NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science

In the January-February 2012 edition of the Reports of the National Center for Science Education a featured article was published concerning the evolution/creation controversy involving La Sierra University and the Seventh-day Adventist Church at large:
Adventist Education NCSE Reports

Please follow and like us:
1
262
37

338 thoughts on “NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science

  1. Eddie: First, although I know of some professors on my campus who have liberal views on various subjects, I don’t know for certain that any of them actually promote their views as “truth” to students. I have learned that some professors on my campus are theistic evolutionists, but none of them teach a course in which the subject is discussed in the classroom. …

    Second, professors who refuse to publicly condemn heretical colleagues shouldn’t be accused of “doing nothing.” Do you seriously think any student would respect a professor who publicly criticizes a colleague in the classroom or on a website?

    1. Your first paragraph describes a scenario where NO Theistic evolutionism at all is being promoted. If LSU was confined to that context – Professor Bradley could never have made the frank and honest statements to the contrary that he made to higherEducation on that subject.

    Furthermore – no student could have complained about blind-faith evolutionism promoted as if it were true and this whole website would not even exist.

    2. Your second point addresses the issue of the LSU scenario where professors are going behind parent’s backs – promoting theistic evolutionism “and proud of it”.
    But not so proud apparently as to want it known among the parents.

    You appear to argue that exposing those people would not be a respectable thing to do. Certainly I would agree that it is not politically correct – but is it really something we should not respect? Lets apply some critical thinking to that subject.

    I assume that as an SDA educator you are well informed on the famous – much published “no longer consent to listen” statements about Battle Creek.

    For years our physicians have been trained to think that they must not give expression to sentiments that differ from those of their chief. [Reference is here made to Dr. J. H. Kellogg, for many years the medical superintendent of the Battle Creek Sanitarium.—Compilers.] O that they had broken the yoke! O that they had called sin by its right name! Then they would not be regarded in the heavenly courts as men who, though bearing weighty responsibilities, have failed of speaking the truth in reproof of that which has been in disobedience to God’s Word. …

    My message to you is: No longer consent to listen without protest to the perversion of truth.

    Unmask the pretentious sophistries which, if received, will lead ministers and physicians and medical missionary workers to ignore the truth. Every one is now to stand on his guard. God calls upon men and women to take their stand under the blood-stained banner of Prince Emmanuel. I have been instructed to warn our people; for many are in danger of receiving theories and sophistries that undermine the foundation pillars of the faith. {1SM 196.2-196.4}

    Could this be spelled out any clearer than the above statement?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  2. Eddie: I have never once defended the promotion of theistic evolution… I believe such individuals should not be promoting such views in an SDA institution, and should resign or be fired if they insist on subverting SDA theology in the classroom…

    This site claims it promotes accountability for, I assume LSU and the church and its leadership, yet to who is this site accountable too? None~nota.

    It operates outside the church and the God given structure outlined in the book of Acts. It neither supports nor is accountable to that given structure. It has actually fostered opposition against said structure.




    0
    View Comment
  3. I forgot to add that Willey says the La Sierra Science Building was financed by state funds, making it illegal to teach anything “religious” in it. Does this help explain why “evolution as fact” is taught and not anything about Creationism?




    0
    View Comment
  4. Even though T. Joe Willey is a true SDA basher, he even admits La Sierra is practically a secular institution in his recent comments over on Adventist Today.

    He states La Sierra has borrowed millions of dollars from the state of California to fund buildings with the guarantee that NO RELIGIOUS teachings will go on in these buildings.

    He didn’t say if the building housing the Religion Department was one of them.




    0
    View Comment
  5. Certainly Randall Wisbey should be the first to be [asked to resign]. His incompetence at running an SDA institution in accordance to biblical principles is so obvious that only those already deeply ingrained in the secular system at La Sierra would think otherwise.




    0
    View Comment
  6. From the NCSE article:

    “LSU tried to pick between the two competing sets of compliance demands, with the result that the institution found itself in danger of having their carefully constructed pathway between the two come crashing down on them . . .”

    That’s rubbish. In fact, the liberal faction at LSU–most recently and most ham-handedly, Randal Wisbey–has actually been conspiring to use secular accreditation through WASC to separate LSU from the church. That isn’t my opinion; that is a fact.

    Perhaps the most ironic fact is that WASC hopes to re-organize LSU’s Board of Trustees to get rid of all the pastors who are ex-officio board members, but the strongest Adventists on the board were the three laywomen who Randal Wisbey arranged to kick off the board. I could pick a board of trustees composed entirely of non-Church employees who could fix the problems, whereas the union president and conference presidents on the board are clearly not up to the task.




    0
    View Comment
    • @David Read:

      Now, while I’m no fan of Pres. Wisbey, and while I agree that Wisbey has not been friendly to the SDA position on origins while president at LSU, I am not aware of the factual evidence that he was actually part of the conspiracy of the “four” who recorded themselves planning on how to separate LSU from the church.

      In short, where is this factual evidence that Wisbey, in particular, is trying to use WASC accreditation to separate LSU from the church? I would think that such evidence, if real, would be grounds for asking him to resign?

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
      • @Sean Pitman: Sean, the idea of using WASC to separate LSU from denominational control is an idea in the ether, in the public domain, so to speak. Wisbey certainly did not have to be part of the “four” to know about, well understand, and begin to implement the strategy they discussed. Everyone knows about it. I’ve seen it discussed on Spectrum by two or three different people. I certainly hope it is ground for firing, but we’ll probably see.




        0
        View Comment
  7. @Christina, Thank you for having “no part” of our concerns. It is people like you who are a major part if the problem. We will continue to do what is correct and right regarding these issues, while those who have no concern for our SDA Church do nothing.

    As regards the “smear campaign” Shane and Sean have presented the issues fairly, correctly, and truthfully. The proof of this is in the constant ad hominem attacks on them from Spectrum, Adventist Today and a few other sources. I encourage them and others to continue as long as we need.




    0
    View Comment
  8. Rev 14:12 (who will remain anonymous like me) asked

    Do you believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour periods?

    YES, DEFINITELY

    Do you believe in our Biblical 28 fundamental beliefs?

    YES, ALWAYS AND FOREVER

    Do you think that a parent of a college aged young adult should be able to send their child to an SDA college or university and be confident that the professors there (paid by the church) are going to help build the young person’s faith in God and the SDA church?

    YES, ABSOLUTELY

    I’m not defending any wrongs that might have been committed, as you wrongly assumed. I’m simply pointing out the gross violation of Christian principles and ethics in using the world wide web to publicly bully and punish others–behind their backs no less–especially when it makes Christians like you who claim to be representatives of the SDA church look so cold and calloused and judgmental.

    You, sir or madam, do not reflect the values and behavior of Jesus Christ or my beloved church. If you are an SDA employee, I suggest you resign your position since you are going against the stated policies of the church’s manual. Your behavior at this website is reprehensible. Have you no conscience?




    0
    View Comment
  9. Christina, I find it so interesting that people like you are so quick to wag your finger at the conservatives on ET about publicly confronting the EVIL at LSU and quote scripture about how to do it, while you ignore the same council you give. Perplexing!

    Do you believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour periods? [edit] Do you believe in our Biblical 28 fundamental beliefs? Do you think that a parent of a college aged young adult should be able to send their child to an SDA college or university and be confident that the professors there (paid by the church) are going to help build the young person’s faith in God and the SDA church?

    I would like to read your answers to these questions.




    0
    View Comment
  10. 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.”




    0
    View Comment
    • @A Servant:

      Exactly. That is also what you find in 1Corinthians 5. And so now in the case of what 3SG 90-91 calls the “worst form of infidelity” we see the problem that has festered for decades in darkness in the special case of LSU – being exposed to the light of day.

      in Christ,

      Bob




      0
      View Comment
  11. “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.”

    And who is “all?” Is any sin among us to be subject to public exposure and ridicule? To whom did Jesus say, “Let him who is without sin throw the first stone?”




    0
    View Comment
    • @Christina:

      There’s a difference between “ridicule” and pointing out serious errors of action by leaders within the church. I do not support or use personal ridicule or personal pejorative attacks. However, I most certainly do support the calling out of those paid representatives of the church who have long gone around openly and publicly attacking the primary goals and ideals of the church – despite the efforts of many to address these issues by numerous private appeals.

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  12. Eddie, Rhododendron and John J.,

    If I may submit, you guys (and gal?) are like flies trapped in a car, vainly beating your wings against the windshield.

    The simple reality is this: you are not going to change the way ET supporters think and write. It’s just not going to happen.

    You guys are right to suggest that open criticism of individuals on a podium in front of the entire world is morally and ethically deplorable. This website does indeed operate outside of the church. The church, in fact, will never, ever, ever, ever, ever embrace this form of influence or correction because it knows that this approach goes against everything Jesus Christ represented. There are appropriate ways of dealing with such issues, but the approach of this website will never be deemed appropriate by the elected church leaders. Never.

    The modus operandi of Educate Truth unquestionably contradicts the general PRINCIPLE of Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 6, which makes clear that issues of disagreement among church members should not be aired beyond the church, which inescapably brings disfavor upon the church. ET supporters here, beginning with Sean Pitman, insist that these chapters offer only POLICY, which does not apply to the situation they seek to address. But their view is fatally flawed and opposed by the official position of the SDA church, as set forth in the SDA Bible Commentary and in the SDA Church Manual.

    The PRINCIPLE of Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 6 cannot be dismissed: we are counseled to take up our differences privately, then within a small group, and finally within the church. Nowhere are we instructed to take our grievances before the entire world, and it is ludicrous to suggest that both Jesus and Ellen White did so. We are NOT to use tactics that employ public humiliation, which ultimately make the church look bad to people like Ken and others who are shocked at the lack of civility in so-called Christian discourse.

    The day the SDA church leadership officially embraces cyberbullying and cyberharassment as a means to an end will surely signify Bill Sorensen’s predicted demise of the church. Fortunately, we will never see that day. Ever. The church leadership will never stoop to such a deplorably low level. Never. Ever. And I praise God for the flawed but wise leaders we have in place today who refuse to endorse Educate Truth’s uncharitable tactics.

    Let the smear campaign resume. I want no part of it.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Christina:

      Christina: Eddie, Rhododendron and John J.,

      You guys are right to suggest that open criticism of individuals on a podium in front of the entire world is morally and ethically deplorable. … this approach goes against everything Jesus Christ represented. … the approach of this website will never be deemed appropriate …
      ET supporters here, beginning with Sean Pitman, insist that these chapters offer only POLICY…their view is fatally flawed and opposed by the official position of the SDA church

      The modus operandi of Educate Truth unquestionably contradicts the general PRINCIPLE of Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 6

      In 1Corinthians 5 we have the church openly rebuking a case of sin in the camp.

      In 1Cor 6 we see the instruction NOT to take fellow church members to court – the very thing that the now famous “three” at LSU are doing with their own church – the very thing that you and others do NOT complain about. And even more the promoters and supports of T.E. at LSU seek to manipulate the WASC against the church in support of their own agenda. A classic violation of the 1Corinthians 6 principle.

      And in the case of your post above – we see you publicly condemning fellow church members thus negating the apparent point you are trying to make (or at the very least demonstrating it to be insincere).

      As for public condemnation of an SDA teaching institution – I offer the case of Battle Creek – “Exhibit A” (as already posted here)

      in Christ,

      Bob




      0
      View Comment
    • @Christina:

      It is interesting to me that those who are most ardent in arguing that no disagreements within the church should be publicly aired or brought before the church body in general find themselves free to do the very same thing themselves – to publicly call me out, by name, as being responsible for grave wrongs and damage to the church. And, they do this without speaking to me privately about the issue or asking the church leadership to do so either (and usually without using one’s real name).

      Come on guys, at least be consistent in your interpretation of Matthew 18… and consider also that Matthew 18 is talking about private personal sins – not the issue of pastors and teachers openly attacking the church from within on the church’s dime. Such activity was publicly address by Mrs. White, the other founding fathers of the early SDA Church, the early Christian church (St. Paul minced no words in this regard), the reformed Christian church (as in Martin Luther’s 95 theses being publicly nailed to the castle church doors in Wittenberg) and even Jesus himself who used some of the strongest language in the Bible to publicly address those who were destroying the church of His day from within (Matthew 23:27, Matthew 23:33, John 8:42-44, etc)…

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  13. Sean and Shane are Adventist patriots and will be regarded as heros to the church for their bold and decisive action.

    I agree 100%! The proof we ARE making progress is the continual ad hominem attacks on Shane, Sean, and ET itself, from Spectrum, Adventist Today, and from usually anonymous poster here on ET.

    I fully support Shane and Sean and the amazing work they are doing!




    0
    View Comment
  14. Sean and Shane are Adventist patriots and will be regarded as heros to the church for their bold and decisive action.

    Funny. The majority of the church’s leaders (a number of whom have been vilified by Educate Truth) will never see it this way. Most would agree the 5-year-old bully on a playground is bold and decisive, but hardly representative of the church’s patriots.




    0
    View Comment
  15. @Christina, As numerous others have done, you use anonymity to hide your proclamations. What is your true identity? Are you afraid to reveal it? If so, why?




    0
    View Comment
  16. Christina,

    “…If you are an SDA employee, I suggest you resign your position since you are going against the stated policies of the church’s manual. Your behavior at this website is reprehensible. Have you no conscience?…”

    Do you have the same suggestion for the professors at LSU who teach contrary to our Fundamental Beliefs and cause our young people to lose faith in God and the Bible? Are you going to ally yourself with those that destroy the faith of young people?




    0
    View Comment
  17. Sean Pitman wrote “It is interesting to me that those who are most ardent in arguing that no disagreements within the church should be publicly aired or brought before the church body in general find themselves free to do the very same thing themselves – to publicly call me out, by name, as being responsible for grave wrongs and damage to the church. And, they do this without speaking to me privately about the issue or asking the church leadership to do so either (and usually without using one’s real name).

    Even a 5-year-old would recognize the moral distinction between someone who publicly engages in name-calling and bullying versus someone who defends the ones who called names and bullied. Yet Dr. Pitman, with his advanced degrees, chooses to obfuscate.

    Dr. Pitman wrote “Come on guys, at least be consistent in your interpretation of Matthew 18… and consider also that Matthew 18 is talking about private personal sins – not the issue of pastors and teachers openly attacking the church from within on the church’s dime. Such activity was publicly address by Mrs. White, the other founding fathers of the early SDA Church, and the early Christian Church, and even Jesus himself…

    So now Dr. Pitman conviently dismisses PRINCIPLE and proclaims innocence by declaring POLICY, much like on would expect of a 5-year-old name-calling bully. Where in scripture or in Ellen White’s writings does one see an attempt by Jesus or the prophetess to shame others publicly and behind their backs, in front of believers and unbelievers alike, to harm their reputations and enforce behavioral change?

    Hint: nowhere. Dr. Pitman obfuscates by drawing the wrong parallels.

    The official SDA leadership will never stoop to Educate Truth’s tactics, and all SDAs should be proud of that.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Christina:

      Even a 5-year-old would recognize the moral distinction between someone who publicly engages in name-calling and bullying versus someone who defends the ones who called names and bullied. Yet Dr. Pitman, with his advanced degrees, chooses to obfuscate.

      Where have I engaged in “name calling” against anyone? Please do reference where I have done so…

      What I see myself as having done is very much the same as what I’m sure you see yourself as doing – publicly defending those who have had no defense. I’m defending Adventist students and parents against the ardent and persistent attacks, by LSU professors of both science and religion, against the primary goals and ideals of the Adventist Church. I have no need for name calling or personal attacks. I’m simply presenting the facts as they really are and pointing out that this situation is not in line with the fundamental Adventist position on origins. I do this, yet again, in defense of those who have been defenseless for decades at LSU, who have had no voice, who have been overpowered and bullied by professors who hold their futures, their careers, in their hands.

      Through many years prior to making this issue public, I spoke directly at LSU trying to encourage changes to take place there. I wrote numerous letters to and had several phone and personal conversations with the leadership of LSU as well as with the leaders of the local conference, union, division, and even to the General Conference President about these issues – all without any effect. Finally, I saw no further option but to warn parents and students and the church body alike of what has been happening at LSU for decades. All deserve to know. There is simply no reason why our young people should not be defended against such strong internal attacks by some very public method – just as you see yourself doing here with your public attacks against what you see as some kind of grievous wrong.

      So now Dr. Pitman conviently dismisses PRINCIPLE and proclaims innocence by declaring POLICY, much like one would expect of a 5-year-old name-calling bully. Where in scripture or in Ellen White’s writings does one see an attempt by Jesus or the prophetess to shame others publicly and behind their backs, in front of believers and unbelievers alike, to harm their reputations and enforce behavioral change?

      Where have I done anything behind anyone’s back? As far as I know, I’ve been very upfront and open about what I’m doing and what my concerns are for our schools.

      Mrs. White was just as open and forthright over her concerns with the rebellious schools of her day, such as Battle Creek. She publicly warned parents not to send their children there. Regarding the education at Battle Creek she wrote, in no uncertain terms:

      I was shown that it is Satan’s purpose to prevent the attainment of the very object for which the college was established. Hindered by his devices, its managers reason after the manner of the world and copy its plans and imitate its customs. But in thus doing, they will not meet the mind of the Spirit of God. – EGW, 5T, p. 22-23

      And, as already noted, Jesus used very strong language, in public forum, to address the attacks on the church of his day from those leaders on the inside (Matthew 23:27, Matthew 23:33, John 8:42-44, etc)…

      Consider also the founding fathers of the early Christian church (St. Paul minced no words in this regard). The early church fathers publicly called out those who were attacking the church as a warning to all not to follow their advice or example. Along these lines consider also, yet again, the passages found in 1 Timothy 5:19-21 and Ephesians 5:11,12

      Also, consider the reformed Christian church and what the fathers of the Christian reformation called out in public as wrongs against the people of God (as in Martin Luther’s 95 theses being publicly nailed to the castle church doors in Wittenberg).

      The official SDA leadership will never stoop to Educate Truth’s tactics, and all SDAs should be proud of that.

      I happen to know that a number of the leaders of the SDA Church regularly refer to the information on this website and have used this information to act, in a positive manner, to address the problems at LSU that have long been swept entirely under the rug…

      While things may not be happening at the pace that many would like, positive things have happened and are happening which would never have happened without the impetus initiated by this website.

      Of course, if you know how things could/can be done better, I’m all ears…

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  18. John&#032J&#046: This site claims it promotes accountability for, I assume LSU and the church and its leadership, yet to who is this site accountable too? None~nota.

    It operates outside the church and the God given structure outlined in the book of Acts. It neither supports nor is accountable to that given structure. It has actually fostered opposition against said structure.

    John J., you bring up an interesting point. There are plenty of great self-supporting institutions that support our church. Consider Weimar, Young Disciples, etc. Educate Truth is another example of a self-supporting group. It is composed of loyal church members who are working to support and prevent the war on our our church’s beliefs.

    The paradox is that the destructive element is coming from within the church, from those that call themselves Seventh-day Adventists, but who don’t subscribe to the beliefs of the SDA Church, and want to tear down those beliefs.

    Sean and Shane are Adventist patriots and will be regarded as heros to the church for their bold and decisive action.




    0
    View Comment
  19. 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.




    0
    View Comment
  20. Bill&#032Sorensen:
    “Like or Dislike: 1–4″

    One up and four down, Holly. Looks like someone “judged” you.

    Bill Sorensen

    Bill, I’m used to being “judged” for my standing up for Truth! Better to be “judged” wanting by secular worldlings than by God when the Day of Judgement comes.




    0
    View Comment
  21. David&#032Read: In fact, the liberal faction at LSU–most recently and most ham-handedly, Randal Wisbey–has actually been conspiring to use secular accreditation through WASC to separate LSU from the church. That isn’t my opinion; that is a fact.

    Sean&#032Pitman: In short, where is this factual evidence that Wisbey, in particular, is trying to use WASC accreditation to separate LSU from the church?

    Eddie: “Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.” James 4:11

    Faith: So typical of the liberal agenda. The minute someone points out error, they are not supposed to judge. Poppycock! If no one “judged” anything we would all fall by the wayside. We are not to judge people’s souls–but by their fruits ye shall know them. That we can and should judge.

    It says in the Bible that we are to have nothing to do with a liar…doesn’t that mean we have to judge them to be a liar first? Hmmmm?

    Holly&#032Pham: So true. The liberals and progressives have their websites (AT and Spectrum) where they constantly tear down the SDA Church, Ellen White, Ted Wilson, Doug Batchelor, GYC, etc. and then state, most hypocritically, that we should’t “judge” thier beliefs.

    I always considered myself a conservative until I started reading what some of you revel in writing. I’ve never had any quibbles with any of the 28 fundamental beliefs, so my views of church doctrines are probably as conservative as any of yours, but I honestly don’t get why some of you are so eager to point fingers and cast stones. I can now understand better why some people get so turned off by religion. Seriously, folks, do you really think God approves of all of this?




    0
    View Comment
    • @Eddie:

      Forgive me Eddie for being a bit confused here, but isn’t a judgment against those who make judgements itself a judgement? Aren’t you also making negative judgments here? chastising those in public with whom you disagree?

      You see, it is very difficult to avoid making judgements of any kind. The very statement that judgments should not be made is itself a judgment.

      In short, one can still make general “judgments” as to what is right and wrong on a practical or even a moral level while refraining from making judgements regarding the state of another’s relationship or status before God.

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  22. &#060a&#032class&#061&#034bibly&#095reference&#034&#032rel&#061&#034Revelation&#032&#049&#052&#058&#049&#050&#034&#032title&#061&#034Read&#032Revelation&#032&#049&#052&#058&#049&#050&#034&#032href&#061&#034http&#058&#047&#047bib&#046ly&#047Re&#049&#052&#046&#049&#050&#034&#062Rev&#032&#049&#052&#058&#049&#050&#060&#047a&#062: If you sit back and watch a cancer eat at our system and do nothing, are you not at least partially guilty for not doing something? If an innocent young person attends one of our universities and loses their faith or eternal life and you know that professors and administrators are teaching or perpetuating error, are you not partially guilty because you knew and did nothing?

    First, although I know of some professors on my campus who have liberal views on various subjects, I don’t know for certain that any of them actually promote their views as “truth” to students. I have learned that some professors on my campus are theistic evolutionists, but none of them teach a course in which the subject is discussed in the classroom. I have privately quizzed students on my campus who take courses from professors who teach the subjects of creation and evolution, and am told to my satisfaction they get a fair treatment from both sides of the issue and that the professor is either biased toward creationism or, at worst, neutral (which, by the way, contradicts what some posters have asserted here at Educate Truth). If I knew that a professor was promoting theistic evolution in the classroom, I would wield whatever influence I could muster (which isn’t much) with the administration (but not in the classroom or on a website) to have the professor removed from teaching the course.

    Second, professors who refuse to publicly condemn heretical colleagues shouldn’t be accused of “doing nothing.” Do you seriously think any student would respect a professor who publicly criticizes a colleague in the classroom or on a website? I can think of many, many, many positive and better ways in which a professor can counteract the negative influences of a wayward colleague, such as being a concerned and trusted advisor, sharing the love of God in the classroom and in the office, praying with a student, encouraging students to maintain their faith, sharing evidence that bolsters their faith, etc. Young people respond better to positive reinforcement than negative reinforcement. And positive reinforcement should not be dismissed as “doing nothing.”

    Finally, I would like to know whether anybody here believes it is appropriate, ethical, professional and morally justifiable for a professor to publicly criticize another professor in the classroom or on a website.




    0
    View Comment
  23. “Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.” James 4:11




    0
    View Comment
    • @Eddie:

      Such passages in the Bible reminding us not to judge one another on a moral level, especially with regard to private “sins”, have nothing to do with making judgements regarding church order and government. The Bible is also quite clear in this regard – that those openly attacking or undermining the church, who will not listen to requests by the church for them to reconsider their subversive activity, should be removed from their positions of leadership and responsibility within the church (Matthew 18:17).

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  24. Rhododendron: Maybe you all should heed the advice of your prophetess Ellen White:”If a man makes a mistake in his interpretation of some portion of the Scripture, shall this cause diversity and disunion? God forbid. We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light. The church may pass resolution upon resolution to put down all disagreement of opinions, but we cannot force the mind and will, and thus root out disagreement.” (MR 11, 266)What do you think Sean?

    Please provide the entire letter or manuscript, so we may read the paragraph and the surrounding material and know what Ellen White was specifically speaking about.

    For example, if a Conference President one day happens to send out a memo stating, “I think the Sabbath is actually not important, and it is not necessary for pastors in my Conference to hold church services on Saturday”

    Do you think we should “do nothing” and simply let any “new idea” be allowed to be taught, preached, and endorsed?




    0
    View Comment
  25. Sterling:
    Well, Sean, I can’t think of a better method of cleansing the church of apostates than what you’re doing here…

    Your [comments] contained some truth, along with some false ideas, such as “shunning” members, which has never been mentioned as far as I can see.

    So what is your method? Please explain in detail what you would do. Instead of what you call “harass” and “intimidate” what methods would you substitute?

    Also, please tell us why you think your methods are better than those used by Shane, Sean and other members of ET.




    0
    View Comment
  26. Christina, you “signed out” but I hope you’re still reading this.

    I hope that you had the opportunity to tell your neighbor Paul Harvey’s “rest of the story” to go with the Educate Truth website and this thread.

    I hope you told him/her:

    1. The SDA church has 28 Fundamental beliefs.
    2. The SDA church has CHURCH-OWNED colleges and universities that employ professors who are CHURCH EMPLOYEES.
    3. Those professors sign contracts that ask them to support their employer, THE SDA CHURCH.
    4. Certain professors are teaching contrary to their employers Fundamental Beliefs.
    5. That these SUBVERSIVE activities have been going on for a long time.
    6. That the professors who have been responsible for this controversy have NOT convened conferences to publically declare their disagreement with church beliefs, but instead UNDERHANDEDLY targeted to the most vulnerable population of the church, our YOUNG PEOPLE.
    7. ADMINISTRATORS should have done their job and dealt with this as a part of their job, but they didn’t. They instead swept it under the rug, either out of cowardice, political correctness, or because they agreed with the rebellion.

    AND THE LAST
    8. Only AFTER all of the previous 7, loyal church members have done the last thing they can do, bring this out in the light of day.

    I believe that makes Sean and Shane heros for standing up for the truth.




    0
    View Comment
  27. For a moment, Christina sounded like a sincere, loving Christian who was concerned about ET’s approach to solving problems. Then she went and undid her “loving” persona. Why, if she thought that ET’s approach was a disgrace to her church, would she go and show it to a nonSDA? Why would she solicit the opinion of someone who I would think she would be hoping to influence to accept the SDA truths that she claims to love so much? It doesn’t compute.

    Sean and company, I encourage you to keep on in your role of “watchmen on the wall.” We need to know in what direction to guide our children, and if certain places promote anti-SDA beliefs, I want to know in order to avoid sending my children to those places. I’ve already lost one child to evolution theory, and would hate to lose any more through ignorance of what is going on in our schools.

    Thanks for sounding the alarm.




    0
    View Comment
  28. MiddleGround: There’s no question that the Educate Truth approach casts Adventism in the worst possible light. I have to agree with Christina that the Adventist church leadership will never officially condone this approach. In fact I’m surprised they have not officially condemned it.

    Just as they did in the case of Battle Creek???

    crickets..crickets…

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  29. Christina’s first post was ostensibly out of concern for how the effort to deal with apostasy at LSU would appear to non-SDAs and the need not to have the problem seen by those outside the SDA church.

    Christina: issues of disagreement among church members should not be aired beyond the church, which inescapably brings disfavor upon the church.

    Then we get this post which appears to cast doubt on the supposed point of genuine interest mentioned in her first post.

    Christina: On a whim, I showed this thread to a non-Adventist friend this afternoon, and asked what they thought once finished reading it. But before I got to that point, about 20 minutes later, I amused by the occasional remark and contorted faces.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  30. I have been following this forum for quite a long time now. I have not yet seen anyone who appeared to win an argument here.

    Time is so very short. It seems that hardly anyone on this forum recognizes the lateness of time. We are on the threshold of Jesus next coming.

    The world is now in the “time of trouble”. Some of us have not been directly hit by it yet. But look around the world and see the signs. In Europe there are “Sunday Laws”. In much of the world, there is starvation and decimation of populations by disease. We are seeing more frequent calamities and they are increasing in severity.

    NOW is the time to seal our relationship with HIM. Witness of this to everyone you can. Help them find a relationship with the Holy Spirit and He will lead them to the truth. Pray, Pray, and Pray.

    I wish you a blessed Sabbath day.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Charles:

      It is true that this is not the place to see an argument “won”. It is merely the place to find a good list of the details behind each side of the argument and then make up one’s own mind on the subject.

      in Christ,

      Bob




      0
      View Comment
  31. From this weeks SS lesson – (Sunday)

    “…if you believe the world began by chance, you most likely believe it will end that way, as well. This view doesn’t really leave much hope for those in between such a beginning and such and end, does it?”

    I love the song –
    “We have this hope that burns within our hearts…”




    0
    View Comment
    • @Charles:

      The author had a good focus on the damage done to Christianity if one tries to marry it to blind-faith evolutionism.

      Interestingly – Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and Meyers all appear to agree on that point as well.

      in Christ,

      Bob




      0
      View Comment
  32. BobRyan: “Ban them from online forums”?Is it your claim that SDA evolutionist professors teaching evolutionism in our schools are being banned from this forum?Is it possible that this is a valid charge to be made against EducateTruth?I have seen them invited to participate – but have not seen them banned.in Christ,Bob

    I agree Bob. I would like Sean and Shane to personally INVITE the professors to come online to discuss their viewpoint, in a public forum, for all to comment on and reply to.
    I would also like the leadership at La Sierra, La Sierra Board, the SECC, SCC,and the Pacific Union Conference to be invited to participate as well.




    0
    View Comment
  33. Sean and company, I encourage you to keep on in your role of “watchmen on the wall.” We need to know in what direction to guide our children, and if certain places promote anti-SDA beliefs, I want to know in order to avoid sending my children to those places.I’ve already lost one child to evolution theory, and would hate to lose any more through ignorance of what is going on in our schools.

    Thanks for sounding the alarm.

    I agree completely. When our leaders do not do their job as “Watchmen” we need others, like Shane and Sean to step up. If our leaders had been doing their job, none of this would have been necessary.




    0
    View Comment
  34. It seems to me that Sean completely misrepresents the complaints by Christina, Sterling and others. They are not objecting to the paycheck issue, which seems to be Sean’s incessant comeback to each complaint. They are objecting to a torched earth approach here that is clearly an inappropriate method of church discipline and order. The church should never conduct its busines of discipline and order through public proclamations, such as newspaper ads and billboards that denounce individuals and their convictions. There are more appropriate means for this, and you people should take seriously your divine obligation to protect the reputation of the church.

    There’s no question that the Educate Truth approach casts Adventism in the worst possible light. I have to agree with Christina that the Adventist church leadership will never officially condone this approach. In fact I’m surprised they have not officially condemned it. I imagine they have not done so out of fear of the way you people would go after them. Fear motivates. It’s the wrong motivation.

    I’m sure you people will click “dislike” and treat me as if I don’t believe in YEC (I do) and the requirement that Adventist faculty teach the Adventist position (I do). If you haven’t noticed, there are lot of individuals who agree with your position but disagree with your tactics, and you uncharitably treat them as the enemy, which they are not. They’re on you side with the key issue! You people should rethink what you write, for as Christina pointed out eloquently, others view your comments and criticisms as very unchristlike. And they most certainly are.

    Have a good sabbath.




    0
    View Comment
    • @MiddleGround:

      Again, I agree that the public confrontation of this website is not the most ideal method given any other more private method that would have actually worked. However, what else would you have done that has not already been tried to substantively address the long-standing and entrenched problem at LSU? I’d really like to hear some other reasonable approach to this problem that has not already been tried without any effect…

      I’m sorry, but you guys seem to me to be more concerned about the reputation of teachers and institutions than you seem to be over the undermining of the faith of the youth of our church or the very long standing and determined attacks on various fundamental goals and ideals of the SDA Church – the SDA position on origins in particular.

      Again, I ask you, why is it such a problem to publicly declare, in no uncertain terms, what parents and students can expect from our own schools? – especially given the great personal cost involved for most parents who send their children to our schools? Shouldn’t our primary concern be for them? How can such an effort to inform parents, students, and the church membership at large rationally be referred to as a “scorched earth policy”?

      If our schools cannot proudly and publicly proclaim the honest truth of what they are teaching our young people, we obviously have a real problem. I don’t think it is right for individuals or institutions to hide behind arguments for Adventist privacy over what we actually teach in our schools while they attack the very fundamentals of Adventism, on the Church’s dime, for decades. It’s time for this sort of thing to stop.

      If you have a better idea on how to get this done, I’m all ears…

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
      • @Sean Pitman:

        Sean&#032Pitman: However, what else would you have done that has not already been tried to substantively address the long-standing and entrenched problem at LSU? I’d really like to hear some other reasonable approach to this problem

        That is the question – often asked — never answered.

        Those arguing against this last-ditch method of addressing a problem that has festered many years beyond it’s time – appear to much prefer “more of the problem” rather than “a public solution” because in their eyes 3SG90-91 is dead wrong when it labels T.E. the worst form of infidelity.

        The Battle Creek solution eluded the politically correct timid administrivia of its time, and so also has LSU’s solution escaped leadership for many years. Now – just as in the case of Battle Creek – the solution has to go public – letting the church members themselves decide the matter by encouraging leaders to take bold decisive, effective action.

        in Christ,

        Bob




        0
        View Comment
  35. Sterling: Well, Sean, I can’t think of a better method of cleansing the church of apostates than what you’re doing here… ban them from all things SDA, including social events and online forums.

    “Ban them from online forums”?

    Is it your claim that SDA evolutionist professors teaching evolutionism in our schools are being banned from this forum?

    Is it possible that this is a valid charge to be made against EducateTruth?

    I have seen them invited to participate – but have not seen them banned.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  36. Well, Sean, I can’t think of a better method of cleansing the church of apostates than what you’re doing here. Identify them, describe their sins, harass and humiliate them until they eventually resign their jobs and withdraw their membership from the SDA Church–or, better yet, simply fire them from their jobs, excommunicate them from church membership, and ban them from all things SDA, including social events and online forums. After all, they’re way too proud and stubborn to ever listen to those of us who are striving to purify the church. Like Holly says, it just doesn’t do any good. We don’t want them to ever corrupt our children again, so we should learn a lesson from the Jehovah’s Witnesses: don’t socialize with or even talk to them. Like James Dobson always says, love must be tough! And who cares what any non-SDAs think about us? We’re the remnant! We’re the ones who are going to be saved, not them!




    0
    View Comment
    • @Sterling:

      As I’ve explained many times before, the maintenance of church order and government (i.e., only hiring those paid representatives who will actually represent what they are being paid to represent) has nothing to do with salvation.

      These are not moral judgments. These are practical judgments regarding the maintenance of church order and government. One does not have to be SDA to be saved you know. However, one does need to be SDA to be an effective leader or paid representative of the SDA Church.

      If you don’t believe in the SDA message, that Ok, just don’t expect to get a paycheck from the SDA Church while you go about undermining the basic goals and ideals of the church. Try working for an employer who has goals and ideals more in line with your own.

      Also, no one is arguing for the exclusion of anyone from basic attendance and worship with us in our churches. Anyone who actually wants to fellowship with us is welcome. Many of my best friends are not members of the SDA Church, a number are even agnostic and a few are pretty ardent atheists. Yet, we get along just fine and occasionally these same friends of mine come to my church with me to support something I’m doing.

      You see, the problem here isn’t over basic socialization or diversity in worship. The problem is over paid representatives of our church attacking the church on the church’s dime. That’s the main issue here. No organization of any kind can long tolerate such subversive activity coming from within…

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  37. &#060a&#032class&#061&#034bibly&#095reference&#034&#032title&#061&#034Read&#032Revelation&#032&#049&#052&#058&#049&#050&#034&#032href&#061&#034http&#058&#047&#047bib&#046ly&#047Re&#049&#052&#046&#049&#050&#034&#032rel&#061&#034Revelation&#032&#049&#052&#058&#049&#050&#034&#062Rev&#032&#049&#052&#058&#049&#050&#060&#047a&#062:
    Christina, you “signed out” but I hope you’re still reading this.

    I hope that you had the opportunity to tell your neighbor Paul Harvey’s “rest of the story” to go with the Educate Truth website and this thread…

    A great summary of the problem, as we have discussed over the past several years. But, where are we now? Stuck with the same old system. And the same will go on until more proactive measures are taken.

    We need more [who] are not afraid to speak up, in contrast to the vast majority of SDA’s. I pray we will have more of these people participate on this website and in their local churches, Conferences, etc.




    0
    View Comment
  38. Sterling: Like Christina, I too accept all fundamental SDA beliefs. But Eddie, Christina and others are wise not to reveal their true identity, for if they did there is little doubt, based on the past, that their reputations would be tarnished here at ET.

    Please tell me how your reputation would be tarnished. For standing up for God’s Word? For standing against secular, non-biclical ideas?

    If that represents being tarnished, I WANT to be tarnished!




    0
    View Comment
  39. On a whim, I showed this thread to a non-Adventist friend this afternoon, and asked what they thought once finished reading it. But before I got to that point, about 20 minutes later, I amused by the occasional remark and contorted faces. I heard statements like “What’s La Sierra University” (which I had to clarify) and “Oh my God” (repeatedly), and there was some pronounced head-shaking.

    When finished, my friend said, “Do these people call themselves Christians?” I asked which ones. She said the ones that were attacking La Sierra University and defending the right to say anything they felt inclined to about other Christians. I nodded, and said, “oh yes, most definitely.” She just looked at me and said, “You’re a Seventh-day Adventist, aren’t you?” I said yes. She then shook her head and said, with a very concerned look on her face, “seriously, you’re in the wrong religion. Who would ever join such a church?”

    We then had a lengthy conversation. By the end, I think it’s possible she would sit down at an Adventist church, but I’m not so certain. You guys created quite the impression! Keep up God’s magnificent work on the web, EducateTruthers!

    By the way, I’m no heretic. I’ve voiced my concerns privately to Sean Pitman previously, as have many others. You folks misjudged and mischaracterized someone once again. Congratulations on your gracious, Christ-filled spirit and humility. I’ll sign off once and for all and let you folks continue to abuse me and others with your sword of truth. You’ll have your reward one day.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Christina:

      I actually agree with you on one level. I most certainly agree that a public forum is not the most ideal place to air any form of the church’s dirty laundry. However, at some point for certain important issues one is left with little choice but to use less than ideal methods to address very important issues within the church. For example, I’m sure Martin Luther wished there were some less public way to effectively address the significant problems of the church of his day rather than to nail his 95 Theses to the most public forum available – the front door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg. Likewise, I very much wish there were some much more private and inconspicuous way to effectively address the active and long-standing attack on the church from within one of our own universities. Unfortunately, I was unable to think of any other way (which had not already been tried).

      If you know of another way, by all means do share it with me…

      You’ll have your reward one day.

      You certainly sound gracious and Christlike to me šŸ˜‰

      How about at least giving me the benefit of the doubt as far as my motive and possible ignorance is concerned before passing moral judgment? How about at least pardoning me as far as Jesus did when He said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”? – Luke 23:34

      But, perhaps, I’m beyond all hope? My doom is sealed? – for trying to protect Adventist young people in our own schools from the unending attacks on Adventism from within – from our own hired professors?

      Oh, and by the way, while I get many anonymous E-mails and even hand written letters on occasion (which I do not read unless they are signed) I’ve only been privately contacted by a handful of individuals who’ve identified themselves and who’ve expressed concerns about the effect of this website. As far as the one’s who’ve actually identified themselves, all have been male (as far as I recall). So, I assume your private message must have been anonymous?

      Also, you should know as well as anyone (and should explain to your friend in case she is not aware) that public comments to the articles posted to any discussion website like this do not necessarily represent the perspective and/or goals of the managers/owners of this website. The attitudes of many commenters certainly do not reflect my own positions or attitudes. What then should I do? – block all comments with which I personally disagree? – including yours?

      Also, you’ve failed to respond to my most sincere question as to how the issue at LSU should have been dealt with? How would you have dealt with the problem? What, specifically, would you have done? I’m really interested in any useful advice along these lines…

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  40. Holly&#032Pham: The facts remain that Shane, Sean, and many others such as myself believe it IS our duty to warn others, which may include conference officials, of what they believe are issues that are undermining our SDA Church. This is what Pastor Harold White did at the Sacramento Central SDA Church. This is what Doug Batchelor did two years ago.

    I have two questions:

    1. Did Pastors White and Batchelor actually post the names and sins of others on a website? If so, please provide the website address so I can see it for myself.

    2. If a student (think of your child) at a SDA institution is caught cheating on a homework assignment, or smoking a cigarette, or drinking alcohol, should the student’s name and sin be posted on the institution’s website so that parents and students will be better informed about what is happening at the institution? If not, why not?




    0
    View Comment
  41. “2. If a student (think of your child) at a SDA institution is caught cheating on a homework assignment, or smoking a cigarette, or drinking alcohol, should the student’s name and sin be posted on the institution’s website so that parents and students will be better informed about what is happening at the institution? If not, why not?”

    Eddie, there is a whole lot of difference between young people who are immature and still growing spiritually and emotionally, and professors who are leaders, teachers, and mentors. Like it or not, leaders are held to a little higher standard than students. Young people should want to go to our schools because they want to follow our principles. If they are rebellious and thumb their nose at our rules, then they should be dismissed. If they are accepting of correction and change their ways, that’s growth and maturing, and what we want.

    Leaders and professors, who are mature, and who sign contracts and agree to support their employer are a whole different situation and should be outed for the evil that they do. In private industry employees that work against their company are fired, and even prosecuted.

    Don’t tell me that Dr. Bradley and his associates in the Biology Department didn’t know what they were doing. And don’t tell me that Dr. Guy and his associates in the Religion Department don’t know what they are doing supporting gay marriage against our church’s beliefs.

    The only reason this has happened is because the conservatives of our church have been asleep while the fox got into the henhouse. WE ARE AWAKE NOW. And we are not going to let our beloved church be trashed any longer.




    0
    View Comment
  42. Hi Charles

    Thanks for your fulsome reply, which I respect.

    It will be interesting to follow the enforced Sunday law issue, as I understand this is one of the Adventist prophetic signs of end times.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  43. The entire article has that particular sneering quality so familiar to anyone who has spent much time around certain Adventist universities. What a pathetic man– he obviously despised his own University for much of his career. All he wants at this stage is to be viewed as one of the clever people; as if anyone cared. Ironically, even as he attempted to caricature Ellen White; I found myself admiring her independence and insight. If only Adventists had the courage to stick with their Truths to the end. Honest secular readers will not be impressed.




    0
    View Comment
  44. Why do accrediting bodies have the right to force religious universities to teach what they demand they teach? Is it not a violation of religious freedom to demand that evolution exist as the only exclusive worldview? Why have we given scientists the role of Papel See?




    0
    View Comment
    • @Shayne: Shayne, that’s a good question. And the answer is, WASC is really on very thin ice demanding that a sectarian school teach against the beliefs of its denominational sponsor. And I think they understand that. La Sierra would be a very sympathetic plaintiff if it filed a lawsuit against WASC on First Amendment freedom of religion grounds, complaining to the court, “hey, WASC is abridging our freedom of religion and freedom of association rights.”

      So WASC is not trying to directly dictate on the level of teaching. The approach WASC is taking is a more oblique, indirect approach of “institutional autonomy,” meaning that they are saying that university must have certain freedom to operate regardless of denominational affiliation. So they are demanding changes in the make up of the Board of Trustees. The goal is the same: to allow the college, with the complete support of Randal Wisbey, to continue to teach Darwinism without having to answer to a Board of Trustees that might be sympathetic to traditional Adventist beliefs.

      Our colleges (with a few exceptions) are affiliated with the denomination at the union level, and the union conference presidents are ex-officio chairmen of the boards of the colleges. (So Ricardo Graham, by virtue of being president of the Pacific Union, is chairman of the Board of Trustees of La Sierra.) The conference presidents of the constituent conferences of a union are also on the board of a union’s college. Thus, church employees form the core of the boards of all our colleges, effectively giving control of the institutions to the church.

      Now, this is what WASC is saying is inappropriate; they want to change the structure of the board to have fewer church employees and more independent directors, which they are arguing will give the University more operational autonomy. (Unfortunately, Ricardo Graham made something of a misstep by directly forcing the “LSU Four” to resign. He should have gone through proper channels, and insisted that Wisbey do that. If Wisbey would not fire the four, Graham should have used his political skills to get a majority on the Board of Trustees to agree to fire Wisbey. The way Graham did it, going around Wisbey, just gave a nice lever to Wisbey and WASC to make the charge that La Sierra does not have enough autonomy, and the board must be changed.)

      Now, think about what happens if Wisbey and WASC are successful in forcing a change to the composition of La Sierra’s Board of Trustees: a precedent has been set, a blueprint has been drawn up for how to separate all of the Adventist colleges from denominational control. This is a very high stakes game; it is winner take all, all of SDA post-secondary education. I wonder if people realize how high the stakes really are.

      Now, I do not want to be too hard on our church leaders. The situation that we’re facing at La Sierra (and will face again and again and again in coming years) is greatly complicated by the fact that the Adventist church is now composed of constituencies at cross purposes. There’s a large constituency of non-believing, cultural Adventists who WANT Darwinism taught at La Sierra. That’s what they believe, and they claim to be Adventists, so why shouldn’t it be taught at an Adventist university? This constituency probably preponderates in the Pacific Union, which is why we have the situation we do at La Sierra. On the other hand, the larger church is still literal-week creationist, and we probably still preponderate in North America, and we don’t want Darwinism taught as truth in Adventist institution. So the leadership is being torn apart from two directions. I pity them.




      0
      View Comment
      • To my knowledge no one has done a survey here but perhaps the value- genesis would give us an indication. It at least shows what our k-12 kids are thinking. Does anyone have that available?

        -Shining




        0
        View Comment
  45. Isn’t it interesting how, in this article, the church is illustrated as “cultish” by saying that our children are kept and taught from birth through university in sabbath school, VBS, etc. and then he says that only 50% are accepted into schools of higher learning. He doesn’t mention anything about the choice each one has to stay or go. I don’t know if T. Joe Willey is an Adventist or not (from Art Chadwicks comment it appears he is/was), but just knowing that he graduated from UC Berkeley says a lot.

    I am reminded of a statement that says “Science that is not in harmony with Him is of no value. He teaches us to count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus or Lord. This knowledge is the highest science that any man can reach.” BC vol. 6, p 1068

    I too, hope with Sean that it will inspire our leadership to do something, even if it is to cut our losses (meaning LSU and any others) and move on. “As is was in the days of Noah, so shall it be….”




    0
    View Comment
  46. Christina:
    Sean and Shane are Adventist patriots and will be regarded as heros to the church for their bold and decisive action.

    Funny. The majority of the church’s leaders (a number of whom have been vilified by Educate Truth) will never see it this way. Most would agree the 5-year-old bully on a playground is bold and decisive, but hardly representative of the church’s patriots.

    So, how many church leaders have you polled to get your results? My guess is not any or very many. Please submit your data, so that we may analyze and verify your conclusion.

    I have personally spoken to a number of “Church leaders” including pastors and evangelists. They all said they supported ET, and many read it on a relatively regular basis to see what’s going on.




    0
    View Comment
  47. Re Bill’s Quote

    “But we must all remember, just because we think we are right, does not make it so.”

    Hi Bill

    Bravo my friend. There is nothing wrong with holding strongly convicted positions as long one recognizes one could be dead wrong. The trick is to treat those who hold opposite viewpoints with compassion, tolerance, and, might I venture, Christian charity.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  48. Holly&#032Pham: What is your true identity? Are you afraid to reveal it? If so, why?

    Like Christina, I too accept all fundamental SDA beliefs. But Eddie, Christina and others are wise not to reveal their true identity, for if they did there is little doubt, based on the past, that their reputations would be tarnished here at ET.




    0
    View Comment
  49. Christina,

    Both sides think they are right in the methods being used to deal with the problem. But we must all remember, just because we think we are right, does not make it so.

    So, neither yourself and those who agree with you are necessarily right in your evaluation. Neither does it prove true for the other side.

    One think we do know for certain, nothing was being done substancially to correct the problem until some people like Shane and Sean exposed the problem to the church community in general.

    So, you are free to use any method you think will bring results. Some of us think the methods now being used here on this forum will have the best chance to see any substancial action to correct the problem.

    And it may well be that the problem is now so intense, there is no method, period, that will bring any viable results in harmony with the traditional SDA position on creation. And this applies to several other fundamental SDA bible doctrines.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
    • @Sterling:

      Sterling:
      I seriously doubt a vice president of the GC, the president of SAU and a former president of PUC would agree with you.

      The president of SAU may not be entirely inline with either the GC 2010 vote on FB #6 rewrite or the direction of this web site – that is a given.

      The GC has many Vice Presidents and the fact that one of them might differ with the views of this web site is not as shocking as some might imagine. Division on this subject goes to the GC level. That is a given.

      The past presidents of PUC include pro-theistic-evolutionists – how difficult is it to imagine that one of them might differ with some of the views on this web site?

      We have stated many times that elements arguing for and defending T.E. include not only the T.E’s themselves – but also creationists who reject the 3SG90-91 view that this is the worst form of infidelity and that action should be taken to stop it from being established inside Church teaching institutions.

      in Christ,

      Bob




      0
      View Comment
  50. @ A Servant, Well stated! Indeed, the FIRST step should be direct, private conversation. I can tell you from personal experience that it usually does not work, and as you stated, further methods must be employed, as Shane, Sean, and the many here have recognized and done.




    0
    View Comment
  51. Shayne:
    Why do accrediting bodies have the right to force religious universities to teach what they demand they teach? Is it not a violation of religious freedom to demand that evolution exist as the only exclusive worldview? Why have we given scientists the role of Papel See?

    La Sierra is under no demand to teach “evolution as fact” as many other colleges and universities, SDA and non-SDA teach “about evolution” but do not teach it as factual. La Sierra WANTS to teach evolution as fact, and will do anything it can to keep on keeping on teaching it!




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.