Comment on ANN reports on affirmation of creation and FB #6 enhancement by Richard Osborn.
To Bob Pickle —
As much as I respect journalists (my daughter was a prize-winning newspaper reporter in California after graduating from PUC before going to law school), they don’t always get it right, especially if they don’t ask the individual about their motivations. The “Adventist Review” author suggested a motive to Dr. Bietz’s division of the motion. They never asked him why he proposed a division. He sat in the same place everyday so it would have been easy for them to find him to ask about his motivations but news reporters work on deadline. Instead they surmised something that was completely wrong. Another person on this web site has suggested that Dr. Bietz was just trying to protect his friends who would lose their jobs with a rewritten doctrine. This conclusion came as the result of his father attending a trust meeting where Dr. Bietz made statements about his alma mater. So we have two theories here — it was an attempt to stall or it was to protect friends. What if he sincerely feels the current statement based on the Bible doesn’t need to be changed while voting for the very conservative reaffirmation statement on Creation which is very strongly written in every detail? And then we end up with parents wondering if they can trust their students to attend SAU. There can be sincere differences of opinion between loyal Adventists on the proper methods for carrying out what each thinks will be best for the church. What kind of a person needs to ascribe motives without even finding out from the individual his/her motivations, especially when the Bible admonishes us not to judge others?
Richard Osborn Also Commented
It’s easy to get sucked into these kinds of blogs but they usually result in a never ending and useless circle of misinterpretation and character assassination where this “dialogue” is at the present time. I’ve written enough and those reading my posts and your responses will understand why I need to focus my time elsewhere. May God bless you. May others understand your methods better than I do so that when you are evangelizing the non-church attending citizens of our country, which I assume is one of your goals, they will be led to Adventism in spite of the weaknesses both of us have as frail followers of Jesus Christ.
This dialogue is headed no where. You keep misjudging my motives and questions by putting words in my mouth that don’t exist even putting quotation marks around something I didn’t write. If you can point somewhere that I’ve written that I advocate teaching evolution as fact, please cite chapter and verse. My comments are not an attempt to side step these issues but to ask what more is needed for faith development to take place comparing what happened with my generation who all believed what is advocated here but somewhere between 80-90% of my own academy graduating class and even higher in some cases left the fellowship of the church. One of the passions of my nearly forty years in Adventist education was to find an answer to stopping the slide out the door and it hasn’t involved changing the way we have traditionally taught the Creation issue. For evidence I would point you to the hires we made in areas of science while I was President at PUC and to the Biology curriculum of that college. If you can find a single member of the PUC Biology faculty who ever heard me advocating that they teach evolution as fact, I’d like to know because it didn’t happen.
I don’t know if you’re a parent or grandparent but my concern accelerated with our own two children and now two little grandchildren. If you are a parent, I wish you success in using Creation as the primary way of keeping your own children in the church. If you’re not a parent, the same for your nieces and nephews. May God bless you with the sweet Spirit of a grace filled life that was the theme of this year’s General Conference Session.
I never wrote that it’s not important but have suggested there may be other issues that warrant greater attention for keeping our young people engaged in and loyal to the church. I’ve noticed silence on your part in addressing this bigger problem for the church which I’ve attempted to ask two times in a sincere way. Without making insults or derogatory comments, go back and read some of my earlier posts and try to suggest some solutions with a tone of positive solution finding.
Recent Comments by Richard Osborn
You describe me as one of the top educators in the church. On April 9, 2009, I was fired (forced resignation) by the PUC Board as President after eight years of service and 39 1/2 years of denominational service. I no longer work for the Seventh-day Adventist Church and was too young (62 years old) to retire although I am receiving retirement from the church for my years of service which is available to any church employee — all $1,348 a month for 26 years on the defined benefit plan and another $100,000 in the defined contribution plan for 13 1/2 years which represents half from my own contributions and the other matching from the church for which to plan on 20-30 years of retirement. My annual pay as PUC President was a little over $70,000 a year probably making me the lowest paid college President in California. None of us who choose on a sacrificial basis to work for the church do that well financially but none of us do it for the money. We work for the mission of the church at great financial sacrifice. That’s why it’s a little difficult to hear the abuse some are giving church workers from their well remunerated work.
Thanks for your affirmation of my standing but that is no longer the case. I was not offered any meaningful jobs within the church but the senior college/university commission of the Western Association of Schools & Colleges (WASC) hired me as an Associate Director. I have 40 universities in my portfolio of this regional accreditation agency serving California, Hawaii, one institution in Mexico, and other Pacific islands. My portfolio includes large UC campuses like San Diego and Santa Barbara, several California State University campuses including Chico in your area, East Bay, San Francisco State, and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, several faith based institutions such as the Universities of San Diego and San Francisco, Azusa Pacific University, Hawaii Pacific University, Cal Lutheran, Claremont School of Theology, independents such as Pitzer, Menlo, Woodbury, and Mills Colleges, specialty institutions such as The Scripps Research Institute, The American Conservatory Theater, and Laguna College of Art & Design. Others at WASC have LLU, LSU, and PUC in their portfolio.
Because I no longer work for the church, I have no obligation to state my position on either issue and did not speak publicly during the debate. You are making assumptions. I also have a responsibility to maintain neutrality in my public positions since I do provide confidential advice within our office.
You’ll need to judge me by those I was involved in hiring for PUC’s science departments during my eight years. Thus far I haven’t heard any concerns expressed about those teachers nor what is taught at PUC.
Have you written Dr. Bietz before you posted your comments? Or were you basing your view on what you surmised or speculated about or heard from second hand sources? If so, that’s a very low standard for a Christian where the New Testament outlines clear procedures when you have a disagreement with a brother. First, you go to that brother or sister in private and don’t rely on second hand accounts. I think the Mormon writer, Steven Covey, in his “Seven Principles of Highly Effective People” set a standard that should be emulated by Christians in one of his principles which parallels the Golden Rule — “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” And I don’t think he meant go on a public blog first nor would Jesus Christ nor Paul advocate such an approach.
After one of my work colleagues read some of the church articles on LSU, she asked this question as I left her office. “Why do Christians treat each other in such unChristian ways? I’m a fallen Catholic but I was raised to believe in such values as charity, kindness, goodness, and understanding. Why do Christians behave like this?” It was one of my more embarrassing moments since leaving denominational work.
You write —
“Given your background, I am surprised and disappointed in your comments in this forumâ€¦ in your seeming lack of support for the importance of the SDA position on a literal creation weekâ€¦”
This comment illustrates exactly what I knew would happen on this web site. I’ve posted three comments thus far after resisting the urge because of the attacks you and others regularly engage in. My first comment was to point out that some very conservative individuals at the G.C. Session supported reaffirming a very conservative position on creation but didn’t vote to rewrite Fundamental Belief #6. My second was to ask where you were speaking. My third was asking a question about how some conservative faith based institutions such as Simpson University teach evolution and do not offer a short earth chronology in their Biology majors but still maintain the loyalty of their young adult members to their denominations. Since I’ve become involved with quite a few faith based institutions in my portfolio at WASC, it was a sincere observation and question. Based on these three comments, you draw the conclusion cited at the beginning of this post. It seems that some have a problem with any question or disagreement that doesn’t accord directly with their own opinions to the point that you and others immediately begin judging motives, thoughts, and viewpoints far beyond anything in the mind of the person posting.
My point in asking about where you would be presenting is that Simpson University, like many very conservative faith based universities, teaches evolution and still maintains a belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible which I’ve found of interest. I’ve actually visited Simpson University attending the inauguration of their President and found that it is very conservative with a strong Evangelical orientation very centered on overseas missions. They are sponsored by The Christian and Missionary Alliance and began as the Simpson Bible Institute in 1921 named after the denomination’s founder. Billy Graham began his ministry in Tampa in one of their churches. Only a handful of regionally accredited conservative faith based colleges offer a biology major centered around a young earth course content but still maintain conservative Biblical doctrines in similar areas as Adventism. I’ve just wondered in observing these institutions how they’ve been able to maintain such strong and vibrant young adult commitments to their doctrines and Christian outreach while it’s suggested here that if students learn too much about evolution they’ll stop being Adventists or should probably leave the church even if they are committed to Adventism in all other areas of traditional belief.
You mentioned that you would be lecturing at a Northern California university in your town which only had Biology professors teaching from an evolutionary perspective. I’m only aware of one university in Redding, CA which is the town where you practice medicine. Could you mention the name of the university where you will be lecturing and who sponsors them? How would you characterize them in the world of faith based institutions?