Comment on LSU responds to Michigan Conference by Sean Pitman.
@George:
Sean,
What do you think Dr. Wisbey sees as the main issue here? If I hear you right, you say the main issue is that mainstream evolutionism is being actively promoted in the classroom. What does he see as the main issue?
I suspect he cares about other issues that I suspect you don’t care about. Accreditation, academic freedom, academic integrity, avoiding schism, helping to make the church open to all.
If two sides do not acknowledge the others concerns and agree on what the issue is, how can there be a resolution?
Evidently Dr. Wisbey does indeed care much more about a great many other things besides the long-standing and very determined attacks that his professors are making against the foundational Pillars of the SDA faith. This isn’t some new thing at LSU. This has been going on for decades – and Wisbey knows it.
It is fine to worry about “accreditation, academic freedom, academic integrity, avoiding schism, and helping to make the church open to all.” These are actually concerns of mine as well. However, these concerns do not trump the right we all have to transparency – to know what we are actually paying for with our hard earned dollars to send our sons and daughters to what we think is a school that actually promotes SDA ideals. Wisbey is being decidedly opaque here. That’s clearly not right. It is not right to mislead parents and the Church membership at large on this issue.
Beyond this, of course, all employees of any institution have a primary obligation to give the employer what the employer is paying for on the employer’s dime. This is not happening at LSU. And, this obligation also trumps everything on your list of other potential concerns. If you can’t be honest toward your employer, it really doesn’t matter what other reasons you may have – it’s still called stealing in my book; a robbery of the employer’s time and money.
Another reason why your list of concerns are secondary concerns in my book is because of the primary purpose of having a Church school to begin with. The SDA Church didn’t build and fund schools in order to simply reflect what could be obtained for much less cost and effort from secular schools or from other denominational schools. One’s “academic freedom” is therefore limited when one freely volunteers to work for the Church as a teacher or pastor. After all, no one would think to maintain a pastor who decided that he should start promoting the doctrine of “eternal hell fire” or the virtues of “worshiping the Virgin Mary”, or “Sunday Sacredness”. Such a pastor would be asked to resign from being a SDA representative and work elsewhere for an organization that was actually willing to pay him for his services. Our teachers should be held to no lower a standard than our pastors.
If this sort of requirement eventually results in a loss of accreditation (which it will not – at the present time at least), then so be it. Why fund an accredited school that ends up undermining your main goals and ideals? Is this not a self-defeating strategy for any organization?
As far as academic integrity is concerned, if one cannot in good conscience teach in line with the clearly stated goals and ideals of one’s employer, what is the most honest thing for that individual to do? Where’s the integrity for someone to undermine the stated goals and ideals of their employer on the employer’s dime? Hmmmm?
Oh, and remember good ol’ Neville Chamberlain? How well is he remembered for his efforts to avoid schism at all cost? Compromise has its limitations if one really stands for something worthwhile. There is a time to join together and a time to separate. How can two really walk much less work toward a common goal of any real importance unless they be agreed on at least some fundamental level?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
LSU responds to Michigan Conference
Another Distressed Student wrote (on the Spectrum Blog):
“I have heard Creation preached often! So many of us so-called ‘products’ of LSU are creationists! And many of us have studied in the sciences at LSU.”
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/06/03/la_sierra_mother_writes_review#comment-54704
Indeed, general creationism is preached at LSU. But when was the last time you ever heard literal 6-day creationism preached or actively promoted at LSU? – in either the religion or science departments? I bet is has been a fairly long while…
Come on now, at the very least LSU should be open and honest about what type of creationism is being promoted at LSU – certainly not the type promoted by the organized SDA Church as a foundational pillar of the SDA faith…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
LSU responds to Michigan Conference
Getting a pass for attacking just one fundamental belief…
From the Spectrum Blog:
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/06/03/la_sierra_mother_writes_review#comment-54582
Where in the posts on the FB page are there any testimonies about how LSU influenced students to favorably regard the fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church on the topic of a literal 6-day Creation of all life on this planet? Anyone?
Mrs. Webster’s letter, as well as the FB page defending LSU, are both missing the entire point of the current conflict with LSU. The point isn’t that LSU isn’t religious or supporting certain ideas of God and creation in general. The point is that LSU is directly attacking and undermining a very specific view of creation that the SDA Church, as an organization, holds to be a foundational pillar of the unique SDA belief system – – the literal 6-day creation week.
This particular view of a literal 6-day creation week is so fundamental to the SDA Church that it is reflected in the very name of the Church – Seventh-day Adventists.
So, should LSU get a pass when it comes to undermining and attacking this fundamental SDA doctrinal position of the Church because of all the other good things it is doing? Hmmm? I, for one, don’t think so. If a school wishes to carry the name of any organization, it should, at the very least, reflect *all* of the *fundamental* goals and ideals of that organization… not just most of them…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
LSU responds to Michigan Conference
@Bill Sorensen:
Since you are censoring dialogue like the liberal forums, I won’t post here anymore. Your duplicity is the same as theirs. In fact worse. They accused me of attacking individuals as their excuse. You can’t even use that as an excuse.
You are simply wrong, and won’t admit it.
I gave you my personal E-mail to continue your efforts to enlighten me if you so choose, but it seems like you only want to present your arguments in forum…
We did not set up this forum to go around attacking people as evil. It is difficult enough to point out that another is in serious error without adding to that the accusation of a deliberate rebellion against God – something that only God himself can know with regard to such doctrinal issues. That simply isn’t the purpose of this website – to judge the hearts of people.
I may be wrong here, but if so, I am sincerely and honestly wrong. I cannot admit something that I do not honestly see.
I perceive that you yourself are honest and sincere in your beliefs. I think you are mistaken, seriously mistaken and causing damage to the cause, but I don’t think you are necessarily responsible for the damage since you seem to be honestly unaware of your errors. If you think it best to no longer post here, that’s fine. We’ll struggle along without you… somehow ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
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.
