LSU promotes acceptance of homosexuality but not creation

By Educate Truth Staff

One student got permission to write an article rebutting the church’s position on homosexuality, but Louie Bishop couldn’t get permission to distribute a letter to his classmates about the theory of evolution being promoted in the classrooms.

Current LSU student, Louie Bishop, published a letter in response to “LSU responds to Adventist Review article” on his website May 11, 2010. In his letter he states:

Because of my concern for the salvation of other students who could lose their faith because of the promotion of evolution in Biology classes at LSU, I wrote a personal note which I gave to about 20 of my fellow classmates.

For this alleged infraction I was disciplined by the so-called “Judicial Committee,” which does not appear to be an official committee of LSU. I was given a “Letter of Censure” for not having my note approved by LSU before I distributed it. I have since sought approval for distribution of my letter through the process that the Administration requested—my letter was denied.

Here is the letter Louie wrote to his fellow classmates that was denied distribution:

Page 52 of the Criterion

Contrast this with a recent article (Winter quarter 2010) published in the Criterion called “Homosexuality and the misinterpretation of the biblical text” by Ricky Kim. According to the La Sierra University website, Kim is a sophomore majoring in religious studies and pre-dentistry. On the title page there is a quote from Peter Gomes:

No credible case against homosexuality or homosexuals can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read Scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals … The “problem,” of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it…

The article begins with a little preamble about the legislation of Proposition 8 with a quote from Jeffrey S. Siker, editor of “Homosexuality in the Church,” and then states: “The purpose of this article then is to engage its readers within the ongoing discussion concerning homosexuality and the implication it has for us today by interpreting scripture within its original context.”

The article is broken up into three sections: “The Creation Story,” “The Levitical Holiness Code,” and “Sodom & Gomorra.”

The Creation Story

According to Kim, Genesis 1 and 2 do “not lead its readers to advocate the popular Christian notion that homosexuality is a byproduct of original sin.” He says the ancient “Israeli laws and traditions that governed marriage and sexual relations were never derived from the creation story….” He goes on to describe another purpose purposed by Victor Paul Furnish, author of “The Bible and Homosexuality.” Kim says Furnish “notes that the account found in Genesis 1 functioned primarily as an illustration to show how man was like and unlike God … that the Genesis account does not promote monogamy or the institutionalization of marriage.” Kim gives two quotations from Furnish to further bolster his assertion:

Old Testament heroes of the faith certainly did not model monogamy but rather followed the patterns of their culture, with multiple wives, concubines, and slaves as sexual partners. The Bible not only approves but appears to mandate such behavior.

Kim ends “The Creation Story” with this quotation from Furnish:

This notion that a model of monogamous, heterosexual marriage is somehow contained in Genesis 1 is simply not true. It appears to be an artificial construct designed to deny the rights of marriage to those who are homosexual.

The Levitical Holiness Code

This section addresses Lev. 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

To explain this verse, Kim turns to Dr. Robert Shores-Gross, “a former Jesuit priest,” to explain the “sexuality code that dominated ancient Mediterranean practices”:

It is a mistake to identify the modern concept of homosexuality as understood in the Bible… [For sex was] comprehended within the model of active/passive or inserter/insertee or what colloquial language terms top/bottom. Men in the ancient Greco-Roman world were catalogued according to their social status (and thus power). Free men or citizens were expected to play the insertive role in sex with either female or male. Sex is essentially penetration of a person of lesser status–whether it is a female, a lesser male, or a youth. Penetration establishes or expresses a superior status over the penetrated.

In summary, Kim says:

[T]he priests held the view that God created the world by bringing into order the chaos that was founded throughout the universe. The role of man then was to replicate this action of continuing stability by being the world’s caretakers … the context of Leviticus is not so much concerned about homosexuality as it is with compromising their understanding of gender relations.

Sodom & Gomorra

Kim says that Genesis 19:4-5 is not depicting the “lust for homosexual intercourse” if we understand the concept of rape in the ancient world. He further states that many biblical scholars agree that the story of Sodom and Gomorra and God’s divine judgments are not carried out against them because of homosexuality, “but rather because of the violent and hostile nature of the cities’ inhabitants towards others. Kim cites Daniel Heminiak, professor of psychology at the University of West Georgia, and Victor Furnish as his authorities.

Kim concludes his article with this:

Much of the assumptions and positions that we have come to hold in the 21st century concerning sexuality are vastly different from those shared by the inhabitants of the biblical world. Issues regarding sexual conduct arose not over the question of homosexuality but rather social justice and gender role. To utilize these passages as a weapon against certain individuals within our communities not only does a disservice to the biblical text, but also further marginalize others from experiencing inclusiveness. It is important for one to note what really upsets God–more than anything, are not issues of personal morality, sexual sin, or not worshipping on the proper day in the proper way, per se…what really grieves God is when we fail to take care of those around us who really need help and are lacking a sense of dignity and a healthy place in society. It is when we fail to take care of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, and the orphans that God reaches the point of breaking his composure and is very capable of unleashing wrath of biblical proportions (Isaiah 1:16-17, Ezekiel 16:49-51). In today’s context we, as Christians, often fail to take care of and include members in our communities and churches the gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders among us. It is time that we realign ourselves with the true essence of Christianity by manifesting the love and acceptance Christ has shown us to others

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

53 thoughts on “LSU promotes acceptance of homosexuality but not creation

  1. All comments made in reference to the biblical support for or against homosexuality will not be posted. The article above is only referenced to show the disparity between what LSU allows and does not allow to be distributed to students.




    0
    View Comment
  2. @Jonathan Taylor: I agree. Apparently their is more oversight on students passing out letters of concern to their classmates than what is published in the school paper for everyone to read. Perhaps Louie would have had more luck trying to publish it in the Criterion.




    0
    View Comment
  3. Let me see if I got this right.

    Its okay to challenge a Biblical position of the world-wide church in the student paper, so all the student body can read it – but, its not okay to hand out a letter in which you express Biblical concerns about a named professor or professors, who are challenging a Biblical position of the world-wide church.




    0
    View Comment
  4. Who specifically said he could not hand it out? What specific reason did they give? What kind of other flyers are seen on campus that did pass their muster?




    0
    View Comment
  5. What “disparity?!” LSU promotes liberal humanism, which “evolution as fact” and “homosexuality is good” are simply two major examples. LSU is, as we have all seen, promoting these ideas, which are opposite of what the Bible teaches. Why is LSU “getting away” with these practices? We all know why!




    0
    View Comment
  6. By the way – any update on the constituency meeting held last week at LSU? Apparently the participants were sworn to secrecy – but knowing the way the Adventist Church works, we’ll hear leaks and rumors until the final story comes out after the fact.




    0
    View Comment
  7. This situation seems like a possible candidate for “fighting fire with fire.” Perhaps Louie Bishop, or other students like him, can petition the University for approval to distribute portions of Ellen White and the Bible. This will show the university’s true colors faster than any other method. If the university refuses, this is a refusal of one’s freedom of speech and suppression of religion which would conflict with more than a few national laws. It would also clearly show that the University no longer regards these sacred writings.

    On the other hand, should the university grant its permission, Louie and/or others can freely send out some well-thought-out notes composed entirely of the approved materials (Bible and Ellen White), adding only their “Dear friend” and signature portions to the notes. If the university then claims the notes were not approved, they could only be seen for what they are–petty and hypocritical. If, on the other hand, the university makes no objection, the truth will have a venue for expression.

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  8. The drift to the radical left has been happening at La Sierra University for many years. When I was a theology student there in 1971 I had the distinction of being the only student ever to be kicked out of class for disagreeing with one of the main theologians during his class. To his credit, he later apologized to me because there really wasn’t a good reason for dismissing me other than I may have been winning a theological debate and I was giving a fairly conservative theological position which he resented.

    So intolerance among the so-called “tolerant university intelligentsia” is nothing new. This professor who will remain nameless for now has in later years been in the forefront of questioning and abandoning the six pillars of Adventism, and encouraging friendly positions on homosexuality and evolution. Under the cover of “theology”, psudo-spiritual concerns and “progressive” politics have taken over the steering wheel of university policy instead of any serious concern about what the Bible actually teaches. Fitting in with California cool is the main concern, not the fear of the Lord (Prov 1:7).

    During that same time we had a student-lead prayer group that got involved with the Jesus Movement and starting to pray on the lawn in front of La Sierra Hall during the noon lunch break. Many of us fasted and skipped our lunch in order to prayer for spiritual renewal within Adventism and at the La Sierra and Loma Linda campuses. While we had theology professors who were supportive, we also had professors who were not, and who seems embarrassed that students would be praying in public view during lunch break. We were also warned that there were concerns that we had become too friendly with charismatics on the beaches of Orange County and in Los Angeles County.

    Morris Venden, Pastor of La Sierra Church at the time, ended up preaching an entire series of sermons on the dangers of the Charismatic movement. While I ended up partially agreeing with some of these concerns, it was and still is amazing to me, that there was never an equal concern for the theology professors and students who felt no need for any further spiritual renewal beyond the status quo or concern for some of the very liberal theological ideas of some La Sierra faculty.

    I have often said that the warnings of Adventist leadership against possible fanaticism entering Adventism from right-wing religious groups like Charismatics and Dr. James Dobson reminds me of a bunch of Eskimos being worried about contracting Pago-Pago tropical fever in the middle of winter in their igloos in the Artic. It may be possible, but it is actually the exact opposite danger which we should be guarding against. It would seem that the winter of liberalism has finally engulfed LSU. While appropriate public policy and church politics are necessary, dirty politics are an abomination to God and should be to human beings as well.

    For years, certain conference leaders in California has been acquiring the fear of man above the fear of the Lord where certain vital issues of truth are concerned, and there are less and less leaders of biblical principle who will do what needs to be done. We don’t need a witch hunt, but without confession of wrongdoing and after due process of investigation, some leaders at LSU need to go. If LSU won’t properly discipline their own faculty, then the Conference and the SDA denomination need to be ready to divorce LSU in order to contain the theological and intellectual cancer. A faction in LSU administration and faculty is already looking for an excuse to divorce the SDA denomination. Like in any marriage, it takes two to be married, and only one to divorce. It remains to be seen if current Adventist leadership has the grit and guts to do the right thing if biblical grounds for a divorce from LSU indeed are uncovered. But I believe the Lord will rise up at least some voices and leadership that will stand for biblical truth and the six pillars. If LSU really wants a divorce, I say let them have one and let’s limit the lunacy to the rest of Adventism.




    0
    View Comment
  9. I wrote the school’s biology and religious studies professors about allowing my Genesis One presentation to be shown. Only one biology professor wrote back, refering my letter to others that could decide if they wanted to host the PowerPoint presentation.

    The school has refused to help clarify the confusion between what is written in Genesis, and what science has discovered. Rather than to host the one person in America that reveals the truth, the school chooses to advocate homosexuality and evolution.

    Herman Cummings
    ephraim7@aol.com




    0
    View Comment
  10. Shane, What are we waiting for? The Board will do nothing, and we all know it. More avoidance and closeting! Why? Because they are a major part of the problem.




    0
    View Comment
  11. E.J. Irish, I agree with you completely. The “dangers” at LSU and other SDA institutions are from secular humanism, which has invaded LSU and other SDA institutions and churches for decades. The “worship” of humanistic philosophy instead of God’s Truth.




    0
    View Comment
  12. It seems to me that the headline needs to be more accurate. There’s a difference between “promoting homosexuality” and “promoting acceptance of homosexuals.”




    0
    View Comment
  13. @Erik:
    What a great idea Erik- to have a LSU student hand out flyers quoting Mrs White’s staunch words against Evolution. That student will get censured, thereby showing the true nature of this beast.

    Here’s another idea – have a LSU submit a Bible based article on special creation with evidence from science. I would not hold my breath to see that published by the Criterion .




    0
    View Comment
  14. Sorry, but I can’t see that this really reflects a genuine change of heart at LSU or of the people who run it–all the way up the ladder to the Board of Trustees (and beyond?) who are, as I understand it, supposed to be the “Watch Dogs” who are mandated to see that this sort of thing does not happen in the first place.

    Where have they been during all these years? It appears the “engineers,” have been sleeping at the wheel for decades. I think a clean sweep all the way up to the top needs to take place starting with the upcoming GC in Atlanta. We simply cannot tolerate this trashing of the Bible if we expect to be the church that, with God’s help, ushers in the “Loud Cry” which will bring Jesus back to end all of this mess. We are called the Laodicean church for a good reason!

    “The Bible and the Bible alone” is to be our guide. And “science so called” should be discarded if it calls into question one iota of what the Bible says. Yes, these false theories should be discussed. We are not to remain ignorant of what the enemy of souls spews out BUT these things should ALWAYS be put in the proper framework of a “thus saith the Word of God” and NOT the other way around! And notions such as homosexuality should also be judged by a “thus saith the Lord!” I wonder that God has not “spued us out of his mouth” decades ago.

    Thankfully, we do still have some stalwarts among us who are willing to stand up for the truth in spite of the cost and God will bless them for it. Unfortunately these seem to be among the humble laity. WHERE ARE THE LEADERS in all of this??? However I guess we really shouldn’t be surprised. After all, it was David, a humble shepherd who slew the giant, Daniel and his three friends who shook up the mighty Babylon and humble fishermen chosen by Christ to spread His message around the world. The “leaders” of the Jews were totally rejected by Him. (Is this what will happen again in “Modern Israel?”) God will again raise up humble, dedicated people who come from obscurity to stand up for truth “though the heavens fall” that will usher in the final movements. (And, we are told, these “final movements” will be rapid ones!)

    As far as I can tell our independent ministries are doing a great job sounding the alarm across the world and I am sure we have many dedicated ministers, teachers and laypersons among us who are quietly doing what they can to spread God’s message where they are. God sees and will bless their work and we need to uphold and help them to the best of our abilities. But open heresy such as going on at LSU–and seems to be gaining a foothold in some of our other institutions –should be dealt with swiftly and thoroughly!

    May it happen soon!




    0
    View Comment
  15. Wow! LSU suppresses Louie’s note? What is that? We do have freedom of speech and expression in America and LSU wants to deny students that? I have much more freedom of expression at my secular school. Are these people Jesuit or what?




    0
    View Comment
  16. “It seems to me that the headline needs to be more accurate. There’s a difference between “promoting homosexuality” and “promoting acceptance of homosexuals.””

    Carl, I fear that many Christians fail to recognize this distinction. I find it sad that so many Christians hate homosexuals and give them the cold shoulder, when they are no more deserving of being shunned, ostracized and condemned than a tax collector named Zaccheus or a prostitute named Rahab..




    0
    View Comment
  17. Cover Page of Criterion Article p. 52:

    “No credible case against homosexuality or homosexuals can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read Scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals … The “problem,” of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it…”

    Carl says,

    It seems to me that the headline needs to be more accurate. There’s a difference between “promoting homosexuality” and “promoting acceptance of homosexuals.”

    What exactly would be the proposed difference between “promoting homosexuality” and “promoting acceptance of homosexuals?”

    God is not a respecter of persons! (Acts 10:34, 35) Thus as the verse says, He doesn’t accept anyone but those who in every land fear and work righteousness in Christ. We must be in Christ Jesus, not in the flesh having confessed and forsaken our sins. Those in Christ walk not in the lusts of the flesh but in the Spirit to be accepted with God. (2 Cor. 5:9, 10; Rom. 8:1; Eph. 1:6)

    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  18. Geanna: I agree that distinction must be made before moving any further. We must hate sin, not the sinner. And we must preach truth and not error. We must let the light shine and the darkness will flee.




    0
    View Comment
  19. Rich wrote: “He doesn’t accept anyone but those who in every land fear and work righteousness in Christ.”

    Jesus said: “Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” Furthermore “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” And “let he who is without sin throw the first stone.”

    There must be a lot of people at this website without sin. And I’m not being sarcastic.




    0
    View Comment
  20. “What exactly would be the proposed difference between “promoting homosexuality” and “promoting acceptance of homosexuals?” ”

    I think Saloman Mendoza said it clear enough. It’s the difference between hating the sin and loving the sinner. That’s EXACTLY it. How can anyone in Christ not see this?




    0
    View Comment
  21. @Geanna Dane:

    Rich wrote: “He doesn’t accept anyone but those who in every land fear and work righteousness in Christ.”

    Jesus said: “Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” Furthermore “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” And “let he who is without sin throw the first stone.”

    There must be a lot of people at this website without sin. And I’m not being sarcastic.

    This is why I think it very wise not to accuse anyone with differences in doctrinal understanding of “sin” or “evil” or any other sort of moral deficiency. Differences in understanding over a doctrinal issue, such as the literal creation week, are not inherently a matter of morality or of eternal life.

    Of course, just because one’s understanding of various doctrines doesn’t make a person good or bad, saved or lost, doesn’t mean that doctrines are not important. They are important. They have the power to provide a solid hope in the future and to make people’s lives better here and now. I think that such things are worth dying for, but not killing for. No one should be forced to understand such “truths” as I understand them. All should be free to accept or to leave such understandings behind of their own free will.

    That being said, an organization that seeks to promote certain doctrinal perspectives on these issues, as a unified body of believers, should also be free to only hire those representatives who actually hold to the same beliefs. No one should expect to get paid by any organization while going about doing their own thing independent of the organization which they are supposed to represent. The organization need not make any moral judgment in association with who it does and does not hire.

    This is simply an organizational issue… not a moral issue. After all, only God can rightly judge the heart when it comes to a clear understanding on these issues. We, as erring human beings, should not think to judge the heart or understanding of another on such doctrinal issues. We are called to share, not to force, these items of “Good News” with other people.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  22. Thank you, Sean, for clarifying the distinction between moral and organizational/doctrinal perspectives. SOme are quick to lose sight of these.




    0
    View Comment
  23. I agree that God loves homosexuals as He loves all sinners. But that’s not the issue. How does the above referenced Criterion article which begins by saying:

    “No credible case against homosexuality or homosexuals can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read Scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals … The “problem,” of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it…”

    not promote homosexuality but just promotes loving homosexuals?
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  24. Geanna says,

    Rich wrote: “He doesn’t accept anyone but those who in every land fear and work righteousness in Christ.”

    The above was a misquote. It should have been attributed to Peter in Acts 10:34, 35.

    Rich said,

    “(Acts 10:34, 35) Thus as the verse says, He doesn’t accept anyone but those who in every land fear and work righteousness in Christ.”

    The Bible says,

    “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.” Acts 10:34, 35

    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  25. Pastor Rich,

    We know what you wrote and we know what the Bible says. No one suggested you wrote anything other than what the Bible says. There could be no misquote.




    0
    View Comment
  26. Educate Truth, I apologize if I was off-topic.

    The question was posed that if in principle accepting a practitioner into good-standing membership or fellowship is different than promoting the practice. The answer is shown to be “no” in response to Carl’s post of May 22, 2010 according to the above texts.
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  27. Incidentally, along the same lines, accepting an evolutionist educator into teaching faculty is not different, but the same as, promoting evolution. The supposed logic that concludes inclusiveness and exclusiveness at once is inconsistent and self-refuting.
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  28. Rich, I don’t think you were off topic at all. The article describes the root cause of WHY this website is here–secular humanism infiltrating our SDA instutions and churches. The “promotion” of evolution as fact and “gay is good” are both related and show the deep-rooted problems well rooted at LSU and other SDA institutions.




    0
    View Comment
  29. By the way – any update on the constituency meeting held last week at LSU?Apparently the participants were sworn to secrecy – but knowing the way the Adventist Church works, we’ll hear leaks and rumors until the final story comes out after the fact.  

    I don’t understand why there is so much secrecy… if someone believes something, they shouldn’t hide it right? The fact that they are hiding it reveals that their view of the consequences of being open with it will be negative. Secrecy is supposed to be only used in terms of confidentiality. As a Seventh-day Adventist institution, our doctrines are never meant to be confidential.

    So my reasoning is this: even if you believe in evolution, stop trying to stay half-way in the creation science boat. It’s like being a vegan in public, but being a carnivore in secret.

    The thing that irks me most is that LSU faculty members refuse to be clear about their positions. It’s a simple matter of being for evolution or literal divine creation. Why can’t this SDA school take a simple stand upon an issue which has already been stood upon by its supporters since the beginning of the Adventist Church?

    Why doesn’t LSU come out with a public statement that addresses and explains their view on Creation?

    I start it for them:

    As a Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher learning, LSU believes the following concerning the Genesis account of creation:

    1) God created . . . . . . . . . .

    2) The time frame was . . . . . . . . . . . .

    3) We confirm that the Genesis account in chapter 1 is . . . . . . . . . .

    ——— I hope this helps LSU begin it’s long overdue process of official public clarification ———

    Cheng




    0
    View Comment
  30. It seems to me that the headline needs to be more accurate.There’s a difference between “promoting homosexuality” and “promoting acceptance of homosexuals.”  

    Very very good point.




    0
    View Comment
  31. Lydia,

    What makes the Bible sacred to you? Might it be the fact that its authors wrote about Jesus, gave prophecies, instruction, and other such present truth under the influence of the Holy Spirit? Might it not also be that some of its authors saw visions and spoke with angels?

    Which of the above does not fit Mrs. White? If John the Revelator had visions, quoted angels, and wrote scripture, what makes Mrs. White’s writings any different? Different angels? Different Holy Spirit? Or is she inferior because she was a woman?

    Unfortunately, those who espouse the theories of evolution will be all too happy to take sides against Mrs. White. She herself predicted that there would come a time when her writings were largely rejected, but that those who held fast to them would be preserved. If there was ever a time when we need her instructions for the guidance of our church, it is now.

    Mrs. White’s writings lead to the same Greater Light that the Bible leads us to–Jesus Christ. He is the “greater light of the Bible,” and Jesus Himself referred to this in John 5:39. (Compare also John 1:7,9.)

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  32. Hello all,

    I am back after an extended absence due to a research trip to many parish churches in the Philippines and the defense of my dissertation.

    I thought I might contribute something useful to this conversation.

    The article above is only referenced to show the disparity between what LSU allows and does not allow to be distributed to students.

    This quote is, unfortunately, an apples-to-oranges comparison. While on the surface, it appears that one student is allowed a platform for the expression of a controversial opinion while another is denied the opportunity, this is not the case. In the case of Ricky Kim’s article in the Criterion, the piece was submitted through proper channels, and edited and approved by the appropriate faculty or staff sponsors. In the case of Louie Bishop’s letter, it was not submitted and approved by the Office of Student Activities, which is responsible for reviewing and approving posters, flyers, etc. for general distribution. One can see any number of posters on the LSU campus with an “Approved by OSA” stamp. As a freshman at LSU in 1998, I had to submit my monthly newsletter (a conservative publication calling for a return to true Adventism, as I saw it then) for review and approval by the Office of Student Life, as OSA was then known.

    Regarding the actions of a Judicial Committee, this is likely (though I do not have intimate knowledge of its workings) an ad-hoc committee created when needed for a specific purpose, i.e. infractions of rules (as laid out in the Student Handbook; incidentally, the rules regarding distribution of leaflets, etc. is covered on p.57).

    In my opinion, the Criterion paper is the best forum for the distribution of Louie Bishop’s letter, and I would encourage him to further prepare and expand the manuscript for submission. That is the way we behave at an academic institution.

    Pax,

    David Kendall, PhD
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  33. Erik,

    Ellen White herself did not consider her writings to be on the same level as the Bible, which is what really concerns me when you refer to them both as sacred. Her writings are authoritative but the Bible is infallible.

    “The Spirit was not given- nor can it ever be bestowed- to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.” (The Great Controversy, Introduction, p.vii)

    The official SDA church’s position is that the Bible is elevated above Ellen White’s writings.

    “The Holy Scriptures stand alone, the unique standard by which her and all other writings must be judged and to which they must be subject.” (Seventh-day Adventists Believe, p.227)

    I understand that there are some who do believe Ellen White was infallible, and maybe that is where we differ, but there is a big difference between giving the Bible higher priority and “rejecting” Ellen White’s writings. However, I cannot call them holy.

    ~Lydia




    0
    View Comment
  34. Re:David Kendall Phd.

    “One can see” from reading the Student Handbook the specific disciplinary
    actions to be taken regarding the rules for distribution of leaflets. First, second, third, and fourth infractions, and escalating discipline for each are listed. The discipline applied was not even on the list disciplinary actions, and was a quantum escalation of discipline, and all for a first offense. Neither the ad-hoc commitee (Judicial) nor faculty members, such as you, seem to want to follow Student Handbook which you so easily promote. The Student Handbook is not just for the students only, the administration and faculty should also comply. Please encourage the adminstration, faculty, and students to read it and know it.




    0
    View Comment
  35. Re: MLB

    I am not personally familiar with the details of the disciplinary action or (as I stated) the intimate workings of University ad-hoc committees; as an adjunct professor, I do not sit on any of them. Neither are (I venture to assume) any commentators here familiar with those details, such as the possible number of infractions incurred, warnings given, if any, etc. The University is generally barred by law from releasing such information, so it appears that conjecture on this topic will not ultimately be fruitful.

    The point of the post (to which the statement regarding the committee was an aside) was to point out that the assertion that the University is inconsistent regarding student speech is not tenable. In my own classes, students are free and encouraged to speak up on topics that interest them, and even to challenge me on my own assumptions, provided the discussion is conducted in a respectful and non-disruptive manner. Again, this is how we behave at an academic institution like LSU. It was like that when I attended the University as an undergraduate, and this excellent state of affairs remains the standard today.

    Pax,

    David Kendall, PhD
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  36. I am a Chaplain aboard a US Navy Carrier. I believe that LSU and possibly Loma Linda has had professors teaching or “influencing” students for YEARS on theistic evolution. Back in 1994 while serving at a local parish in Florida, one of our members approached me very angry and disgusted that her daughter who was then attending LSU and worshipping at Loma Linda Church would abandon the belief of Creation for Theistic evolution. She could not believe that their hard earned money and sacrifice would cost them such spiritual grief. Her daughter finally left the SDA fellowship. She told her mother that the “Adventist” Sabbath is overrated and is not in step with how creation really happened. This is what she learned NOT only in LSU, but also attending Sabbath School at Loma Linda Church. I guess there was a university professor teaching Sabbath School that also believed in this STUFF.

    The issue at hand is very simple to unravel. Let your YES be YES, and your NO be NO.

    Dr. Wisbey – “Do YOU believe in the LITERAL 7-day creation story and flood story? YES or NO?
    Dr. Wisbey – “Does the university that you are responsible for teach the LITERAL 7-day creation story – flood story in your theological and science classes? YES or NO…

    SIMPLE!




    0
    View Comment
  37. James Rodriguez says:
    “I believe that LSU and possibly Loma Linda have had professors teaching or “influencing” students for YEARS on theistic evolution”.

    Chaplain Rodriguez, unfortunately your observation is true. I was a graduate student at Loma Linda in the late 80’s and my wife was a pre-nursing student at the La Sierra campus that time and she was exposed to this erroneous teaching. How sad that those of us who have been privileged to be educated in these institutions of higher learning are the ones who want to tear down the pillars of this church. Sometimes some of us have the mistaken notion that because we have a proliferation of degrees behind our names, means that our pronouncements should carry more weight than the infallible word of GOD, the Bible. Since the fall of man, we have struggled with many sins foremost amongst them is PRIDE. The LORD reminds us of our wretechted condition in Revelation 3:17, “Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:”

    It amazes me that people can read the plain word of Genesis chapter 1, and come out with this ridiculous interpretation that the days of creation were not literal days. But I take consolation from the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:3 “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them”. This is certainly the work of our arch-enemy. We do need a dose of humility and humble ourselves before GOD for him to use us. We are in desperate need of that child like faith that will simply take GOD at his word, for he is GOD and there is no other. There is no GOD besides him, he is the creator of all things and only he can recreate sinful man. Amen.




    0
    View Comment
  38. Michael I can just imagine what you and your wife must have experienced. For the absent church leaders, I am so sorry:

    I believe the LSU dilemma with evolution is just the TIP of the ICEBERG and illustrates what happens when the EMPLOYER at every level does not administer a faith-based test to its employees.

    I am in the military and EVERY time a Commanding Officer publishes a NEW order or wants to remind us of an order or instruction, everyone receives a “Page 13” (legal form) that requires you to sign your name. This is a binding legal form that can be used against you if you disobey. No one can claim that they did not know the order! At least twice or three times a year, we receive page 13 forms to sign. They do this to remind us and to let the higher ups know that everyone understands and is committed to the order.

    I remember back in the seminary speaking with some of our new candidates to the ministry who at that stage of their experience were already questioning our prophetic heritage, 2,300 day/year prophecy, pitting law and grace, etc. These pastors returned to their perspective conferences, at least the ones that I know that believed in another “message” are still working in our denomination. All these years! These pastors were ordained without a litmus test. No one to evaluate their message or lack therof, their counseling, or their commitment to their employer’s belief system.

    A person has the right to his/her belief, but if someone is going to accept employment from our institutions, they need to be TRANSPARENT with their belief system. There are folks in positions of influence receiving compensation from the sacrifices of common people who willingly give to the church and send their “jewels” to our schools (K-University) in order to ground these minds to the truth as WE know it and to possibly find an Adventist mate of similar beliefs.

    [edit]




    0
    View Comment
  39. Ellen White herself did not consider her writings to be on the same level as the Bible, which is what really concerns me when you refer to them both as sacred. Her writings are authoritative but the Bible is infallible.

    Lydia,

    You may be correct regarding Ellen White’s estimation of her own writings. She was humble. You imply that you don’t believe she was infallible. I agree. She was not infallible. However, let me ask you a few questions.

    1) Was Moses infallible? David? Saul/Paul? Peter?
    2) Do you think Paul considered his writings to be on the same level with scripture? How about his personal letters, like the ones to Timothy and Titus? Do you believe he considered them to be “holy scripture?”
    3) Do you think the scribes for the kings of Israel and Judah considered their historical record-keeping “scripture?”
    4) Do you believe something can only be called “scripture” if its author called it such?

    The Bible defines scripture. By the Bible’s definition, Mrs. White’s writings qualify.

    If only our church today would accept Mrs. White’s writings as God-inspired and authoritative, this entire website would not exist. LSU might not accept Ellen White’s writings as fully inspired, but if the church leaders, board leaders, conference, union, and division leaders would all have full confidence in Mrs. White’s writings, this matter might have been nipped in the bud long ago.

    Mrs. White is abundantly clear on the creation vs. evolution issue. It seems shameful to relegate her writings to a sub-scripture standard which makes it easier for others to “pick and choose” from them which points they will accept. The Bible says “ALL scripture” is inspired by God. We accept as scripture even Paul’s personal comments, where he explicitly stated that he spoke by permission and not by commandment…yet do we think we can draw lines in what Ellen White wrote and say “such and such was inspired, and this or that was not?”

    Regarding creation’s literal days, Ellen White specifically details for us that the message she gave was of God. For example, she says “I have been shown that without Bible history, geology can prove nothing.” Who showed her?

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  40. James Rodriguez says:
    “I believe that LSU and possibly Loma Linda have had professors teaching or “influencing” students for YEARS on theistic evolution”.

    Chaplain Rodriguez, unfortunately your observation is true. I was a graduate student at Loma Linda in the late 80’s and my wife was a pre-nursing student at the La Sierra campus that time and she was exposed to this erroneous teaching.

    You’re absolutely correct, James. However, it goes back even further. Dave Larsen (Religion Prof at LLU) was promoting his liberal, humanistic philosophy back in the 70’s when I was at LLU medical school. I don’t know when he started, but the problems we have at LSU, LLU, and other places go back many decades.




    0
    View Comment
  41. I am very glad you and the staff at EducateTruth have chosen the best way the church at large can be informed. Enough is enough. Elijah, Christ, Paul, and many other believers had to do the same thing and suffer ridicule and absurd insults.

    We have a saying we often quote in the Navy, “bad news does not get better with time.”

    Again, thanks.




    0
    View Comment
  42. I am very glad you (Dr. Stone and others) and the staff at EducateTruth have chosen the best way the church at large can be informed. Enough is enough. Elijah, Christ, Paul, and many other believers had to do the same thing and suffer ridicule and absurd insults.We have a saying we often quote in the Navy, “bad news does not get better with time.”Again, thanks.  (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
  43. I am very glad you and the staff at EducateTruth have chosen the best way the church at large can be informed. Enough is enough. Elijah, Christ, Paul, and many other believers had to do the same thing and suffer ridicule and absurd insults.We have a saying we often quote in the Navy, “bad news does not get better with time.”Again, thanks.  

    James, I agree that “enough is enough” but secular humanistic thought is well rooted out here in the Pacific Union Conference. It has many supporters, not only at LSU, but at LLU, PUC, and throughout the conference offices.

    The Central California Conference, with Jerry Page as President, however, does not seem to be following the worldly crowd. It has, so far, been an island of hope to many out here.




    0
    View Comment
  44. Erik,

    You make excellent points about the personal fallibility of each Bible writer, though I was really referring to infallibility of written work, not the person themselves.

    However, if one is in doubt regarding Mrs. White’s writings, would it not be better to simply look to the Bible as the only true authoritative writing? If God has shown you that her work is equal to the Bible, you should follow that. On the other hand, if God has not shown the same to someone else, I think it would be wrong for them to try to elevate it to that status. Your reasoning for believing as you do makes sense theoretically (and thanks so much for explaining), but for me personally it doesn’t ring true. Again, I am in no way saying that the things Ellen Write wrote weren’t important or correct, just that they are not to be viewed in the same light as the Bible, in my humble understanding.

    ~Lydia




    0
    View Comment
  45. Lydia,

    Do you believe the Bible authors’ writings to be infallible? If so, why? Because they are “scripture?” or because they were inspired by God?

    If Ellen White’s writings were inspired by the same Holy Spirit, wherein do they differ from those of the Bible?

    My concern is that you or others may be influenced to use Mrs. White’s writings in a manner inconsistent with their inspiration, i.e. “of private interpretation.” Placing Mrs. White’s writings upon a sub-scripture platform is the first step toward “higher criticism” of them, which leads to judgments such as those expressed right here on EducateTruth.com by our evolutionist friends that “well, on that point she was wrong.”

    Guess which point it was that these Adventist scholars had selected? One of those very important points upon which Mrs. White had described Creation as she had been shown by God. In other words, once we start picking and choosing what to believe, we will soon have no regard for God’s words. As Mrs. White herself said, those who reject her writings will eventually be led to reject those of the Bible.

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  46. Erik,

    If I place Ellen White’s writings on a sub-scriptural platform, I’m judging them according to the Bible, and there is certainly nothing dangerous about that. I can see that you are very adamant in your beliefs concerning Ellen White and I only hope that you have carefully considered these issues. Equating anything with Scripture is an extremely heavy claim, especially something that in several cases contradicts the Bible.

    God Bless You,
    Lydia




    0
    View Comment
  47. @David Kendall, PhD: @David Kendall, PhD:
    Re: David Kendall PhD

    Your assumption is incorrect and any conjecture was intiated by you in your comments about the Judicial Commitee and the Student Handbook. As you noted, it is page 57 that deals with distribution of leaflets ect., additionally, you were encouraged to read and know the appropriate discipline which is also there in the handbook. LSU did not follow its own handbook regarding its administered discipline. Upon being informed of approval process, the letter was submitted to the Office of Student Activities, it was not approved. It is conjecture to surmise otherwise.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.