their teachers.
If these professors really believe in a Creator, they need to present that evidence so that it comes through loud and clear. If they don’t believe in a Creator God, and the biblical account of creation, then let them present their rationale to the SDA adult community! What I object to, is our church taking one position, and the professors at La Sierra telling our kids that our church members are basically “sheltered” or “unsophisticated” or downright ignorant of the “facts”. Let’s get the “church” and our biology professors on the same page. We don’t need one undermining the other. If our church’s scientific community doesn’t find evidence supporting the biblical account…then let’s hear their evidence! Maybe our beliefs need an overhaul–maybe we’ll all become theistic evolutionists! But let’s not confuse our kids by teaching them contradictory information.
Thanks,
Teresa Regester, RN, MS
AU & LLU alumnus
Carlos Cerna sent this letter Randal Wisbey after he had spoken with Wisbey in his office. This letter was also sent to the Southern California Conference, Southeastern California Conference, and the Arizona Conference. Cerna graduated from La Sierra June, 2009.
]]>June 1, 2009
Dr. Wisbey,
I’m sorry that our discussion was cut short. I will appreciate a few more minutes of your time for a couple of more things I need to say.
My first point I already briefly mentioned in our conversation, but I did not emphasize the point as I should have. Dr. Wisbey, I was born in the Seventh-day Adventist church and in the home of a pastor. Therefore, I was reared by my parents with a strong faith and belief in our Creator.
When I came to La Sierra University and began studying evolution, my thinking was, “yeah right, this ridiculous theory that I’ve heard about all my life, that we all come from monkeys, junk that is plain ridiculous.â€
Well, Dr. Wisbey, it’s hard for me to admit it, and I don’t even like talking about it, but when I studied the theory as it was presented in class plus the studying of the books for the class, I actually started questioning Creation myself. I’ll never forget it. I would say to myself, “now Carlos, you know that this is all junk,†but at the same time Dr. Wisbey, I was reading the data from the Biology book, and getting indoctrinated by the faculty so much that I genuinely and sincerely had started to question Creation.
I also remember asking myself that if Creation was in the Bible and it didn’t actually take place the way it’s written, then what else could there be in the Bible that is also false. To put it bluntly, I questioned the Bible, religion and the existence of God.
It was only until I went to other sources outside of the teachings that I received here at our beloved La Sierra University, that I was able to realize the fact that science does point to a Designer, and I am thankful for that.
Dr. Wisbey, I know that I expressed to you that I, as well as others (including other pastor’s kids) that I personally know, have had this same confusion at our Adventist institution. Like I mentioned in our conversation, I don’t think it is coincidence that you, being an ordained minister, are in the position that you are at La Sierra University at this point in time. You and I know that if a student comes into our school as a believer and leaves as a nonbeliever, it would be totally unacceptable for it would be a result that is contrary to the purpose of our school.
Dr. Wisbey, the heart of my letter is this: I realize that you are aware that I personally, as well as others have been extremely affected by this problem here at La Sierra University pertaining to this issue. I know that you told me that you have also spoken with many students that have said that everything is ok in that class and that they don’t feel as if anything is being pushed on them. Good for them! but these are not the people I am concerned about. The fact that some students may leave that class and say they didn’t have a problem with it is not what I’m focusing on. What I believe should concern us is the one student that abandons his Christian faith because of the teachings that he received here in our school.
Like I mentioned, I personally could have been one more lost soul for leaving as an atheist after the teachings I received. I am deeply concerned, Elder Wisbey, I have friends who HAVE abandoned their faith because of the teachings they received here at La Sierra University.
As I said to you, perhaps it should be considered taking the teaching of the theory of evolution out of the science classroom, and put it in the Senior Capstone class, along with the theory of Intelligent Design. This way we have two philosophical ideas in a philosophy class, and then in our actual science classes, such as General Biology and others, we can teach actual science which is testable, observable, and repeatable.
Dr. Wisbey, I firmly believe that as an Adventist institution, we should make debunking this theory of evolution a challenge for our young scientists. We as Christians should seek to find the truth that science holds which points nowhere else but to our Creator. Just like Adventists are blessed with the task of spreading the three angels message, I believe this too can be a pleasant task for our young scientists to look for the signs in nature and molecular biology that point towards our Creator.
In closing, I would just like to leave you with a Bible passage that I found in 1 Timothy 6:20,21. I have written the text and have also included Ellen White’s Bible commentary pertaining to this text:
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called; Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20, 21
God is the foundation of everything. All true science is in harmony with His works; all true education leads to obedience to His government. Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation. Ignorance may seek to support false views of God by appeals to science; but the book of nature and the written Word do not disagree; each sheds light on the other. Rightly understood, they make us acquainted with God and His character by teaching us something of the wise and beneficent laws through which He works (ST March 20, 1884). {7BC 916.7}
Sophistry of False Science.–We need to guard continually against the sophistry in regard to geology and other branches of science falsely so-called, which have not one semblance of truth. The theories of great men need to be carefully sifted of the slightest trace of infidel suggestions. One tiny seed sown by teachers in our schools, if received by the students, will raise a harvest of unbelief. The Lord has given all the brilliancy of intellect that man possesses, and it should be devoted to His service (RH March 1, 1898).
Respectfully,
Carlos Cerna
Louie Bishop received a B.S. in Business from the University of California at Davis. Afterward, he attended the Amazing Facts Center of Evangelism. He then worked as a Bible worker for two churches in Trinity County, California.
]]>I came to La Sierra University knowing the popular scientific views regarding life on earth. I previously attended a secular university, where evolution was taught. That is one reason I chose La Sierra University to begin pre-medicine classes. The first day of General Biology 2 I sat down only to see Charles Darwin’s face on the first slide. In my opinion, there would be no problem with that, except for the fact that we were taught only evolutionary principles of life for the next several weeks, and were told they were the truth. In fact, we were told Evolution “is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory.”
After a few class lectures, I sat down to talk with Biology department head Dr. Wilson. Though it has now been almost five months since that meeting, I distinctly remember him saying “I was afraid this was going to happen.” In other words, he was not looking forward to the day when someone would take a stand and speak up concerning the teachings of the Biology department. Not to go unsaid, I have had many good conversations with members of the Biology department, including Dr. Lee Greer. He has taken the time to talk with me for over an hour on a number of occasions, providing me with reasons for his views of life on earth. I respect him for the fact that he has studied both the Bible and science to a great extent, and is convicted concerning what he believes. Yet what he and many others teaching Biology at La Sierra believe and teach involves many assumptions, and most importantly, is contradictory to the clear messages of the Bible. This fact was made clear to me when I attended one of Dr. Greer’s worship “breakouts.” He talked about the Biblical Creation accounts in detail, and concluded that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are contradictory accounts. The message I received was a message of doubt toward the Bible, which is no doubt what many other students were led to feel. I can now believe this is happening on a Seventh-Day Adventist campus, because I’ve seen it with my own eyes!
It is a fact that Evolution is being taught and promoted by professors of Biology on the La Sierra University campus. They are obviously welcome to hold such views, yet I believe they have come to the wrong place to promote those beliefs. I know that La Sierra was founded for the purpose of raising up young people to share God’s message of mercy and truth with the world – young people who, out of their own free will choose to say “What does the Bible say?” Yet many young people on the La Sierra University campus are being led to doubt their beliefs. I asked my lab TA during Winter Quarter what her views were concerning Evolution vs. a literal Creation week. She ended up giving me her testimony at La Sierra. She told me that she was the daughter of a Seventh-Day Adventist pastor, and that she came to La Sierra to study Biology. After going through General Biology and being presented with the theory of evolution, she wrestled with her faith in God and seemed to find some middle ground. She then took a Senior Capstone course entitled “Religious, Social, and Moral Aspects of Biology.” She was presented with all the “evidence” that seems to support Evolution, and now considers herself to be an agnostic.
I won’t go without referring to the blessings of my experience at La Sierra. This Spring Quarter, Professor Perumal has taught Biology with contagious excitement. His teaching has given me and others good reason to study hard. Professor Perumal tells me that he is a creationist, and we also have enjoyed some good discussions. Yet I see where this could make any student very confused. Last quarter we were told that Evolution is the truth. This quarter we have still studied Evolution via secular class materials, but at a lesser intensity. My point is that only Evolution is presented and studied at an objective level. My teacher this quarter has spoken openly of the glory of God in nature, and for that I am thankful! But evidence for a young-age earth, in support of the Biblical account, is not presented for study. The objective support of the Bible is not touched on. So in the mind of many students, you have objective “Science” seeming to overshadow the Biblical account, leaving them trying to balance contradictory teachings. In my mind this has a tendency to lift up the teachings of man, and belittle the authoritative utterances of the word of God. This either leads to doubt toward the Bible, or leads to extreme Biblical reinterpretations which pick and choose what fits. The Bible is made subject to man’s teachings. If I was an eighteen year old freshman, I honestly can tell you, I don’t know what I would be putting my faith in right now.
I have shared this testimony to show the reality of what is taking place on a Seventh-Day Adventist campus. I know that there are many parents who are sending their sons and daughters to our schools trusting that they will be grounded in their faith, and that they will be taught that the Bible is the authority in all matters of faith and duty. I believe they should receive a return on their generous investment in a Seventh-Day Adventist education. How about you? Please share these realities with your friends and family, that we as a church body can make our voices heard.
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female?’” Matthew 19:4.