1 Timothy 5:19-21 is appropriate here (emphasis addded): “Do not receive …

Comment on NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science by A Servant.

1 Timothy 5:19-21 is appropriate here (emphasis addded):

“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.”

So is Ephesians 5:11,12:

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.”

A Servant Also Commented

NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science
Good evening Christina,

Since we do not know each other, and (as far as I know, have never met), I would like to believe that there is an underlying sincerity in your concern. You do raise an important question. When should wrongs be pointed out publicly, and when should they be addressed privately?

It seems to me that this question is well answered in the first verse of Scripture I shared. The replying post only quoted one verse, but I posted three verses in order to show the context.

Here is the first part of what I posted before:
——————————————-
1 Timothy 5:19-21 is appropriate here (emphasis addded):

“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.”
——————————————-

The passage clearly says that we should not pay attention to criticisms of church leaders, with the exception that we should if two or three witnesses attest to the wrong. The following verse relates directly to the previous one; ***leaders who are at fault*** ought to be rebuked before all, in public, so that those who followed these leaders will not follow them to do wrong things.

I personally could present more than two or three witnesses to the major facts that Sean and company express concern about; thus, it is appropriate for concern to be publicly expressed.

In addition, Jesus followed this principle when He publicly rebuked Peter for unwittingly attempting to dissuade Him from His mission:

“But He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men'” (Matthew 16:23).

“But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men'”(Mark 8:33).

Incidentally, let’s assume that Matthew 18 did apply here. Remember that private confrontation is only the first step of Matthew 18. I have first-hand knowledge that this first step has been taken *many* times over the last 10 years with LSU administrators. Read the ANN archives if you find this hard to believe. The second step is to take others with you to help solve the problem. This too has already been done. Now we are at the third step, in which case the matter must be told to the church. My observation is that Sean’s conduct in operating the website is fully consistent with phase 3 of Matthew 18, telling this problem to the church, where we currently are in the process. If the first phase and second phase are OK, is there something wrong with the third phase?

I’d sincerely like to hear your prayerful response.


Recent Comments by A Servant

Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, there are a lot more people that read your site and agree, although they do not comment because they may not be able precisely to articulate a defense against the attacks made on those who speak.


Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
@pauluc:
No, Paul, you are again mistaken. Sean’s position is completely intellectually sound. It just rests on different presuppositions than yours. After years of thorough investigation, I hold the same position as Sean, that any faith tradition that is to influence our behavior in the real world needs to be supported by real-world falsifiable evidence.

Your position seems to rests on the assumption that we believe God without a reason to do so. But you have never given a clear answer to why we should believe in God versus Krishna, tree spirits, or gurus. Do you have a direct answer to this? You evade this question every time Sean or someone else asks it. Worshippers of Krishna or tree spirits have faith, too.


Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
@A Servant:

Hi Dr. Rosenhouse! I have been watching for your reply, but have seen none. It makes it hard for me to favor your arguments if you don’t have a good response to the counterarguments Pitman has presentet. I would still enjoy hearing your reply to Pitman’s specific points in this article.


Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
Hi Dr. Rosenhouse,

I am a graduate student and frequent visitor to this site, and am pleased to see your comment to his article. I appreciate what I sense is a collegial approach on your part to a sensitive topic.

I have independently arrived at similar conclusions as Dr. Pitman has, and am wondering if you have any experimental data with which to counter the argument he presents in this article. I am open-minded to arguments from both sides, and would give your thoughts fair consideration if you wish to share further. Thanks for considering this!


The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
@Pauluc: As a Seventh-day Adventist graduate student, I would be happy to have a teacher like Dr. Pitman in my program. As can be seen by his reply, he is by no means the first Adventist leader to suggest that the earth existed for a long period before the creation of life. If you have any objective dispute or material counterarguments to what he presented in his reply to you, I’d like to hear them. I’m open-minded, but I find that he has made a strong logical case for his position.

At this time, I would respectfully suggest that Dr. Pitman’s teaching far better represents traditional Adventist views than the teaching of many of the biology faculty at La Sierra. This should come as no surprise to long-time readers of this website.