Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?

by Sean Pitman
.

Since the controversy over the promotion of neo-Darwinism (to the active exclusion of any meaningful support for the “fundamental” Adventist position on creation) erupted at La Sierra University over two years ago, some have accused those who support efforts to actually uphold the church’s position on origins (a literal 7-day creation week) as being fringe ultraconservative right-wing fundamentalists who are just one step away from raving lunacy – if not already there.  Some of the more benign accusations liken supporters of this effort, to include the leadership of the Michigan Conference (and their removal of LSU from official recognition as an Adventist institution; Link), to the Tea Party movement in US politics.

“The Michigan Conference is the Adventist version of the Tea Party wing of the right wing of the Republican Party.” – Dr. Erv Taylor

Some forget, however, that this issue is primarily one of transparency and of church order and government.  The actual governmental structure of the church is important to the success of its mission.  And, one doesn’t have to be a member of any political party to recognize the importance and need for transparency, in particular, from our church with regard to what our children are being taught in our own “Adventist” schools.

If the Seventh-day Adventist Church really does stand for something as “fundamental” to its own identity and mission, or as a primary goal or ideal, it should make that stand very clear and unambiguous… and should call its school administrators and teachers to task to actively support said goals and ideals (which has officially been done by the way). Intuitively, the church should also maintain only those paid representatives who actually represent what they are being paid to represent – as is the case for any viable organization.

Of course, if one or more of our schools is not or cannot support all of the church’s primary goals and ideals, both the school and the church leadership have a moral obligation to inform the membership at large of this situation and work to correct it (as the Michigan Conference is trying to do in this particular case). After all, is it not a moral wrong to give people something other than what they thought they were buying with their hard earned dollars?

In short, Tea-party members aren’t the only one’s who frown on false advertising… Neither Republicans nor Democrats nor independents, nor anyone else for that matter, appreciate getting sold something they never intended to buy.

168 thoughts on “Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?

  1. The path of apathy and do-nothing political correctness is the wide road to decline. And many there are who choose it.

    Michigan conference leadership on the other hand show themselves to be the few, the bold and the insightful.

    You can judge the quality of Michigan’s leadership by their opponents lack of it. Those who criticize Michigan exhibit a peculiar lack of research, lack of attention to detail and lack of insight in their summary condemnations of the Michigan conference.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
    • @BobRyan:
      You are right!

      In the past I have exchanged some e-mails with Ervin Taylor [edit]. By saying what he said about the Michigan Conference he made his [mistaken views] more than evident!

      The Michigan Conference leadership is quite an example of faithfulness that should be observed in all levels of the SDA Church organization, but unfortunately is not observed.

      Concerning the teachings of La Sierra, I must say that apostasy is also a reality in other Adventist colleges, like in the Saleve Adventist University (in Collonges, France).

        (Quote)

      View Comment
  2. BobRyan: Agreed

    I am glad you agree.

    I am unable to agree that it is fact/proof cause there is no vote to reverse it, there constituent meeting has not happend yet. Nor would I have info if it would make it to the agenda. There may be more pressing issues?

    Agreed the GC only has authority over Andrews. As the GC has no authority over Pacific conference, neither does the Mich conference. Its actions are attmpting to, or at least manipulate outside the structure.

    If Mich has a concern then they have to find the same concern across all world conferences and bring it to a GCS. To side step the structure and manipulate it is an attack on the church as a whole.

    This whole effort has done it this way, which is sad. To say it is to promote transparencey and protect the church while it acctualy operates outside the churches structure and authority is bewildering.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  3. ET’s complaint post about Prophets and Kings asks the critical thinker to consider for a minute – why it is that prophetic, inspired writers have any value at all beyond a simple historian.

    Coming from someone who dumps the Bible out the window starting in Genesis – it is apparent that Erv’s view of inspired writing is “limited” at best.

    For the rest of us – inspired writing adds God’s perspective to events – so that well known events become that much more “instructive” when viewed from God’s POV. He adds insights and details not available to non-inspired historians.

    So when SDAs look at surveys of history as God has inspired them – in His supernatural communication via His gift of prophecy to mankind, it is those God-perspectives and details that we are looking for and not merely the historic fact that “the Roman empire existed” etc.

    So also with the Genesis account – it is blatantly obvious that life exists on earth and not the other planets in our Solar system – but “what is God’s perspective” on that? How did it come about? What was God’s purpose? That is given to us in HIS inspired summary of His work in creating life on earth in 7 real days. (Evenings and mornings)

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  4. Hmm “God … or money? God …. or money??”

    I suppose 24 million is a “lot of money” and apparently it was too much for Wisbey and Geriguis to resist.

    Oh well… I guess the admin has “more decisions” to make.

    Given the restriction language

    The Corporation covenants and agrees that no portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be used (1) to finance or refinance any facility, place or building used or to be used for sectarian instruction or study or as a place for devotional activities or religious worship or in connection with any part of the programs of any school or department of divinity…. (Page D-32)

    It is entirely possible that Wisbey and Geriguis thought they were only risking a “partial sellout of Adventism” since “in theory” they could hire biologists who would not promote blind-faith evolutionism – would just teach science (that which we actually can, observe test in the lab) rather than blind-faith evolutionist speculation, and would only fail to comply with their obligation to explicitly promote SDA world views in each of their classes.

    But that half-compromised position could never have survived for long before it went to fully-compromised. (As history now shows us).

    On the other hand – by the time they signed that agreement – in 2008 they were already promoting evolutionism in both the religion department and the science department. So they might have seen it as a “win-win” with no downside at all.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  5. Steve&#032Mahan: To show the SDA members that the G.C. is on top of the situation

    LSU is not under authority of the GC. The only university that is inc. through the GC is Andrews.

    LSU’s is inc, through the Pacific Conference not GC. Andrews is inc through the GC not Mich. conference.

    This whole thing is not a debate over creation vs. evolution as much as it is lines of authority.

    To which this site is accountable to no authority as is its sister site ADvindicate.

    The agenda of this site to promulgate a hierarchy line of authority is rightfully and respectfully rejected, as manipulative it has been to accomplish such.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  6. PUC&#032Student: @BobRyan: You mean 1/3 of the conference constituency? If it takes 2/3 to overturn, then it only takes 1/3+1 to keep it from being overturned.Its too bad that a radical fringe is running the Church up there.

    You may not be aware of this, but the “radical fringe” is actually liberal/progressive wing, which is probably very active and prominent at PUC, although a minority of our worldwide members.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  7. Prophets and Kings, pp. 177-178: There is seen a spirit of opposition to the plain word of God, of idolatrous exaltation of human wisdom above divine revelation. Men have allowed their minds to become so darkened and confused by conformity to worldly customs and influences that they seem to have lost all power to discriminate between light and darkness, truth and error.

    hmm — I wonder if we have any examples of that??

    Ervin&#032Taylor: It would be interesting to determine how much of the quoted paragraph in Prophets and Kings EGW “adapted” or “borrowed” from a previous author. .

    Did not have long to wait.

    1. The Bible example of John quoting Isaiah demonstrates the fact there is no such thing as a Bible doctrine about “only one person getting a given truthful teaching from God” – that many of our lib friends so love to “imagine”.

    Very often God communicates the same truth to multiple people over time… “as it turns out”.

    2. There are “signature Ellen White” sections of Prophets and Kings, DA, GC — all of the books. Sections impossible to borrow from anyone but another prophet. Our lib friends are very reluctant to let that bit of light out to their followers.

    Oh well…

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  8. Holly&#032Pham: This same philosophy is present in the Pacific Union Conference and elsewhere. We will do what WE decide we want to do, despite what has been voted by the world Church.

    Sister Holly, Umm, no I do not claim such nor ever have or will. Ironically, this site has. That is truly comical.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  9. BobRyan: Now and then Erv will contribute something of substance to the discussion.wait for it….it looks like it may take him a bit longer these days.in Christ,Bob

    You’re so correct, Bob. Dr. Taylor doesn’t like to engage in any back-and-forth discussion, as we we see here on ET, but only wants to be able to run in–make a few vague comments (or insults to ET) and run away.

    Dr. Taylor has not seemed to have answered any of the questions I have asked him in the past, or those of most others. He seems to have a lot to say over on Adventist Today, mostly attacking the SDA Church and Ellen White, both for being too old fashioned, conservative, and bible-based, instead of based on secular humanism, which Dr. Taylor seems to love.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  10. jdoe:
    @Holly Pham:

    Absolutely, Holly.I don’t doubt Dr. Taylors’ sincerity, but it does give me pause when someone answers that they are “not sure” if they believe the Bible or not.

    I have always appreciated your comments on this website very much.And for that matter, Dr. Taylors’ comments, also, as he continues to make the contrast between SDAs and “in name only ‘SDAs'” all the more clear.

    Don’t worry, Erv… if God can open my eyes to His truth (which I believe He has),He can also show you the truth someday (if you’re willing to listen).

    I’ll be praying for you.

    Not really believing in the Bible, Spirit of Prophecy, or other SDA beliefs is very common, not only from Dr. Taylor, but from many so-called “religious scholars” at LLU and La Sierra, as well as some at other places. You will find some of this actually broadcasted on LLBN TV. [edit]

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  11. John&#032J&#046: BobRyan: it is the decision of at least 2/3 of the Conference constituency

    Would you have the minutes reporting such? Um I dont belive it was a decision by delegates rather the conference acting in absence of a session. If it would come up/have room on the next agenda I have no idea.

    You said that 2/3 vote by the constituency could overturn the Administration. I merely point out that by not voting to overturn the Administration – they are in fact supporting it.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  12. Why do some people insist on bringing God down to their level of understanding. Some seem to believe that God is not capable of doing what He said He did. Trying to make the biblical record fit ones idea of science is actualy dishonoring our creator. If we don’t accept the bible as our only basis for faith and practice, we should join a different church.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  13. Deliss&#032Charo: You guys might be interested in this article published on ADvindicate:http://advindicate.com/?p=1172

    This is true and accurate. I contacted the State of California about this and received an two emails confirming this fact.

    T. Joe Willey, over on Spectrum, first noted this, as he has done some research into this. (He is, BTW, and LSU supporter).

    Shane and Sean–can we do some more research into this matter? La Sierra will not give any information, since I have already contacted them about this, and gotten no response.

    There are numerous buildings on the La Sierra campus which have recieved State funds, and according to the law, cannot be used for any religious teachings. How many buildings? Does anyone have an answer?

      (Quote)

    View Comment

Leave a Reply