Adventist Review defends its article

Source: Adventist Review

BY BILL KNOTT, Editor of the Adventist Review

For more than 160 years, the Adventist Review has pursued its mission of encouraging and informing Adventists by underlining the Bible truths uniquely proclaimed by God’s endtime remnant. From its first editions, it has proclaimed the importance of God’s seventh-day Sabbath and the reliability of the Genesis account of origins. Through the decades, its pages have carried numerous items that illustrate the challenges the church has faced in fulfilling the Great Commission. Difficulties, setbacks, and even controversies have been reported in the Adventist Review, along with the many stories of God’s leading and guidance of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The Adventist Review’s reporting is not designed to meet the public relations needs of any church institution: other entities have been assigned that task. Every attempt is made to ensure that articles and news reports appearing in the Review are carefully researched, factually accurate, balanced, and ultimately supportive of the larger mission of both the magazine and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The news report, “Evolution Controversy Stirs La Sierra Campus,” is an example of the preparation and presentation of important information that the Adventist Review always seeks to achieve. Interviews were conducted with each of the major figures associated with the ongoing debates about the teaching of science classes at La Sierra University, including Dr. Randal Wisbey, La Sierra University president; Dr. Ricardo Graham, Pacific Union Conference president and chairman of the university’s board of trustees; individual trustees; and Dr. Larry Blackmer, director of education for the North American Division. In each case, representative statements by these individuals were included in the published report. Due weight was also given to the remedial actions being taken by the university’s board of trustees, whose November, 2009 statement and February, 2010 reaffirmation were both cited. The university relations office was contacted to verify important factual information included in the article. The news report also noted the activity of those criticizing the university’s science teaching: it neither aligned itself with those criticisms nor endorsed the manner in which they have made their criticisms public. The concerns of those critics have become an unavoidable part of the circumstances surrounding this discussion, and were thus referenced.

Adventist Review readers may expect the same careful and professional presentation of information on other topics as the magazine moves forward in achieving its mission.

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

15 thoughts on “Adventist Review defends its article

  1. I thank Bill Knott, who is my friend, for his courage in reporting and addressing this issue. In doing this he stands in the proud tradition of the late Elder Kenneth Wood, who also used the pages of our general church paper to promote our fundamental beliefs when such were attacked. I remember well, in my college days, Elder Wood’s excellent editorial titled “Colleges in Trouble” (Feb. 20, 1980), in which he noted the departure of a number of Adventist educational centers from the classic teachings of our faith.

    The purpose of the Adventist Review is not to reflect the pluralistic chaos now present in much of First World Adventism, but to stand nobly and courageously as a corrector of such chaos. The Genesis account of origins is absolutely non-negotiable for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and any denominational institution which betrays its sponsors by the teaching of Darwinism can rightly expect negative public exposure in the church’s official press.

    Justice and accountability demand no less.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson




    0
    View Comment
  2. A line is being drawn in the sand. Sides are being taken. I’m not a “Yay, let’s fight!” kind of person, but in this case escalation of conflict seems inevitable. The transgressors will not back down. I expect things to get tense between now and July. Let us pray that truth triumphs, and that all of us on the side of truth may act with grace and dignity.




    0
    View Comment
  3. For more than 160 years, the Adventist Review has pursued its mission of encouraging and informing Adventists by underlining the Bible truths uniquely proclaimed by God’s endtime remnant. From its first editions, it has proclaimed the importance of God’s seventh-day Sabbath and the reliability of the Genesis account of origins.

    The news report also noted the activity of those criticizing the university’s science teaching: it neither aligned itself with those criticisms nor endorsed the manner in which they have made their criticisms public.

    While I agree with the statement that the actual AR report did not align itself with the criticism that LSU is getting for promoting evolutionism as the right answer for origins — the article DID state that the problem being identified and exposed by “those criticizing LSU” is that LSU is in fact promoting evolutionism.

    Now in this article Bill Knott states that the AR stands squarely in favor of the Bible doctrine on origins by stressing the reliability of the “Genesis account” (not the Genesis myth, or the Genesis fiction, or the Genesis allegory-in-poem etc). By stating that position for AR – they are in fact alligning themselves with the critics of evolutionism.

    The only “remaining” detail for AR is to admit that in the evidence it uncovered while researching that article – it finds that LSU in fact is teaching evolutionism as the right answer for origins.

    If it takes that last step – then the only substantive difference between AR and this web site – is that this web site wants to make the problem “known” after almost 20 years of silence. The fact that AR is publishing the article at all – is a small indication that even on that point they are aligning themselves with EducateTruth.

    Time will tell.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  4. “The Adventist Review’s reporting is not designed to meet the public relations needs of any church institution: other entities have been assigned that task. Every attempt is made to ensure that articles and news reports appearing in the Review are carefully researched, factually accurate, balanced, and ultimately supportive of the larger mission of both the magazine and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”

    Plain English Translation: We at the Review thought it more important to support the larger mission of the Adventist Church than to cover up for one of its rebellious, subversive institutions.

    This is starting to get really, really interesting.




    0
    View Comment
  5. While I applaud the over all tenor of the Adventist Review Article, it still had that political tone of double speak that appears to tell those reading what they want to hear. This has been a problem with the denomination for a number of years. For instance you can read “Adventists Believe 27 Fundamental Beliefs” On the subject of “The Nature of Christ” those who believe in a pre-lapsarian position can read it and say “Praise the Lord they finally got it right”, and those you take a post-lapsarian position can read it and say “Praise the Lord they finally got it right!” somebody didn’t get it. . . because surely it can’t support both positions when they are diametrically opposed to one another. unless there is double speak!
    There is so much tension on this issue it seems the Review took the safest position and that was to make both sides feel as if they came away with something. While there is support for the six day creation week in the article, they imply that this whole brew-ha-ha is the result of a retired professor or “professor emeritus” who is not currently in the active teaching mode. This seems like a smoke screen. The professor that Louie Bishop had a problem with was one who was not retired, but had graduated at or around the same time I was at Southwestern Adventist University putting his age far below retirement. It is this kind of “accidental” omission that makes people who “know” wonder exactly what the “Adventist Review” is trying to do. This is not a small omission, because the teacher Louie was struggling with has actually authored articles in secular digests that declare his beliefs. When there can be total accountability and transparency then perhaps it will build greater trust in the “Adventist Review”




    0
    View Comment
  6. “The only “remaining” detail for AR is to admit that in the evidence it uncovered while researching that article – it finds that LSU in fact is teaching evolutionism as the right answer for origins.” So wrote Bob.

    Yes, it is true that the AR “must” admit error when it finds it. Otherwise it is just a bit more noise. Let’s have it, Brother Knott, an admission that indeed LSU is teaching erroneous material from the SDA viewpoint.




    0
    View Comment
  7. Let’s remember that the goal is to uphold truth and expose error, not nail people or institutions to the wall. There’s no reason to go after people at the Review. Educate Truth is not on an attack mission. It is on a rescue mission.




    0
    View Comment
  8. I was a teacher of evolution for years and found there was too much faith involved in believing evolution than believing in a literal Creation by God.
    Seems we’re are caught in a battle of semantics.

    Bottom line.
    These professors do not believe in the foundations of the Seventh Day Adventist faith or the Bibical account of Creation or the words of Jesus or the Spirit of Prophecy – so they need to have the integrity to leave.




    0
    View Comment
  9. I too appreciate the AR and it’s willingness to tackle this important and far reaching issue at LSU. I believe it is important to allow the larger church body to become aware of the issues related to creation and the origins of man that are being undermined at LSU. Decisions to send young people to that school hold eternal consequences, and parents have a right to be informed about what they face when sending their children to LSU

    I pray that the day will come when the leadership will also have the courage to make the important step of letting this subversive institution go it’s own way and cut loose of the name “Seventh-Day Adventist institution.” While I realize the heart of Christ longs for His children to stay united in their work for him, there comes a time when the price of unity is too high and compromise becomes a dangerous way of spreading error.

    The God of Elijah must still call His people to accountability with the question ” How long halt ye between two opinions?” If the God of evolution is the one that LSU wishes to follow, then let them go follow that God. Only cut them loose from the name SDA so they no longer can hide behind the church name and tarnish it’s reputation.

    May God give us the strength to stand for the right though the heavens fall.
    My prayers are with you.




    0
    View Comment
  10. In my experience, when an article gets lambasted from both sides, it usually means it did a good job. The AR didn’t tell everything but it gave enough info so anyone who wanted to know more could easily find out. Let’s face it, among those of us who are very intense no one else is going to say things just the way we do. I am thankful for the intestinal fortitude of the Review staff. They are specifically upholding the truth of the Creator-God and openly speaking of the stir out here in CA. Kudos. Let us not be right in our doctrine in such a way that we are wrong in our way of responding to others.




    0
    View Comment
  11. I thought the article was a fair information piece. Let’s remember that this article was never intended to be an editorial, in which the editor’s opinion is stated, but a news item, in which both sides are presented and the reader is left to form their own conclusions. It used to be that that is how media outlets were expected to report the news, unbiased. These days the secular media is so biased that I guess it seemed strange to some of the readers on this page for an article to honestly present both sides of the issue. Did it include everything, no. But then how many articles has this website needed to present the whole story. You cannot expect one article to present every bit of important information.

    Of course LSU didn’t like the article because they don’t want the church to know there’s a problem and expected the AR to cover for them. But I think us creationists aught to be very happy with what was written!




    0
    View Comment
  12. I loved Knott’s response. “The Adventist Review’s reporting is not designed to meet the public relations needs of any church institution: other entities have been assigned that task. Every attempt is made to ensure that articles and news reports appearing in the Review are carefully researched, factually accurate, balanced, and ultimately supportive of the larger mission of both the magazine and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”




    0
    View Comment
  13. Shining, When an article is “lambasted” from both sides, it usually means it didn’t say ANYTHING of actual substance. Why is it lambasted? Because neither side got their side of the story “properly” upheld. Such is the case of the AR article. Pure nothingness, except some may be made aware of the problem which otherwise would not have. So, maybe some “good” may come out of the article, but much MORE is needed to be said.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.