Comment on New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues by David Read.
“We have already set in motion a discussion to be conducted sometime this summer at General Conference headquarters with some of the leaders of our institutions. I would not anticipate that this discussion will go on and on.”
Since “this summer” is now over, the “discussion” should already have taken place. Has anyone heard anything about the “discussion”?? Or did he mean next summer, which doesn’t begin for nine months?
And what are these discussions supposed to be about? I recall that the church had a three-year series of “discussions” on this issue from 2002 to 2004. The upshot of these discussions was that the church affirmed its doctrine of creation, but the rogue professoriate was essentially confirmed in the notion that it can hold and teach heterodox positions without consequences. Further “discussions” along those lines will only make the problem worse.
I would advise everyone to wait and see what happens, otherwise you are setting yourself up for a “Lucy and the football” moment.
Table of Contents
Recent Comments by David Read
The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:
“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”
“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”
So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?
It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.
The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:
“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”
So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?
The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.
The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.
As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.
La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.
