Sean, Politics, to …

Comment on A little-known history about Belief 6 by Sean Pitman, M.D..

Sean,

Politics, to some extent, is the art of compromise. Incorporated churches have the strengths and weaknesses of every organization. Compromise at its most elemental level is the acknowledgment by everyone that no one will be perfectly satisfied.

What you see as “false advertising” the church may see as a compromise.

I think you fail to appreciate the very “American” nature of the SDA church which is expressed in its decentralized structure and government, giving more administrative authority at the local level than it retains at the upper levels.

At least one of your disagreements with many of the church’s scholars is, what exactly is the proper forum in which debatable issues should take place? You feel the classroom or pulpit is not the proper forum. You may have described what you believe the proper forum to be, I don’t remember, but whatever it is, it is clear that others disagree with you. This disagreement about the “proper forum” for discussion is at least as sharp and contentious as your position with regard to how to understand Genesis…so there are three issues, a scientific one, a political one, and “proper forum for discussion” one.

The church understands to some degree that there are issues that should not be “clarified…so that those who do actually want to take a real stand…can go elsewhere and form a new organization…” because most people want to think and debate in the nurturing atmosphere of a familiar place and social group where different rates of growth and understanding are tolerated, not condemned. (Even in a new group the same politics and compromises will soon apply).

You wrote:

“So, to that end, I will push for clarity on this issue until it happens… one way or another… It is the only fair and right thing to do.”

Another point of disagreement is that it doesn’t appear to me and some others that “It is the only fair and right thing to do.”

The discussion you have prompted has been worthwhile. Your solution seems less felicitous.

Lynn

Hi Lynn,

I don’t mind if people want to be part of an organization like the one you would consider to be most ideal or “American”. I actually encourage and support the potential for such in free civil society. I just want the organization that I personally choose to be a part of to declare itself for what it really is. If it is in fact ambiguous in what it really stands for, then say so. If it will not actually do anything to internally support its stated positions, then say so very clearly. People have a right to know what they can expect for their invested time and money. Anything less from any organization is a form of deception or dishonesty toward the customer – the church member in this case.

It isn’t just harmless political “compromise”… it is a deception to say one thing and do another. There’s just no other word for it. This is why politicians are often viewed as untrustworthy… because often they get a reputation for saying a lot of stuff that they don’t really mean. I don’t care what word you want to call that sort of thing, but I call it lying…

All I’m doing here is asking for clarification so that I can know best what to do with my own support.

Personally, I’d rather be part of an organization that stands decidedly for, among other things, the notion of a literal creation week and has a decided policy of internal government to support such a stand by only hiring those who also agree with this stand. That’s just me. I know that many don’t agree with me for the reasons you list off. I don’t mind if they want their own organization with their own rules and I fully support their efforts to obtain such. I would hope, however, that the type of organization I’d like to be part of would also be tolerated in this great country of ours… but I fear that such toleration is slipping away fast even among those who claim to be “SDA”. Uniformity seems to be the only politically correct path these days…

I know it must sound somewhat humerus to you that I speak about the need for toleration and uniformity when it might seem that I’m being very intolerant and strictly uniform in my attitude toward those who disagree with me. The fact is that I’m only intolerant of deception within the Church. I think it is a moral wrong to advertise one thing and deliver something completely different. If the advertising were in line with the product, even if I personally wouldn’t want to buy the product, I’d have much much less problem with that. Of course I’d leave if I didn’t agree with the product – but not with any hard feelings nor with any effort to force an end to the efforts of those with which I don’t agree. I just don’t like their product is all – nothing personal. And, I would hope that if they didn’t like my product that they would feel quite free to simply shop elsewhere… Again, nothing personal.

Anyway, I hope this helps to clarify why I’m doing what I’m doing…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman, M.D. Also Commented

A little-known history about Belief 6
@Ron:

Actually, no I don’t. I do not believe that you give up any civil rights by becoming an employee. Especially that should not be the case in the Seventh-day Adventist church where we are called support Religious Liberty. How can you support Religious Liberty if it only applies out side of the church?

You confuse “Religious Liberty” with the privilege to be hired by the church or any other organization. They aren’t the same thing. You are at liberty to worship however you wish. That is your God-given civil right. You are not at liberty, on the other hand, to expect a paycheck from the church or any other organization for doing whatever you want outside of the fundamental goals and ideals of the church as an organization. That is not a God-given civil right. No organization is obliged to hire you or me. The organization itself is also free – free to pick and choose who would be most effective as a paid employee. How do you not recognize this concept?

What you are suggesting is equivalent to expecting me to send you a paycheck every month because that is your “civil right”. What would you say if I demanded a paycheck from you? – because, after all, it is my civil right that you give me money on a regular basis for doing what I do independent of your own goals or desires for how your own money is spent?

No organization can be expected to pay just anyone and everyone for their own individual efforts to promote their own unique ideas outside of those of the organization itself. Do you expect the Catholic Church to pay someone for promoting Adventism in their own schools and churches? Do you expect the Adventist Church to pay people to promote the unique elements of Catholicism in our schools and churches? – like the notion that the Virgin Mary is in heaven and is able to answer the prayers of those who ask for her help?

Come on now, what you are suggesting does not a unique organization make. You are very confused regarding the difference between truly universal civil rights and the privilege of employment by a particular organization.

How this idea isn’t simply common sense is beyond me?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


A little-known history about Belief 6
@Ron:

Sean, This statement is completely dis-ingenuous. The intent of the movement to “clarify” the 6th fundamental belief is exactly that – to impose a civil penalty on those who anything other than the most limited of interpretations.

This is like arguing that an employee of Nike who is fired for wearing and advertising Reebok shoes has just had his civil rights violated.

You don’t seem to recognize the fact that any viable organization must have the ability to create and enforce internal rules of order and government to which all who wish to freely join as paid representatives must adhere. You also don’t seem to understand that an employee of such an organization is always free to leave at will, free of any civil penalties from the US Government under which we all live.

You do realize that there is a difference between civil government (as in the US government) and the civil freedoms that government protects and the freedoms one chooses to limit for one’s own self when one joins any organization as an employee?

I’m sorry, but you’re making yourself look rather foolish here…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


A little-known history about Belief 6
@Eddie:

Out of curiosity, at what age is a person capable of accepting or rejecting Him and His offer of salvation? And what happens to a person who dies before reaching that age?

One is only judged for deliberately rejecting the offer of salvation – or for deliberately rejecting what is known to be true and good.

As far as those children who are not old enough to consciously know right from wrong, God will save them since they have not consciously rejected the right.

For example, the Bible argues that God winks or passes over our sins committed in “times of ignorance” (Acts 17:30) and argues that sin is based on a conscious understanding of right and wrong (James 4:17 and John 9:41). Also, consider the following passage in Isaiah regarding the salvation of children who have not yet been able to make their own decisions for or against God:

“But thus saith the LORD, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.” – Isaiah 49:25

Mrs. White also specifically argues that children of believing parents will be saved:

“I know that some questioned whether the little children of even believing parents should be saved, because they have had no test of character and all must be tested and their character determined by trial. The question is asked, ‘How can little children have this test and trial?’ I answer that the faith of the believing parents covers the children” (Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 313).

Remember too that God is very partial to young children. After all, it was Jesus who asked for the children to be able to come to him and explained that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. – Mark 10:14

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman, M.D.

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.