@Shannon: Now, the contrast seems to be obvious to me. …

Comment on The SECC stands for something by Sean Pitman.


Now, the contrast seems to be obvious to me. It’s okay if we do it but not if you do it!

You hit the nail on the head…

Sean Pitman

Sean Pitman Also Commented

The SECC stands for something
“Religion is Culture; Culture is Religion”

Regarding an article by a friend of mine, Peter Katz, published recently in Spectrum

Hi Peter,

Interesting article. It seems to me, however, that if one’s religion does not transcend culture, on at least some level, then that religion isn’t very useful as a solid or trustworthy basis for any sort of real hope in a bright literal future for us all that also transcends culture…

The reason why I’m a Christian, and a Seventh-day Adventist in particular, is that I think, I am really convinced anyway, that my faith isn’t completely devoid of real empirical scientific evidence that is in fact transcendent beyond cultural biases…

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
– Psalms 19:1-3

Sean Pitman

The SECC stands for something

You are criticizing SECC for not working “behind the scenes” before publishing their statement? You do understand what “behind the scenes” means, right? It means you didn’t know about it!

I know several people that were involved in the creation of this statement, and I also know that they personally contacted Doug Batchelor weeks prior to the issuance of this statement to express their disappointment in the tone and scholarship of his sermon. He responded to a couple of them; I will not publicly share what he said, because that exchange was “behind the scenes” and nobody’s business but Batchelor’s and the people he wrote to.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you’re supporting the idea that it is fine to go public with concerns about the activities of a church employee as long as effort was made to address the problem “behind the scenes”, but without resolution… Is that correct?

If so, then you must also be supportive of the efforts of Educate Truth to increase transparency regarding the promotion of theistic evolution as the true story of origins at LSU for decades now – despite many “behind the scenes” efforts to correct this fundamental undermining of foundational pillars of the SDA Church…

You must also agree then that it does indeed seem rather hypocritical of the SECC to go after Doug Batchelor (a pastor outside of their own conference) so quickly when it has said aboslutely nothing, in any sort of public manner, regarding the proselytizing for theistic evolution by most of the science professors at LSU – right in its own backyard…

Glad to have your support 😉

Sean Pitman

The SECC stands for something
A Lawyer’s Take on the SECC Double Standard
In Atoday’s blog:
Nathan Schilt says:

I strongly suspect that your objections to EducateTruth’s calls for accountability in the LSU biology curriculum are pretextual. If they played by your rules, would you then concede that their agenda is legitimate? Of course not. You have made it quite clear in the past that you think laypersons and clerics have no business intruding into the non-religious curriculum at LSU. Or have I misunderstood you? Therefore, it seems to me that the only distinction you can honestly make between the Batchelor situation and the LSU biology curriculum would have to be based on a belief that freedom of expression in the classroom is entitled to greater protection than freedom of expression from the pulpit. I don’t know if that distinction will hold water very well, but at least it states a principle that can be debated rather than a conclusion which definitionally precludes debate.


I couldn’t agree more. It is an artificial distinction for “progressives” to suggest that church representatives can and should be censured if they speak against church guidelines from the pulpit, but not if they do so in the classroom… regardless of the issue under consideration. This is a clear non sequitur. The conclusion simply doesn’t follow the starting premise.

If you’re going to be consistent with regard to complete academic freedom, then it only follows, logically, that the same sort of freedom should be tolerated from the pulpit as well – without official complaint or restraint from any division within the church organization – especially those calling themselves “progressive”.

Don’t get me wrong now. I’m very much in favor of the idea that the Church, as an organization, definitely needs rules of internal order, government, and discipline – rules that are clearly stated and followed. No organization can long survive without such things. However, at the very least, let’s try for consistency with regard to calls for internal censureship, discipline, and actual government within the SDA Church organization.

Sean Pitman

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

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.