David Read: So Mark Finley and Cliff Goldstein can fantasize …

Comment on GYC Q&A addresses universities who hire and protect evolutionists by Bob Pickle.

David Read: So Mark Finley and Cliff Goldstein can fantasize all they want to about these people having intellectual integrity, and resigning, but it is not going to happen.

Good point, David. However, dealing with the problem does require words as well as actions. And such rhetoric is extremely helpful in getting people’s attention and letting them know that the teachers involved lack intellectual integrity.

David Read: It took years of maneuvering and conspiring, under the guiding hand of Larry Geraty, to accomplish this, and you can be certain that they won’t just walk away.

Perhaps Larry Geraty could respond to your statement. I heard years ago from a denominational worker either that Larry did not believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis had actually happened, or that Larry believed that life had been on earth for millions of years, or both. There were two statements made by two different church workers at two different times, and one named Geraty and the other referred to a college president, as I recall it.

I wondered afterwards if that really was true why Larry was president of one of our colleges. His involvement with Spectrum certainly did nothing to dispel the possibility.

So it would be really helpful if Larry Geraty could come on here and make it crystal clear that he does believe that God created the world in 6 days about 6000 years ago, just like the Bible says, and that he does believe that God destroyed the world by a worldwide flood about 4350 years ago, just like the Bible says. And that he did not knowingly put professors in the LSU science department who he knew to be infidels.

Bob Pickle Also Commented

GYC Q&A addresses universities who hire and protect evolutionists

JohnB: Was Larry Garaty the president of AUC as well, or was that another Garaty?

That was the same Larry Geraty.


GYC Q&A addresses universities who hire and protect evolutionists
I posted the above after reading the above comments and before watching the video. Interesting how the evangelist Mark Finley had an easier time coming down firm than maybe some of the others regarding evolution.

I think that students who are taught evolution as fact in an Adventist school could and perhaps should seek a refund. Doing so would get attention.


GYC Q&A addresses universities who hire and protect evolutionists
Action is required, not just words.

At the same time we can praise the Lord that the General Conference is not a papacy which asserts control over every entity in the church. We don’t want that and can’t have that. The fewer you have in control the more easily, it seems, that Satan can get the whole movement off track by deceiving just those few.

Still, there is much that the brethren above can do even if they have limited control.

I seem to recall that when Uriah Smith allowed an article to be published in the Review about the law in Galatians being the ceremonial law, long after 1888, and thus resurrecting an old, dead controversy, leaders were in an uproar and threatened to cut ties with the Review. I seem to remember that particular threatening coming from Iowa. Can you imagine that kind of reaction today?

It used to be that our tithe-paid ministers were primarily evangelists. Evangelists tend to develop certain traits. They tell it like it is. They confront issues. They call people to decision, now. Otherwise, they don’t have results.

So how would a leader molded by years of front-line, pioneering evangelistic work deal with the current crisis?

But we’ve departed from using our ministers primarily in this way, a departure Ellen White counseled against. Nowadays our tithe-paid ministers serve sort of as head elders of our churches. And in doing this they have to quite naturally operate a bit differently. They have to keep people working together, not clawing at one another.

Of course, evangelists need to do that too among the church members aiding the effort, but the proportion of time spent on keeping people happy would be much less than a minister assigned to pastor a church in the way that elders used to do.

So, I think that today, because of the shift in the way we use our tithe-paid ministers, we have a greater tendency to develop leaders who are more tempted to be politicians than in the olden days. And succumbing to such temptations is not what we need at a time like this.


Recent Comments by Bob Pickle

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, you above state: “… a lack of a specific statement in the GC’s Working Policy that explicitly forbids the ordination of women as pastors. As far as I’m aware, such a statement simply doesn’t exist.”

Try BA 60 10 which states: “The world Church supports nondiscrimination in employment practices and policies and upholds the principle that both men and women, without regard to race and color, shall be given full and equal opportunity within the Church to develop the knowledge and skills needed for the building up of the Church. Positions of service and responsibility (except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry*) on all levels of church activity shall be open to all on the basis of the individual’s qualifications.”

The footnote makes clear that the exception regarding ordination to the gospel ministry is one of gender, not race or color.

Also, B 10 22: “All organizations and institutions throughout the world will recognize the authority of the General Conference Session as the highest authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church under God.” Here we have part of the Working Policy saying that there is no higher authority under God in the Adventist Church than the sessions that voted down WO in 1990, 1995, and 2015.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, in your update you write:

Sean Pitman:
“On the other hand, it also seem clear that on the issue of ordination, in particular, that the “final authority” has been given to the Union level of governance within the church (not to the level of the General Conference) to act as a buffer against too much centralized power within the church. …

“In any case, since honest confusion remains between many honest and sincere members as well as leaders of the church, ….

There certainly is honest confusion regarding this, but I can’t see how everyone is honestly confused.

1. Local churches decide who will be members and who will not, but local churches do not have the authority to make tests of fellowship. Thus the criteria for membership is decided by the world church, while that criteria is applied to individual cases by the local church.

Similarly, though unions decide who will be ordained, they don’t unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination.

2. If unions could unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination, there would have been no reason to bring the matter to the GC Sessions of 1990 and 1995. Particularly in 1995, it seems clear that church leaders understood that without GC division authorization, unions could not approve women for ordination, and that without GC Session authorization, GC divisions could not so authorize.

3. The first I remember hearing that unions could act on their own was after Dan Jackson’s open letter of, I think, Jan. 2012. Maybe we can find this idea being promulgated prior to that date in left-wing journals, but maybe not. Since there certainly has been discussion in some circles about getting rid of unions, it seems difficult to have simultaneous promotion of the idea that we need unions so that women can be ordained.

How it comes across to me is that some want their way no matter what, and are grasping at anything they can to justify their position. For those some, I don’t think the label “honest confusion” fits. Now if they can come up with some sort of historical documentation that local churches can unilaterally determine the criteria for church membership, or that unions can unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination, OK. But I have yet to see any such documentation.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference

Nic Samojluk: Some unions have slightly departed from the traditional manner in carrying the Gospel forward, and the church has reacted by producing a plethora of documents and wasted millions of dollars in order to forbid what is nowhere forbidden in Scripture. We would be wise, I believe, in stopping this nonsense.

Hi Nic.

Seems to me that disregarding a GC Session vote is essentially forbidden in Scripture. The issue Sean is highlighting here is not WO, but rather disregarding a GC Session vote.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
@Cindy Tutsch:

Cindy Tutsch:
I find the following citation thought provoking in light of current controversies:
“It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences.” EGW in 4 MR 292

Hi Cindy.

Would not this statement be talking about the GC rather than a GC Session?

In some discussions I’ve seen, it seems like some are applying counsel regarding the GC to a GC Session, which is understandable given that the names for each are almost identical. But the GC and a GC Session are quite different.

If the above quote were to be applied to a GC Session, that would be like saying that the decision of the council of Acts 15 was optional, and local churches, James, Paul, and the Judaizers could take it or leave it. That just doesn’t sound like what Acts 15 is all about.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
We have repeatedly been taught not to send tithe to offshoots, for good reason. If an entity decides to go against a GC Session vote, at what point does that entity cross a line and become an offshoot?

And if, wherever that line is, that line is crossed, why would an officer of a local church within that conference have to resign, if that local church also believes the local conference should adhere to that GC Session vote?

The situation would be different if there was a plain and clear Thus saith the Lord as justification for disregarding the GC Session vote, since the Bible is a higher authority than a GC Session.