If you look closely at professor Bradley’s own published statements …

Comment on The SECC stands for something by Peter.

If you look closely at professor Bradley’s own published statements (biology professor currently teaching at LSU) – he tells you exactly what they are doing – and the EducateTruth position is to AGREE with Bradley – that they are DOING what Bradley claims they are DOING and what Bradley publically admits they HAVE BEEN doing for years.(Not to mention the coursework also posted here showing that Bradley is 100% correct about what he says they are doing)

If we all agree on what is being taught at LSU, then why the call for transparency? On the other hand, if there is still ambiguity on what is being taught, then how can you expect the SECC to censure LSU?

Here’s what it looks like to outside observers: a student took a course that was honestly described in the catalog, got a grade less than he figured he deserved, and tried to blackmail the professor into changing the grade; when he didn’t get his way, he launched a public smear campaign. I’m not saying that’s what happened, I’m just saying that for those of us who weren’t in the class, it looks pretty shady, and I applaud the SECC for not jumping into bed with the student. The SECC can’t be certain of exactly what happened, so they aren’t condemning the student either (like the scientific community has done).

If this had been an “A” student who made the complaint, it would have some more validity, but this is a student who got a mediocre grade immediately prior to his accusation. Just how credible do you think the rest of us find that?

Peter Also Commented

The SECC stands for something

@Peter: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


Yes, I certainly support the idea that if one-on-one discussion does not resolve the situation satisfactorily, the person with the complaint should go up the ladder: first to other brethren, then to the church, and if the issue is still unresolved the problem member should be persona non grata to the church. So to that extent I do not criticize EducateTruth for their approach. The hypocrisy I am pointing out is Shannon’s accusation that the SECC did not follow that protocol in dealing with Doug Batchelor, when in fact they did, and that the accusation itself violates the protocol.

I don’t know what actions persons affiliated with ET took before “going public.” So I won’t accuse anyone of having violated Matthew 18 on that issue; I just don’t know, and it’s really none of my business.

That being said, I agree that there should be transparency at LSU and every other SDA college; unfortunately, there is just no way to go back in time and observe exactly what the professor(s) said in lecture, so it is difficult for a non-participant to cast judgment. There will always be some uncertainty about what the professor actually said, versus what he/she claims to have said, versus what a student understood, etc. Oh, to have Urim and Thummim! It cannot go beyond the he said/she said fingerpointing, and it isn’t right for people to lose their jobs over fingerpointing. So while transparency is a nice ideal, I don’t see how it could actually happen.

Since Doug Batchelor’s sermon is recorded and distributed on the internet, it is possible for individuals to view it and judge for themselves. I think the SECC went after Doug Batchelor’s sermon because 1) while a classroom lecture is heard only by the students present, the sermon is viewed by thousands of Adventists and non-Adventists alike; 2) many of Batchelor’s viewers are within SECC territory; and 3) unlike a classroom lecture, we can all be certain of exactly what Batchelor said, even those of us who were not physically present when he said it. There are many who will ignore Batchelor’s sarcastic insults and hear only the conclusion that women should not be ordained as pastors, but I heard the insults and I was offended by them. I’ve heard the arguments for and against women’s ordination, but never have I heard them presented with such disdain for 50% of God’s precious children.

Every Christian has a responsibility to defend the defenseless, to combat hatred and injustice. So while you may feel that SECC has yet to properly address the issue at LSU, I applaud their action against Batchelor’s sermon.

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.
However, I assure you that the protocol of Matthew 18 was followed, which BTW you have not done concerning this matter.
Did you ask the SECC Executive Committee whether they addressed Batchelor privately before you publicly aired your accusation that they did not? Talk about total hypocrisy!
Methinks Job 38:2 applies here.