Bob has succinctly stated the problem and divided it into the two factions.  We must understand this before making judgments.

His closing remarks bears repeating: 

 "there may still be (my apologies to Rick Rice) Believers and Behavers but there won't be many Belongers. 

There are three steps people follow when leaving the church: they leave first with their mind, then their money, then their feet. There are a great many people who have completed the first step, and a great many who are poised on the brink of the third step. This does not bode well."

This identifies the steps many have previously taken, and will continue to do so by thinking people who cannot leave their minds in the 19th century but must live in today's world.  Whether the church goes in the future depends on how this conflict is resolved, if it can be. 

Bob's ideas are insightful and thought provoking.

Bob wonders if the RBDP may want to split the church. It might be more realistic to ask if they are determined to purge or cleanse the church of the non-RBDP? Some may see that as splitting, others may not.

Bob, do you see a radical subset of the DDP (RDDP)?

I am assuming that this person is characterizing the liberals/Darwinists as "data driven people" and the conservatives/creationists as "belief driven people."  This rhetorical strategy reminds me of how Charles Lyell convinced geologists to go along with substantive uniformity.  The conflict between uniformitarians and catastrophists was not about whether to collect data, but how to interpret data.  Yet Lyell managed to cast uniformitarians in the role of "data driven" scientists, and denigrate catastrophists as "belief driven."  This wasn't true at all, and in fact Lyell was not as good at fieldwork as he was at getting across his philosophical points; the catastrophist Cuvier actually took a more inductive approach to the geological data, as Stephen Jay Gould and Derek Ager have pointed out at some length.  (I spent several pages of my book on this topic, but Gould wrote a whole book about it, to wit, "Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle.") 

The point being, it is a base-stealing rhetorical ploy to characterize your side as "data driven" and the other side as "belief driven."  Each side has beliefs and each side interprets the data according to its beliefs.  We all have the same data, how you interpret the data is your religion.  This becomes obvious when you get down to the nitty-gritty issue of abiogenesis: Darwinist don't have a clue how you get life from non-life.  Even a militant atheist like Richard Dawkins will admit that there isn't a coherent theory of abiogenesis, yet he still believes that it must have happened, if not on this planet, then on some other planet where conditions might have been more propitious.  It is a question of belief and interpretation for each side, not for one side or the other.

But for purposes of argument, let's concede that the Darwinists/liberals are more "data driven" and the creationists/conservatives are more "belief driven."  Now let's consider the context of this discussion: a Christian Church.  What is a church if not a community of faith?  It is not a family.  It is not a business.  It is not a political party.  It is a faith community.  It exists to pastor, nurture, and support its believers and convince others of the truth of its belief system.  In other words, the whole enterprise is "belief driven."  Now how is it sane or reasonable to expect a community of believers, a belief driven community, to change its beliefs for the sake of those who, by their own admission, are not "belief driven"?? 

If the "data driven" folks by their own self-definition care more about data than belief, why would they want to change the belief system of the church?  Shouldn't the "data driven" people be content to leave beliefs to the "belief driven" people, who by definition care more about beliefs?  How can there be such contention over belief if only one side to the controversy is driven by belief?

This "data driven" versus "belief driven" conceit is Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense.  We have two parties with different and incompatible belief systems, and each side wants its belief system to prevail within the denomination.  So let's have no more nonsense about "data driven" versus "belief driven." 

Speaking of this divide, one can certainly ask how the Adventist Church (where "belief-driven people" presumably dominate) and its educational systems (where "data-driven people" presumably dominate) should relate. Historically, and tragically I might add, many denomination-owned institutions of higher education have eventually floated away from the dock of their sponsor, and now exist independently as their own ship. I personally think it would be a sad day if the Adventist universities ever suffer this fate.

Today, accreditation is essential for universities, even private ones, because without it students can be severely restricted from entering other academic programs (like gaining entrance to medical school) and even the job market. I don't know to what extent accreditation compromises the Church's control of a university, but given the call by many to fire those who teach evolution, I wondered to what extent accreditation itself could be comprised by such an act. So I did some searching.

According to internet sources, La Sierra University is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). That being the case, they are subject to WASC standards of accreditation. These may be found in a document at http://www.apu.edu/wasc/pdfs/wasc_accreditation_handbook.pdf.

Those who seek dismissal of SDA science faculty, particularly La Sierra's biology faculty, should read the criteria on page 12, under "Standard 1 - Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives." Two standards in particular stand out, and I'll paste these below. I find the second one in particular quite curious. Other than to suggest that there may be genuine difficulty in firing faculty whose "sin" is sharing "data" that contradicts "belief," and that the SDA Church may have greater difficulties controlling these institutions than many would like to believe, I don't have further comment to make here; I just thought I'd share this information for thought. I am definitely glad that I am neither a Church or university administrator.

1.4 The institution publicly states its commitment to academic freedom for faculty, staff, and students, and acts accordingly. This commitment affirms that those in the academy are free to share their convictions and responsible conclusions with their colleagues and students in their teaching and in their writing.

GUIDELINES: The institution has published or has readily-available policies on academic freedom. For those institutions that strive to instill specific beliefs and world views, policies clearly state how these views are implemented and ensure that these conditions are consistent with academic freedom. Due process procedures are disseminated, demonstrating that faculty and students are protected in their quest for truth.

1.6 Even when supported by or affiliated with political, corporate, or religious organizations, the institution has education as its primary purpose and operates as an academic institution with appropriate autonomy.

GUIDELINE: The institution has no history of interference in substantive decisions or educational functions by political, religious, corporate, or other external bodies outside the institution’s own governance arrangements.

Wasc does not trump the United States Constitution.  The freedom of religion clause can not be abrogated by WASC.  In the case of my friends at  LLUMC who attempted to have their firings reviewed by the National Labor Relation Board, the Courts held that LLU was protected by the Constitutional protection of religious freedom.  It would be interesting for the lawyers on this panel to discuss the Constitutional issues.

I say fire them if they refuse to accept Church instruction and engage WASC in the courts if they are inclined to try to invade the purview of religious freedom.

I don't believe any attempt has been made by the WASC to trump the US Constitution.  I believe that our schools applied for accreditation by the WASC, rather than were solicited by the WASC. 

Mr Williams seems to have intertwined two seperate issues...

Constitutionally, it may be allowable to fire Professors who refuse to teach Creation - but to intentionally violate the terms of your accreditation, is still clearly in fact dishonesty on the part of our institutions, and it is certainly cause for the WASC to revoke their endorsement of our institutions. 

Perhaps our schools - in the name of integrity - should voluntarily surrender their accreditation.  Certainly, they should do so prior to attempting to enforce a religious agenda in their science, literature, and art classrooms, since to do so clearly violates what they agreed to do when they asked the WASC to grant them accreditation. 

"fire them if they refuse to accept Church instruction."

 This shows an abysmal lack of knowledge in the administration of a university.  Teachers cannot be "fired" simply because some believe they are not following "church instruction."

Teachers are hired to impart their knowledge of a particular subject and in those duties, they are not subject to the whims of any constituent who is unhappy with the instruction. There are many rules that must be followed if a tenured professor is relieved of his or her duties, and this is surely not one of them.

The science faculty is hired to teach science; not to follow any religious regimen, that is the duty of religion faculty.  Just as the religion teachers are not hired to teach science,  the science teachers are not hired to instruct in religion.    

Bob,

Well done!  Unfortunately, I think David Read is trying to alter the argument, even though he knows good and well what you mean.  Of course we all have beliefs!  The question is, Does a particular interpretation of the Bible trump other interpretations (such as higher criticism), and historical, archaeological, biological, geological, cosmological, physiological, chemical, physical ... evidence?  If one is willing to disengage from the mulitdisciplinary data (or choose from it selectively) in order to preserve belief, that is a different approach than if one is willing to engage all the data and alter beliefs if the data so indicates.

I wouldn't be optimistic about the denominational leadership on this issue.  Witness the GC leadership's responses to fundamentalist SDA young adult leaders at GYC 2009 recently:  http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/3690097  Watch beginning 1:02:00.

Lysle, I couldn't find anything about Loma Linda University firings, but I did learn that LLU is under censure by AAUP (American Association of University Professors), as indicated here: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/censuredadmins/

The incident that triggered this, from 1992, is described here: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/censuredadmins/

I just skimmed the report and didn't see anything specifically about teaching evolution or going against SDA doctrines. According to the conclusions, the reason for censure was procedural, involving failure to adhere to established standards (presumably not legal ones) in firing the faculty. In essence, "...the state of academic freedom for members of the Loma Linda University faculty [is] insecure and, for the clinical science faculty, precarious." I hope they've cleaned up their act since then; the university and its hospital seem to have a good reputation in the region. Are these the cases you are referencing?

I don't think the issue of accreditation is a legal one. WASC, like other accreditation bodies elsewhere, has standards that must be met and universities voluntarily seek to comply with them to protect themselves, their students, and their graduates. I don't believe there is any government oversight. I'd be surprised to learn that a court can order an accreditation body to restore accreditation to a university. 

So, I think we're talking apples and oranges: accreditation and constitutional law are very different things. However, both could come to play if the faculty are not dismissed properly.

On further reflection, I find this guideline troubling:

GUIDELINE: The institution has no history of interference in substantive decisions or educational functions by political, religious, corporate, or other external bodies outside the institution’s own governance arrangements.

I wonder how WASC would view external pressure to fire La Sierra's faculty. To me, this guideline illustrates a real dilemma between the Church and its university system.

At the GYC meetings recently it is clear that those who expressed an opinion believe the Creation story as related in Genesis 1:1 is credible and that instructors at SDA institutions of learning do not enjoy total academic freedom. Listen to Mark Finley as he explains why.

I commend GYC for its efforts to support truth as taught in Scripture.

Truth Seeker

A not so professorial observation -- "I wonder how WASC would view external pressure to fire La Sierra's faculty."

I did not know there were any such efforts - to fire La Sierra's faculty. To root out those who teach as truth things that are contrary to basic SDA beliefs is certainly a justifiable objective. 

Incidentally, who rules? God and His Word or WASC?

 Markham says: "Incidentally, who rules? God and His Word or WASC?"

God does; where are your credentials that authorize you alone to speak for Him?

The way I have always heard things God is not a liar.

Your claim, "I did not know there were any such efforts - to fire La Sierra's faculty.", supports the conclusion that your comments are completely unauthorized.

So many things to reply to. First the blog topic is of great interest and the author brings up many issues.

Some parochial institutions do indeed get away from the supporting church. This happens when they are able to establish a center of academic excellence and attract both public and private research dollars. This is going on at institutions such as LLU. The amount of funding influx in the last 10 yrs is remarkable as more and more faculty attract research dollars. There is even a tax that now goes to support central administration. This is because the GC is reducing its financial support for LLU. As the financial support declines so will the ability of the central SDA administration to influence the institution. 

I do not speak for LLU, however, I know what goes on. Evolutionary implications with regards to conserved gene sequences in the fabric of life are discussed in the open in Basic Science Seminars. Here world class scientists come and speak to the PhD and MD/PhD students and discuss the topics of evolution using scientific language. Indeed Adventism seems to be a religion where conservatives want to hold onto a 19th century theology in a 21st century world. I do not think it will work.

With regards to the post discussing abiogenisis, indeed that is a reticent topic. However, just because science cannot explain something at a particular moment in time, pulling out the God explanation tells us nothing. The God explanation is just a reaffirmation of faith. Furthermore, interpretation of data is not a religion. Buttressing ones faith position by reinterpreting data is religion.  In the paleontological data it would appear that uniformitarianism and catastrophism exist side by side and both have value in explaining what we see. But, trying to smash the data into a few thousand year paradigm just to support a literal reading of the genesis myth, is simply astounding.

I did enjoy the post where the writer suggests just firing the faculty who teach science and deal with WASC via the courts. First accreditation by LCME and WASC is essential. If we did not have it we cannot attract research support or talented scholars. Furthermore, as one who is in the thick of our recent LCME and WASC accreditation their guidelines must be followed if the accrediting bodies are going to continue to grant accreditation. So for the strident "just fire them" strategy, that individual has no clue as to the operation of a higher education system. And yes LCME and WASC do offer some protections against the RBDP because administration can not haphazardly fire science professors and still maintain accreditation. If we lose our accreditation the degrees both, academic or professional that come from SDA institutions are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Professor Kent, thank you for the posts. You have many of the issues correct. The issue with AAUP  you speak was not due to firings as I understood it when I was an Asst Prof in 1992. It had to do with the structure of faculty governance and the role of faculty in limiting fiat powers by the administration. I came on in the middle of this bru ha ha, and we have come a long way in addressing some of these issues. AAUP is still perturbed with us because we do not have a faculty senate per se that has some veto power over central administration fiat similar to what exists at the University of California (Faculty Regents). But, we do have mechanisms within the schools governance structure to deal with faculty/administration issues and WASC and LCME accept this structure even though the support is tepid. That said we undergo rigorous debate on this issue with the LCME and WASC representatives every time we come up for accreditation.

Markum, in response to you, WASC would look very disfavorably to a mass firing. If this happened, and it won’t, LSU would have to do some very careful dancing to avoid loss of accreditation. Moreover, professors that have funding at that school would lose it if WASC pulled the accreditation. As to answer your question, “who rules, God or WASC?” The answer is WASC and here WASC and the LCME!

The accreditation issue is a red herring.  Accreditation associations understand that religious colleges and universities exist for religious education.  Otherwise, they would have no reason to exist. 

The institution has no history of interference in substantive decisions or educational functions by political, religious, corporate, or other external bodies outside the institution’s own governance arrangements.

In LaSierra's case, if the changes were made by its own board, that would not run afoul of the guideline, because the board, with the Pacific Union President as the chairman, is  the institution's governing body.  One of the points that Mark Finley made is that Catholic institutions can and do fire professors for teaching contrary to Catholic doctrine.  How can Adventist insitutions not be allowed the same latitude?

I want to comment further on the end of the piece.  Wonderly warns that many "data driven people" are going to leave the church because of the insistence on following "19th century theology."  A couple of observations are in order.  First, the liberalization of the mainstream Protestant denominations has not prevented them from hemorrhaging members.  By contrast, the relatively conservative evangelical churches have continued to grow.  See, e.g., Dave Shiflett, Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity (Sentinel, 2005); Thomas C. Reeves, The Empty Church: The Suicide of Liberal Christianity (Free Press, 1996); Dean M. Kelley, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing: A Study in Sociology of Religion (Mercer University Press, 1986, 1995); Colleen Carroll, The New Faithful: Why Young Adults are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy (Loyola, 2002) So, for those who really are "data driven," the data suggest that liberalization is not the way to retain membership and keep growing.   Second, Wonderly seems to admit that most of the people who will leave were "belongers"--a reference's to Rick Rice's apologia for cultural Adventism.  These are people who do not believe in the doctrines but feel culturally Adventist.  Is there any reason, outside of monetary contributions, why the church would want these people hanging around?  They will only infect others with their "disguised infidelity," to quote a pertinent EGW passage.  They are not committed to the mission of the church; to the contrary, to the extent they have any commitment, it is to change the church into just another liberal liberal protestant church, of which there are already plenty. 

Wonderly said something I completely agree with, to wit, "Data driven people are hardly likely to start big new organizations."  That is true.  If liberals went out and established their own institutions, I would have some respect for them.  But they don't.  Instead, they infest institutions that belief-driven people have established and built up--often at great cost and sacrifice--and proceed to undermine the purposes for which the institutions were founded.  And we're supposed to get all exercised over the prospect of these people leaving?  May the tribe of the "faith driven" increase.

David asked:

 " Is there any reason, outside of monetary contributions, why the church would want these people hanging around?"

It should be considered that $$ is what operates the universities, the G.C., the union and local conferences, so to dispense with the idea that money is unimportant, how would it be possible for all these institutions to operate without the funds received from the many? 

Or the tuition paid by either students or their parents.  Without accreditation, to asume this would contine with no difference, is to be ignorant of the $$ reqired to operate a teaching institution.

David Read, Driving the "cultural Adventists" out is not  the best approach. What Adventism is today is mainly because of "cultural" Adventists. Some of us have a dream, a fantasy, a wish, that the Adventist denomination was at one time a pristine organization reflecting the plan of God. It wasn't. It would be poor form for newcomers to drive out those who built up the denomination to  which they now belong.

EGW referred to the SDA leadership's thoughts and expressions in 1888  as  "rabble talk" (1888, p278). She stated that U.Smith, one of the most influential thought leaders in the church,"doesn't know what he is talking about" (1888, p348). She further stated that the gospel had been virtually absent from the denomination during the first 45 years of its existence (1888,p 349), that the law had been preached until the church was dry as the Hills of Gilboa (RH, 03 11 1890). Could a people, living under "prophetic" denunciations of this sort, be responsible for creating a context in which the "remnant" could thrive? I doubt it.

Some, perhaps most, Adventist historians, revisionists, apologists see 1888 as a transitional period, which brought about a new direction for Adventism. Whatever changes transpired in the lives of individuals do not appear to have changed the theological emphasis of the church.

Cultural Adventism is to be commended for preserving the writings of EGW, whatever value they might be, just as Lutherans are to be credited with preserving and distributing the works of Luther and Melanchthon.

Of course, Lutheranism now exist in various forms, to suit the proclivities of various theological and personality types. It also has an extensive healthcare system--Lutheran Healthcare.

 While certain individuals are denying the possibility of a split in Adventism, it certainly happened in the Lutheran church, over many of the very same issues that are now troubling Adventism. The Missouri Synod,  at least on some university campuses, refuses to admit women into the M.Div. program. The M. Div. is the professional track for Lutheran clergy. They reject female leadership; consequently, there would be no point in training women for a "job"  which they can not perform.

Prior to the rupture among Lutherans, there may have been naysayers who dismissed the idea of a genuine division. Perhaps a friendly parting of the ways would be in the best interests of Adventism.

Certainly, those who wish can avail themselves of the  SDAinstitutional services available. From a strictly professional point of view, is an Adventist healthcare professional or educator  more competent than a Lutheran, a Jew, or a RC?

Evangelically minded Adventists, concerned about preaching the gospel to those who haven't heard it, don't need LLU, Andrews, or Adventist Health.

Hansen, it isn't that I want to drive cultural Adventists out.  I'm a cultural Adventist myself, in addition to being an actual believer in Adventist doctrine.   But it seems the cultural Adventists are not content (at least not any longer) to just sit around being cultural Adventists; they want to remake the church in their image, including changing the doctrine of origins to incorporate Darwinism.  After they are done with that project, cultural Adventism will be all that is left, because the Adventist doctrinal system will be dead or changed beyond recognition. 

What I was reacting against in the last part of the Wonderly piece was this paragraph:

Arguments over teaching biology are but one small manifestation of a much bigger problem facing the Adventist Church in North America: it is trying to progress on its chosen path in the 21st century while clinging to a 19th century theology. There is a heavy cost in talent and money, associated with this. If this larger problem is left unaddressed there may still be (my apologies to Rick Rice) Believers and Behavers but there won't be many Belongers. 

In other words, change the doctrine or the cultural Adventists are going to pick up their marbles and go home.  To that sort of implied blackmail, my response is:  "Go already, and godspeed.  We'll be just fine without you." 

I always admired the SDA church for the respect it gave to its membership to hold differing views. There are other denominations that seek excessive control of the minds of their constituents, and forbid the reading of contrary material. But in my limited experience with Adventists, I learned that you guys love to read a wide range of topics, you love to disagree with each other, and you even seem encouraged to air out these differences. Indeed, some would say that you guys are the intellectuals in Christianity. I just wish you could argue in a more friendly and less adversarial manner. I'm certain this newer, often-anonymous, online form of discussion promotes more extreme positions and more pointed, less courteous exchanges compared to the face-to-face conversation that many of us grew up with.

In any event, I do hope that diverse viewpoints can continue within your Church and at its institutions. Although I disagree with extreme views on both ends (e.g., theistic evolutionists are all evil, anti-God, and very dangerous; creationists are ignorant, anti-science, and obstruct enlightenment), I think that all of you can contribute in ways to the Church that are compatible with the workings of the Holy Spirit. I believe that academic freedom ultimately promotes cohesiveness, so I hate to see this jeopardized. Calls for an extreme position, on either side, have the potential to divide the Church, making things easier for the one we fear most to conquer it. Just my $0.02 worth.

ProfessorNotKent,

I think this hard-edged exclusiveness is a relatively new phenomenon.  Adventism has traditionally been very evangelistically minded, meaning that it works hard to gain new adherants.  It also tries to keep them.  Its educational system is part of that effort.  Thus, in my lifetime, until recently, I don't remember a time when committed Adventists actively urged people to leave the church on basis of beliefs (disfellowshipping was generally for behavior).  Rather, when there were disagreements, we tried to find ways to reconcile and to continue working together even with the disagreements.  We were united by a mutual search for truth.

I think what is happening is a trend, driven by the radical right that Bob speaks about, that reflects the kind of political polarization you see in national politics today, and is reflected in the borderline hate speech of talk show hosts like Joe Savage.  Purify the nation, run the immigrants out, don't let the leftists destroy our nation, etc.  There is no dialogue to understand what the left may be basing its position on or why it believes as it does; rather, they are to be castigated, demonized, ridiculed and excluded.  (And there is no recognition that many of us hold some beliefs in common with the left and some in common with the right!).

In the church, we've seen this developing over a generation.  The purges or attempted purges in faculty (Southern, AU seminary, Walla Walla, LaSierra) are one manifestation at a professional level, though these have not been accompanied by the idea that the people involved should leave the church, generally.  The Goldstein editorial on Adventist Darwinians certainly set the tone for the present discussion, where he basically encouraged Darwinists to leave the church.  David Read has openly expressed elsewhere his belief that unless the left is run out of the church, they will become a majority and then there will be no hope for the Adventist church, but that it will proceed down the same path of liberalization as mainline Protestant denominations.  He is actively encouraging people like us to leave the church so that he can preserve for himself and those like him a conservative church that holds to 19th century views.  He thinks the rest of us should go to the other Christian churches since there are plenty of them to choose from but just one SDA church, and if we take it away, he'll have nowhere to go.  I'm paraphrasing, but you can find his writings on this topic elsewhere.

Thus, I sense a deepening polarization in SDA that reflects trends in national politics, and thus I fear that what you once respected in Adventism is threatened.  It is exacerbated by the media (3ABN and the like), and though not yet pervasive in institutional Adventism (educational, medical), it is having an impact and I think will continue to grow.  Election of Ted Wilson as GC president will probably seal the deal, which is one reason that David Read and his friends will probably actively support his election.

David,

If you want to argue monetary contributions and sacrifice of liberals vs conservatives fine. For us "liberal" scientists, meaning we separate out religion and science and we accept evolution as a mechanism for changes in life forms, we are bringing in the most monetary support. Furthermore,  we sacrifice great  amounts of time and some of our physical health to accomplish this goal. As the church retrenches in its support of some academic institutions, thank God for the "liberal" profesors who are bringing in the private and public grant support.

By ProfessorNotKent

"I always admired the SDA church for the respect it gave to its membership to hold differing views. There are other denominations that seek excessive control of the minds of their constituents, and forbid the reading of contrary material. But in my limited experience with Adventists, I learned that you guys love to read a wide range of topics, you love to disagree with each other, and you even seem encouraged to air out these differences.

My...which SDA church have you been observing? lol. I wish it were this easy. I think the conservative element is being overwhelmed by differing views and really have no choice. It's like trying to fix the cracks in the dam. I think they merely tolerate the 'apostate' views that are presented on forums like here and Spectrum. If many of the uber-conservatives had there way there'd be much more Inquisitive tactics being practiced and they'd be happy to see us leave so they can be happy to stew in their  SDA orthodox views!

Darrell

TXalchemist, there is much truth in your remarks directed at ProfessorNotKent.  It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the major philosophical divide is not so much between denominations as it is between the liberals and conservatives of all denominations.  The real issue is the authority of Scripture; the conservatives in each denomination, including even the Episcopalians, seem to accept it; liberals in each denomination, including the SDA church, do not accept it.  In the liberal denominations (e.g., Disciples of Christ, ECUSA), those rejecting the authority of Scripture preponderate in positions of leadership, whereas in the conservative denominations (e.g., Southern Baptists, Adventists), those accepting the authority of Scripture preponderate in influence.  The rest seems to be culture, tradition, accidents of birth.  I think the reality is that I probably have more in common with those forlorn Episcopalians who objected to the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop than I do with some prominent Seventh-day Adventist pastors in the region where I live. 

I am amused that anyone would take Wonderly's ridiculous false dichotomy between DDPs and BDPs seriously. In order to advance his hypothesis, he arrantly abandons himself to the rhetoric of belief, proving once again that Adventist progressives, whatever the merits of their positions, "have no clothes." The we're-right-they're-wrong tone of the blog is matched by the commenters who blame SDA traditionalists for polarization in the Church. I hate to break the news, Erv, but when you and Mr. Wonderly joined the human race, you joined the ranks of the belief-driven, as your blogs overwhelmingly demonstrate. Computers and lower animals are data driven. When you pejoratively point the finger at belief driven people, you have four fingers pointing back at yourself.  The most dangerous people are those who deny that they are belief driven. The horrors of fascism and communism were perpetrated by self-proclaimed DDPs.

In both politics and religion, the Western world has moved leftward at breakneck speed over the past 50 years. The reason those realms used to be more harmonious is that they had common sources of authority and values within which dialogue could occur. The "tipping point" at which the Church finds itself is the result of progressives pushing against its foundations over the past 40 years, rejecting those sources of authority and values. Now it's fine for progressives to say that the Church needs to change and to fight for that change. But please, don't whine and name call when the reality of the progressive agenda is outed by traditionalists, and when traditionalists fight to preserve the covenant on which the community of faith was founded.

I agree with Progressives on many issues, and greatly enjoy dialoging with them. But their conceit would be much less offensive if they could be intellectually honest and admit that they are just as belief driven as those with whom they differ.

Why all the jabs and barbs? Why can't we all be more love-driven and simply agree to disagree? Is it that difficult to smile at what someone else writes and then shake hands with them and share a joke after Church later in the week?

Some of your posts, David Read's in particular, suggest to me that many of us are becoming overly preoccupied with preserving ideology rather than sharing God's love with people. Consider Haiti right now, where the relief efforts need to overlook ideology and deliver desperately-needed goods to people of all races, faiths, and beliefs. Is our situation, in God's eyes, any different from that in Haiti?

I don't understand the preoccupation with ideology and the intolerance that comes with it. I don't understand why, at the Earth's 11th hour, we are on the internet slapping each other around and putting labels on each other rather than doing the very simple task--which a two-year-old child can grasp--that Jesus called us to do. I have to ask myself, what would Jesus do if he was at my computer, with his fingers poised above my keyboard? To be honest, I'm questioning whether sites like Educate Truth (which I deplore), Adventist Today (which has much more balance but can still disappoint), or even the SDA Church itself (which I have contemplated much the past number of months), have any real bearing on how God wants me to spend my time. The answer, I suppose, is whether any of these inspire me to do God's will. I have to say that much of what I read-- and react to--pushes me the wrong direction.

Hopefully this is an appropriate time for me to weigh in on the discussion... (up through and including David C. Read's Jan 12 posting).

rudygood(Jan 8): you posed an interesting question: "...do you see a radical subset of the DDP (RDDP)?" I confess that idea did not occur to me although based on the principle of symmetry it should have. How would you define RDDP?

I agree with ProfessorNot Kent (January 9 first paragraph) in that I would like to see the Adventist Church manage to avoid the fate of so many other denominations that lost their universities.

I have found the back-and-forth on the legal, constitutional, and accreditation issues quite interesting and, obviously, agree that accreditation is a significant issue for the decision makers to take under consideration.

Hansen (Jan 12) suggested maybe a kind of no-fault, peaceful, divorce should/could be worked out: "Perhaps a friendly parting of the ways would be in the best interests of Adventism." An idea worthy of consideration. I have three responses.

(1) The SDA Church has always promoted its uniqueness. I think it would be great if the church would demonstrate this uniqueness by not splitting like other denominations have; in other words, by figuring out ways diversity could peacefully coexist. But if the church drives people away (causes an increase in the attrition rate) it does not get to claim success in "sticking together".

(2) Would it not be the case that any GC President would think "Split? Are you kidding? Not on my watch will you split."

(3) Given any denomination's strong penchant for control, I have difficulty imagining a peaceful divorce.

David C. Read: I will venture a few comments as follows:

(1) My dichotomy model was explicitly designed and declared value neutral. People are given how they are driven. My empirical (non-specialist) observation is that people seldom make significant changes in their personality. And, by the way, that is a very good thing.

(2) The Adventist world needs both BDP and DDP.

(3) I stand by my claim that the SDA church is at a tipping point. I did not tell the decision makers which way to influence the tipping. And I certainly did not threaten them. I did suggest some matters that should be taken under advisement.

(4) It is unlikely that there is a decision option available which will not drive collateral damage. The SDA church is a century too late to set in motion programs that would minimize if not eliminate the collateral damage that is about to take place.

Bob Wonderly

Bob Wonderly supplied the following:

"My empirical (non-specialist) observation is that people seldom make significant changes in their personality. And, by the way, that is a very good thing."

Check out the abstract from the following empirical study; opinions do seem prone to change when they are reinforced by "narrowcasted" sources of information. Can an argument be made here for balance and moderation?

Jones, D. A. 2002. The Polarizing Effect of New Media Messages. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14:158-174.

Abstract.--The conservative talk radio phenomenon in the United States provides a case study of how ‘narrowcasted’ new media—particularly those of a partisan nature—might shape audience opinions over time. This particular study returns to one of the questions raised in this journal by Matthew Mendelsohn and Richard Nadeau (1996): How might a more fragmented media environment accentuate existing cleavages and polarize opinion? The analysis demonstrates that listeners to a particular talk radio program audience not only hold conservative views, but that they leaned further to the right than they did in the early 1990s. Specifically, listening to the Rush Limbaugh program is associated with significant—and unique—shifts to the right between 1992 and 1996. Such findings suggest that as an increasingly fragmented media environment allows more individuals to seek out partisan sources of political information, opinion polarization may follow.

ProfessorNotKent,

I think Bob was referring to personality, not opinion.  The latter can change, but I think the former is pretty much fixed at a young age, barring brain injury.

Nathan,

Ignoring the tenor of your post, I would like to pose a question.  When you talk about "the covenant on which the community of faith was founded," what exactly do you mean?  Is there a contract (covenant)?  For Adventists (since that is what Bob is discussing), was that signed in 1863 or when?  Correct...there is no covenant.  You are just using that term to refer to the set of common beliefs and motivations for the founders of the SDA church.  What were those?  How have they changed over the years?  Are you sure you want to go back to the original "covenant" and ditch all the changes since 1844 or 1863 or whatever? 

Given the absence of a universally agreed definition of "covenant" in this context, aren't you a little hard on progressives (am I whining here? <ggg>).  Isn't it possible to visualize the "covenant" in this way:  SDA pioneers were (a) interested in pursuing truth wherever it led them, even if out of their churches; (b) open to rejecting tradition in favor of new light (understandings)?  If the "covenant" is viewed in this way, I think Progressives have every bit as much right to be unhappy with the pull to the right as the Conservatives feel justified in being unhappy in the face of the "relentless 40-50 year pull to the left" (my paraphrase).  They can make a good case to being the true conservatives of the "spirit" if not the same message of the pioneers.

I wouldn't be optimistic about the denominational leadership on this issue.  Witness the GC leadership's responses to fundamentalist SDA young adult leaders at GYC 2009 recently:  http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/3690097  Watch beginning 1:02:00.

Thank you for the tip. I transcribed some of the q and a session and have made it available on my blog

http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2010/01/gyc2009-hope-for-traditionals-dispai...

Professor Not Kent,

Your Bible is apparently missing some texts:  Ezekiel 33 about the negligent watchman, Matthew 18:17 “if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”, and I Corinthians 5  “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”

The problem in the Adventist church was in full bloom when the AAUP did its research.  Doctorf apparently knows very little of the issues involved or is unwilling to disclose them.  The issue was a simple one.  Does the story and the statue of the Good Samaritan really reflect the actions of the Adventist Church?  If not, why not?  The school had been sued by a non-Adventist faculty member who claimed that the school was trying to EXTORT his research product from him by using a psychiatric hold.  This was eventually settled for an unknown sum. The settlement was sealed in an apparent attempt to keep the Church from knowing the truth.  A second non-Adventist researcher sued the school under the RICO statute (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) and again this suit was eventually settled for an unknown sum.  Again the settlement was sealed in an apparent attempt to keep the Church from knowing.  Do these actions qualify under: Matthew 5:16  “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”   

The two faculty members who had sued to protect their interests figuratively lay on the ground wounded.  LLU’s actions were contested by Drs. Shankel and Grames who stopped at these men’s side and tried to end the assault on these faculty members.   The priests (the LLU Board of Trustees) and the Levites (the school administration) saw the carnage, what did they do?  To my view they chose the glory of the world over biblical principle and did their best to hide what had happened.  Darkness enveloped everything they did.  To my view they are the negligent watchmen of Ezekiel and will one day stand in judgment for their actions.

Drs. Shankel and Grames contested their firings under the provisions of the national labor relations act.  Surprise, surprise, the school maintained that they were a religious institution and could fire people without regard to the federal standards.  The opinion held for the school. 

Were the faculty members who protested this behavior protected by WASC?  But more importantly for the current discussion, were the faculty members protected by the Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders who sat on the Board?

Faculty were fired without hearings.  One faculty member had his “hearing” while he was away in Canada at a continuing education meeting.  He had specifically told the Dean when he would be gone and asked the Dean for certain evidence to be provided prior to his hearing.  The Dean arranged his “hearing” while he was gone!  Cowardice in the extreme!  When the Board and the President were informed of this, they did nothing. 

When one faculty member in the Emergency Department wrote to the Board of Trustees, the whole Emergency Department faculty’s hospital contract was canceled within a month.  Coincidence, anyone?  The faculty handbook statement on academic freedom changed drastically.  Coincidence, anyone?

WASC did nothing.  WASC will approve anything so long as leadership are smooth sycophants.

After WASC, the carnage continued, the subsequent ED contract holder was fired and sued.  The settlement and the Boards and administrations alleged unscrupulous actions were again hidden by sealing a verdict reported to have run to 7 figures.  Do you see a pattern here?

You are effusive in your praise of AToday.  Did you know that some of the founders and early supporters of AToday were witnesses to the carnage?  Like the Levite in the Good Samaritan narrative, they looked the other way.

How do I know these things?  I am the faculty member who was fired while away in Canada with a phony hearing.  I was the Emergency Medicine faculty member who watched his friends be fired from their jobs because I believed in the academic freedom statement in the faculty handbook and wrote a letter to the Board of Trustees. 

The most significant lesson to be learned, and the thing of greatest concern for those who worry about the future of LLU and La Sierra is the conduct of the Adventist Church upper level clergy who sit on these Boards.  They are, for the most part, invertebrates who will not stand up for the Bible and its precepts.  They are milquetoasts who love to talk and sit in high positions but will not act.  They will claim that they are being pastoral.  Nothing will happen. 

The lay people with the help of clergy like Goldstein will have to take back their church and its schools, if the schools are to be saved.  The bottom line is that we need to replace the Board members with men of courage like Goldstein.  Then, the administration and the faculty will be brought into line.

Elaine,

You could not be more wrong, for I was fired for not following Church instruction and WASC did nothing.  Your idea of a Christian school is laughable.  Every faculty member of a Christian school should be teaching creation and Christianity as their primary duty.  Their discipline should always be secondary to this!

Doctorf,

I find your lack of courage in using your real name telling.  The honesty of your opinions is only possible because of your anonymity.  Would you be as bold if you might be held accountable?

 You say, “Some parochial institutions do indeed get away from the supporting church. This happens when they are able to establish a center of academic excellence and attract both public and private research dollars. This is going on at institutions such as LLU. The amount of funding influx in the last 10 yrs is remarkable as more and more faculty attract research dollars. There is even a tax that now goes to support central administration. This is because the GC is reducing its financial support for LLU. As the financial support declines so will the ability of the central SDA administration to influence the institution.” 

I hope that everyone reading the above quote will note the seditious nature of this comment.    The purpose is clearly to remove LLU from the control of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  Doctorf is anxiously awaiting the Baylorization of  LLU.  Why is this person employed by our institution?  You are lucky that I am not in the administration or you would be fired if I could determine your name.  In my opinion, the real characterization of people like you is SABOTEUR!  

You say, “I do not speak for LLU, however, I know what goes on. Evolutionary implications with regards to conserved gene sequences in the fabric of life are discussed in the open in Basic Science Seminars. Here world class scientists come and speak to the PhD and MD/PhD students and discuss the topics of evolution using scientific language. Indeed Adventism seems to be a religion where conservatives want to hold onto a 19th century theology in a 21st century world. I do not think it will work.” 

Adventism is a religion which wants to hold unto the Bible.  The Bible has not changed from the 19th century to the 21st century.  Why should we change?  The Bible certainly doesn’t work with or for people like you.  Why are you working at a religious institution?  Go out and peddle your wares elsewhere. 

You say, “But, trying to smash the data into a few thousand year paradigm just to support a literal reading of the genesis myth, is simply astounding.” 

What is simply astounding is your intellectual hubris and your failure to understand the limitations of science.  Mind boggling is your lack of imagination.   Weak minds are especially susceptible to deception. 

You say, “As to answer your question, “who rules, God or WASC?” The answer is WASC and here WASC and the LCME!”   

Acts 5:34  “Then stood there up one in the council a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, …”38&39  “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:  But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”

Some pusillanimous individuals abjectly and willingly worship before WASC and LCME.  If  LLU and La Sierra act in the will of God, they have nothing to fear from the Lilliputians of WASC and LCME.  God is the correct answer to the question!

David C Read wrote: "But it seems the cultural Adventists are not content (at least not any longer) to just sit around being cultural Adventists; they want to remake the church in their image, including changing the doctrine of origins to incorporate Darwinism."

No David, you fear that when people are given all the information they will decide to change dictrine.  I believe this is because you recognize the weakness of your case and it is plain to you and others that the data simply do not support your hypothesis.  So the only option you have left is to throw out the data and claim that no one can question tradition.

I know of no scientists who are demanding to incorporate science into our theology.  There are many who would like our theology to allow them to be scientific without being considered heretics, but that is not the same as "changing the doctrine of origins to incorporate Darwinism."

Further, I am not convinced that most people want to believe the scientific account of the past.  I think that given all the evidence most people prefer the creation story.  If devoted creationists were to identify why people like the story and promote those values creationism would never lack support, even though some scientists taught otherwise.

In short, I think you are lion being terrified by a mouse.

David C Read wrote: "The real issue is the authority of Scripture; the conservatives in each denomination, including even the Episcopalians, seem to accept it; liberals in each denomination, including the SDA church, do not accept it.  In the liberal denominations (e.g., Disciples of Christ, ECUSA), those rejecting the authority of Scripture preponderate in positions of leadership, whereas in the conservative denominations (e.g., Southern Baptists, Adventists), those accepting the authority of Scripture preponderate in influence."

In the imortal words of Represetative Joe Wilson: "YOU LIE!!!"

Say your fellow SDA conservative tells you that his thirteen-year old son has been talking disrespectfully to him and now he has discovered that the son is doing drugs as well.  Would you really go with him to throw rocks at his son until the son dies?  Because that is Bible says to do.  What if you found out that the neighbor woman was holding a seance, would you go kill her?

If you would not, aren't you thumbing your nose at the "authority of Scripture"?

In fact was this not precisely the charge against Jesus by those who brought the woman "caught in adultry"?

So---wanna pick-up that rock and give it a throw? No?

Today I stumbled across a website that offers a potential solution to those like David Read that think progressives should leave Adventism because otherwise they'll take over the church and conservatives will have no place to go where the traditional teachings of Adventism with respect to a literal 6-day creation, etc., are taught.

The website is that of the International Missionary Society Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement (IMSSARM).  I had never heard of this group before today.  They have quite an interesting history, originating in a separation from the SDA Church at WWI when they remained conscientious objectors.  (Read their history at the website; it is interesting).  They claim to have 35,000 members around the globe.  There is even a congregation in Riverside, CA.  They have a strong emphasis on what they understand to be the traditional teachings of Adventism, including literal 6-day creation, EGW, opposed to homosexuality, etc.  Their statement of belief includes 37 points, so you are well covered if you think 28 isn't enough!

Reading their website and publications, it looks like some of those criticizing La Sierra might feel right at home with IMSSARM.  They stand against the worldly infiltration of our churches and schools, and thus probably have none of the deceipt and dishonesty you see in the teachers at La Sierra.  Furthermore, they see not just the church, but the entire world at a "tipping point".  Read their links to discussions of economics.

So, for those like David Read who have pled that we not take away his cherished church, consider this as an option! 

http://www.imssda.org/

http://www.imssdarm-bg.org/content/category/8/17/80/

(Like Bob, I actually would prefer we stick together.  I resent being told by David Read, Clifford Goldstein, et al. that I should leave the church because I don't interpret the Bible as they do.  BUT...if there must be split, this IS another option besides the progressives leaving.  Since IMSSDA/IMSSDARM doesn't seem to have a system of schools and universities, it might make more sense for the Educate Truth crowd to go there than for the SDA Progressives to leave and abandon the SDA universities to the conservatives to run into the ground with the accreditation bodies).

After reading the comments listed above, I would like to make the following suggestions:

There is not need to split the church, and there is no need to fire the LSU science teachers. All we need to do is to ask them to be more humble and admit that nobody has a monopoly on truth. Since this is the case, they have no right to present one theory of origins as the only credible explanation for origins. 

They need to be more balanced in their approach to the teaching of evolution and be willing to present to their students not only the evidence favoring evolution, but also the data which tends to suggest that there are serious problems with the Darwinian views on origins. 

They need to admit that they are the ones who have created this problem by insisting that the theory of evolution is factual instead of a theoretical construct which science has been unable to demonstrate or replicate in the laboratory. 

After thousands of experiments with viruses, bacteria, and animals, scientists have been unable to replicate the transformation of one major forms of life into another, which represents a major claim of evolution. Viruses are still viruses, dogs are still catalogued as dogs, and mice have never ceased to be mice.  

Adventism is a belief system, and so is the theory of evolution. Both are making major claims which cannot be replicated in the laboratory. Evolutionists work on the premise that there is no such thing as miracles or an intelligent designer. Adventism claims the opposite.

There is no way to reconcile the differences nor any likelihood that one of the two explanations will be verified by hard science based on experimentation and replication.

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com  & www.letsfocusonlife.com

Lysle,

Your attack and threats are duly noted but a waste of time. My duty as you call it is not to teach creation. We speak the language of science. Moreover, try writing an NSF or NIH grant where the intent is to provide a scientific basis for creation. You won't get very far.

I am not saying there is no creator but to show that there is one is not within the purview of science. God talk is within the realm of theology. We can only test hypotheses using measurements. Furthermore, I do not speak for an institution, I speak for myself but I am a part of the research enterprise.

Indeed an institution changes when it is not as beholding to a church for support. This may not sit well with you but that is a fact. SDA higher education systems may well have to go it alone in the future as the competition for dollars increases. We have enough competent people that can lessen the financial burden to the church. Be that as it may the church still has a large influence which is reflected within the department of religion. The theologians in that department are some of my best and most respected friends.

Regarding your comment that Adventism holds to the bible which has not changed. The bible may not have changed but how we interpret it has indeed changed. How can you tell me that the 6 day "P" story is not a parallel to the Babylonian 6 day creation myth? So if biblical scholars who can date such writings tell us that the 6 day story was written around 565 BCE at the time of the Babylonian captivity, I should reject their interpretation? No, I will not as it makes sense that a culture in captivity would take a polytheistic story such as the one rendered by the Babylonians and make it a monotheistic story. 

As far as hiding, I am not that hard to find nor the monster you suppose. The term "doctorf" was an affectionate accolade given to me by some med and grad students. The idea that you can come and have any of our faculty "fired" is truly hubris on your part. Try Understanding Genesis and you will find that many good faculty both within the sciences and dept of religion contributed to that book and you would probably have them on your target list.

Some relevant comments on the NYTimes following a book review on conflicts with religion and science.

"We live as if certain things are true and we do so fo as long as those apparent truths seem to work.  When it becomes clear that the earth is in fact round, or that more people will survive and recover from surgery if surgeons wash their hands between operations, or that a reading of the entrails of animals doew not provide many reliable clues as to events to come - we generally abdandon the previous set of facts and carry on, living again as if our new understandings are true."

"The argument about truth is not between science and religion.  It is more of a permanent tension between the senses of perception and the powers of imagination."

Hi Nick,

When you say that science "says there is no designer" I don't think that is the case. Science relies on natural explanations for any phenomena because that is all science can measure. As you know the  theology class that meets on Sabbath on the LLU campus is working on Kaufmans book and teleological discussions do occur among those in science. However, a theology or philosophy class is the appropriate place for these discussions not the science classroom. I am happy that I was given an education where both issues could be discussed.

The theory of evolution is not a belief per se. It relies on verifiable hypotheses such as the conservation of genes. We see this all the time in the laboratory. Indeed evolution cannot necessarily explain higher order functions that come from the human mind. But, a lack of explanation does not ostensibly argue for a creator. The creator argument is an epi-phenomena of higher intelligence.

Nice to hear from you. I wish I attended class more often. 

Martin Schratt,

 I quote, “Say your fellow SDA conservative tells you that his thirteen-year old son has been talking disrespectfully to him and now he has discovered that the son is doing drugs as well.  Would you really go with him to throw rocks at his son until the son dies?  Because that is Bible says to do.  What if you found out that the neighbor woman was holding a seance, would you go kill her? If you would not, aren't you thumbing your nose at the "authority of Scripture"? In fact was this not precisely the charge against Jesus by those who brought the woman "caught in adultry"? So---wanna pick-up that rock and give it a throw? No?”

Are you being disingenuous or merely being provocative?   Is prohibition still constitutional or was it repealed?  When something is repealed it may remain in print but it is of no effect. 

The Ten Commandments were a covenant designed to save men by bringing them back to God.  If you are a sinner, you need a better covenant than obedience to the Ten.  If you want, you can choose to be under grace rather than the law.  “Amazing Grace how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me.  I once was lost but now am found.  Was blind, but now I see.” 

Maybe now you can see this.  The Mosaic law was a civil code designed to rule an earthly nation.  Your example is ludicrous.  We are not the Israel of old, and are not in any way under Moses’ laws.  Put your “red herrings” back into your creel! 

This comment has been edited to meet posting guidelines. Any additional exchange of insults between two individuals should go to e-mail or they will be automatically deleted-- AToday Moderator

Doctorf

 You say, “Be that as it may the church still has a large influence which is reflected within the department of religion. The theologians in that department are some of my best and most respected friends.”

The fact that you have friends in the department of religion does not surprise me as the survey showed that the religion faculty at La Sierra were even more compromised than the Biology faculty.  I do not know who is in this department anymore.  When I was there, they did not lack intellect.  They were short on conviction and courage.  As near as I can tell, the deficits remain.  The Board should evaluate all departments for saboteurs.

You say, “Indeed an institution changes when it is not as beholding to a church for support. This may not sit well with you but that is a fact. SDA higher education systems may well have to go it alone in the future as the competition for dollars increases. We have enough competent people that can lessen the financial burden to the church.”

It doesn’t sit well with me.  If the clergy on the Board of Trustees had any faith, they wouldn’t have to be selling their souls to you, for a buck or two.  God has all the money LLU will ever need.

Lysle,

As I read your response to me I can feel your anger and vitriol. You sound to me like a very angry man that has stumbled on this web site and particular blog and you are here to set us all straight. A question. If God has all the money LLU will ever need, then please tell me where we can get it? What account is it in? In the meantime we will still have to charge tuition and get research support to pay for the costs. I stand on solid ground when I say that GC support for central administration is waning. There are many reasons for this, thus we have to make up for the dearth of dollars to support the institution.

I fully support the LLU mission to "Make Man Whole." That is a noble goal however, the devil is always in the details. Thank God the board of trustees does not think as you do and we do struggle with the issues. We have a class in the School of Religion to assist students with science/faith issues. The teleological discussions that occur belong in a religion class, not a science class. Your view of what we do here is very twisted and maybe you should attend a Basic Science seminar as we have them every Thursday at 4 pm and you might be edified and maybe this would dispel some of your irrational fears.

I do not understand your denigration of my colleagues in the Dept. of Religion. They are not saboteurs as you so hatefully and gleefully claim. They are scholars, ministers and yes, my friends. Some have ministered to me personally through difficult times and reading their books, attending the weekly theology class has opened up my understanding of the Bible and I see spiritual truths that I missed in my literal readings from the past.

What is so wonderful about SDA higher education is that I have been educated both in theology, religion as well as math and science. From there I went to the University of California for my advanced training and I have taught in two schools of medicine so I have seen both sides of education, parochial and nonparochial. What I would say to you regarding some of my professors and now colleagues such as Rick Rice, Jack Provonsha, Fritz Guy, Jim Walter's is they taught me how to think just as rigorously about theology as I do science. I owe them a debt of gratitude that I can never repay. 

I do understand the Professorial role. But, I do not use it as a position of power. I want my students to be co-learners and I respect them and care about them deeply. Moreover, being a tyrant is not the path to education. In the end they all publish with me and are either Professors themselves at secular and some, gasp, religious institutions or they are scientists in the pharmaceutical industry.

I cannot say that I wish you well in your personal crusade to destroy others. Maybe a little dose of love on your part may not hurt.

Kind regards

Doctorf 

DoctorfYou say,  “I am not saying there is no creator but to show that there is one is not within the purview of science. God talk is within the realm of theology.”

This of course is the ultimate in balderdash and shows lack of understanding of the discipline which you claim to practice.  Hypothesis:  God can create a sun and an earth from nothing, raise a man from the dead, cure blindness by putting mud on the eyes, walk around in a fire with his three friends after the fire killed the soldiers who threw his friends into the fire etc. and beings who are not God can not.  

The experiment:  We set up an experiment with 10 men and ask them to do these things.  Nine men  can not do any of them and one man, Jesus Christ does them all.  Do the statistical analysis any way you want and you would be forced to conclude that Jesus Christ is God.

If you had been more careful with your words, you would have said that you can not imagine a way to MAKE CURRENT OBSERVATIONS to prove there is GOD and you won’t accept observations from others to help in the proof.

[rest of comment deleted by moderator]

On January 20th, 2010 Lysle Williams Jr. asks:  Are you being disingenuous or merely being provocative?

I am actually being provocative.  David Read insisted that conservatives accept the authority of scriptures and liberals reject it.  I think that grossly misrepresents the situation.

Lysle also asked:  Is prohibition still constitutional or was it repealed? 

That is a tough one, while the 18th amendment of the constitution was indeed clearly repealed the courts did allow individual states to put restrictions on the sale of alchohol.  They also allowed counties to continue prohibition locally as I experienced in southern Idaho just 10 years ago.

Lysle also asserted:  Maybe now you can see this.  The Mosaic law was a civil code designed to rule an earthly nation.  Your example is ludicrous.  We are not the Israel of old, and are not in any way under Moses’ laws.

That just makes my point.  The creation story is part of the Law of Moses.  The distinctions that many Adventists make (civil, ceremonial and eternal) are merely traditional and they are not spelled out clearly anywhere in the Bible.

There seems to be some disagreement about religion faculty, yet two different groups seem to be targeted, with those at La Sierra receiving criticism, and those at Loma Linda earning praise. Do these schools share their religion faculty?

I'm sorry to read about such difficult issues for these institutions that appear to involve ideological and interpersonal struggles more than anything else. What I can say, presumably from a more objective perspective, is that Loma Linda has a very solid reputation in the region it serves. And many in the region view it as a credible Christian witness, providing compassionate health care and legitimate contributions to science.

I would be deeply saddened if the ideological and interpersonal struggles described here were to become a distraction to the university hospital's mission of caring for humanity. Why can't people put aside their differences and work toward a common goal?

Doctorf,   Thank you for making my point.  You say, “What is so wonderful about SDA higher education is that I have been educated both in theology, religion as well as math and science.”  After your education in theology and religion, you have had the privilege of palling around with some of the esteemed faculty of the religion department, meet regularly with them, and read their books and you can’t answer one of the simplest of inquiries: 

You say, “A question. If God has all the money LLU will ever need, then please tell me where we can get it? What account is it in?” 

Get together with your buddies in the religion department and figure it out.  This is certainly evidence why neither you nor they should be teaching at an Adventist school. 

I am deeply relieved that you didn’t study psychiatry for you mistake anger for determination and destruction for reproof.  I am not here to argue about, nor am I impressed by your glowing self portrait.  I question why you need to publish it.  You may indeed be a wonderful, caring, etc. etc. professor.  This is not the issue.  The issue is do I and other like minded individuals wish to have their children and grandchildren taught by a science professor and a religion department that can’t answer your question quoted above. 

I am hoping for new leadership in the church who will bring back leaders in the mold of Magan to LLU.

Lysle,

I could produce a portrait of any number of faculty. The point is we are competent at what we do. With regards to the quip "get  together with your buddies in the religion dept and figure it out." Zing! Actually we do not have to figure it out. We already have much of our dollar issues figured out. The dollars come from a conglomerate of faculty efforts in research federal, state and private, tuition and contributions.

If your grandchildren go to this institution they will be taught by people like myself and people in the Dept of religion. As for me I teach biomedical science, not religion. You are free to influence those under your purview in any manner you would like. This school will continue to move forward whether or not your family members choose to come here. So ranting about the current status is not productive as there are other good choices in schools.

With regards to your hypothesis. First a scientific hypothesis must be "testable" and hence falsifiable by experimentation. So what experiments are you going to perform to produce data sets that demonstrates God creates anything? You can argue for a creator because of the complexity of the universe and life itself but one is hard pressed to demonstrate a creator via an experimental approach. The inference of God comes from human language and our ability to ask questions. There are no answers to some questions. Yours and my belief in God is a faith proposition and we can say that God is a creative force but there is no way to prove it. The atheist faces the same dilemma. They argue that a belief in God is simply unreasonable and Gods existence is not self evident nor is there necessarily any proof of its existence. But, in the end there is no information that can beyond any reasonable doubt prove or disprove Gods existence.

Sincerely,

Doctorf 

Doctorf,

Richard Dawkins can teach me to think rigorously about science; Christopher Hitchens can teach me to think rigorously about theology; An atheist psychologist can insightfully guide me through emotional crises. Most people would consider the ability to stimulate and enlighten students as a given for good educators. But most parents who send their children to parochial colleges expect professors whose lives and witness to Christ inspire their students to a deeper faith and a closer walk with God.  This is the value-added feature which Adventist parents want from Adventist education, even if they lack it in their own lives.

Most parents are oblivious to the fact that many Adventist theologians are offering their students heresies like universal salvation and process theology, rejecting the salvific effect of the cross in favor of The Moral Influence Theory. Some of the theologians you applaud take a very dim view of human freedom. If one listens carefully to progressive Adventist educators (not simply theologians), their mental furniture bears the unmistakable imprimatur of social Darwinism, Marxist politics, and Freudian psychology. They selectively use scripture and Ellen White to undermine church authority, and deify humanity a la Auguste Comte, the 18th Century French social philosopher. They implicitly reject the fundamental Christian doctrine that sin entered the world as a consequence of human choice; they reject the Biblical teaching of human freedom and personal responsibility; they reject the centrality of the cross to salvation.  The problem isn't that they reject a 19th Century theology. It is that they reject 1st Century theology.

I am not really interested in whether a person is data driven or belief driven. They both suffer from propositional impotence. If the Church is primarily composed of the two types described by Wonderly, it really doesn't matter which way it tips.  Christ was neither data driven nor belief driven; He was driven by a personal relationship with His Heavenly Father.  Why should we strive for less?

Nathan,

Thank you for a clear explanation of where you stand. Its safe to say these other theologies are not necessarily heresy to me. Theology is not static and there may be more theological truths to discover.

I do not agree with your view of what my duties are at a Christian school. I am here to teach science and do research, not proselytize the SDA faith. No one but no one asks me to do such. However, I am required to live a moral life and exhibit kindness to all those I meet as exhibited by the life of Jesus. 

We have Professors here that come from other Christian faiths and from the Jewish faith. I see the character of Jesus exhibited in the actions of these people. Large institutions such as LLU from my perspective continue and will continue to evolve. In the end it probably will never be what you envision but will be around serving the immediate community and larger educational and research community for a long time to come.

Ella M

ProfessorNotKent

Thank you for your kindly mature comments; ones that should direct any church that calls itself Christian.  I am sorry for the distortions and extremes represented here.  This is an independent website that draws many from academia to debate issues of the day. It also attracts some others who want to set them straight.  I think both groups are literal thinkers.

Actually I don't think this angry debate is relevent to the spiritually-driven church member who is too busy helping, doing good, praying, serving, and worshipping.  I doubt there are many in the membership as a whole who have left due to belief in evolution.  Where is the data?

To others on the post:

I find some good points in Reid's thoughts that seem data directed--what happens to churches that go liberal, however, his idea that all "progressives" leave the church is unChristian though I doubt he really meant it that way and it was picked up by his opponents as another club. I think we need a clear definition of "progressive."  I don't think there is one.  Some of us are progressive in some areas and not others.  By the implied definition of this site, it would be better to say theistic evolutionists and creationists.

It would seem any science teacher with integrity would allow his students the freedom of choice by presenting the alternatives in belief.  We need to know about evolution (which certainly exists within major species and  I have been reading such adaptions move faster than we ever thought). They don't have to go into scientific explanations of creationism if they don't want to, just acknowledge it as a legitimate belief. After all humans do not know everything outside their box and to claim so is pure arragance. But no they shouldn't all be fired because of personal beliefs.

Also there are enough examples out there to show that data can be used to control and no one is purely objective, especially in an  environment where all think  alike.  Sciencists are not exempt from this nor are theologians.

I do not know how God created.  There is a story passed down from the original source/persons (not the Babylonians who got it somewhere else) that made its way to the Israelites.  I have no reason to doubt it, but whether it happened in the simple way told or not, it is Truth that God created and the symbolic number 7 is involved.  There were God worshippers before Israel.

We each have our personal relationships with God and they vary.  I don't believe anyone will be lost because of their belief in theistic evolution. 

I want to keep an open mind, but I don't understand how Jesus could save us from sin that kills when death had been going on for eons.  If we are Christian we believe in His resurrection and this is totally unscientific as no one has ever been raised from the dead in a laboratory.  Can any of the theistic evolutionists please explain this in their own belief system?  I'm serious.

Please use quotations or the indent button when quoting other readers -- AToday Moderator

Ella M. writes:

I want to keep an open mind, but I don't understand how Jesus could save us from sin that kills when death had been going on for eons.  If we are Christian we believe in His resurrection and this is totally unscientific as no one has ever been raised from the dead in a laboratory.  Can any of the theistic evolutionists please explain this in their own belief system?  I'm serious.

I am sure that if God comes down and wants to perform the demonstration of a resurrection there will be numerous scientific labs happy to test and document the experiment. But until that time it seems to be a rather useless experiment for people to experment on resurrections, because even if they could do it, then they would have to show someone going floating off into the clouds and then sitting down on the right hand of the Almighty God.

Simply put there is no reason to experment with concepts which require divine intervention. Which is why science focuses on the natural world .

I appreciate your candor, Doctorf. Unlike some of the commenters on AToday blogs, I believe that clarity is more important than consensus. I wish all Adventist educators could be as clear as you about where they stand on the purpose of Adventist higher education. I think a large number of SDA professors would agree with you. I surely did not mean to tell you what your duties are at a Christian university. I can only tell you my criteria for supporting and promoting a church affiliated university or college.  I'm sure I would love to have you teaching my children at a state university. But unless the academics were clearly superior, I wouldn't send them to an Adventist school where your philosophy of Christian education prevailed. I'm sure that professors with good morals are readily found in non-church affiliated universities, which do a fine job of "serving the immediate community and larger educational and research community..." It sounds to me like your vision of Christian/Adventist education is post-Christian and post-Adventist.

I believe there are two reasons that Left Coast Adventist higher education survives, neither of which has much to do with the intellectual or spiritual environment found on campus: 1) a large percentage of students come from Church employed families, and get tuition discounts which make SDA colleges a good bargain; 2) the chances of finding a spouse with Adventist background and values is very high if students attend SDA colleges.  I would be most interested to know if surveys have been done to verify or disprove my hunch.

Ironically, the unique, sectarian aspects of Adventism - which progressives would love to dismantle - are the very features which keep the academic breeding grounds for Adventist progressivism in business.  So be careful what you wish for. The best metric for determining the success of progressives in winning the hearts and minds of North American Adventists may be the number of Adventists who leave the Church. And that does not auger well for the job security of progressive Adventist educators.  

Martin Shratt,

You say, "The creation story is part of the Law of Moses." 

Are you trying to ascert that the creation narrative was made of no effect by the New Testament? 

The Pentateuch, the Torah and the Law of Moses are all used to describe the first five Books of the Old Testament.  When people say Arizona is the Grand Canyon state, it does not imply that all of Arizona is one large canyon, but rather that the Grand Canyon is a prominent feature of Arizona, for which it is known.  Similarly, the Books authored by Moses are termed the Law of Moses because of the appearance of the Ten Commanments, the civil and ceremonial laws.  Whichever parts of the Law found in the Torah you feel are referenced by Paul when he states that you are no longer under the Law but under Grace, are irrelevant to the historicity of the creation narrative. 

I think Wonderly’s model of “data driven and belief driven” to describe the present situation in the S.D.A. Church is informative. Furthermore, the observation that beliefs are always present in the way scholars go about their work, while true, is used as a red herring in many of the opposing responses to Wonderly’s proposal. Our opinions about anything (read beliefs), without data are weak regardless of the fact that they may by chance be right. Opinions supported by data are strong but may become weak when additional data demonstrates that earlier data was inadequate or used selectively. Belief in the infallibility of the Bible on matters of science and history, etc. is a weak belief because the data available is sparse and used selectively to support the basic presupposition. Contrary to tenacious but weak beliefs, critical methods have reduced the ideology of biblical infallibility to theological rubble. And along with it all attempts to recreate some semblance of belief by scraping together a few pieces of surviving historical data, especially where it can be integrated into the theme of prophecy and fulfillment is merely the attempt to build a semblance of the same weak belief of the rubble. Allow an illustration. Port au Prince, Haiti, built on a geological fault, lies in ruins, destroyed by an earthquake. Not only is it a bad idea to build on a geological fault, the buildings were not able to withstand the destructive force of the quake. The city was reduced to rubble. People may try to salvage bits of the debris and rebuild a house of it, but the house will still be made of rubble and sit on the same geological fault awaiting an after shock, or another earthquake.

The point is, excluding the idea that insurance companies might figure out how to still turn a profit by rebuilding the city and assuming future losses as they do in California, Port au Prince can never be brought back as the same city in the same location. We have too much geological data in this age of science to attempt such a rebuilding. One may continue to believe that it will be restored, but the strength of the data will test that belief until only those oblivious to the significance of the data will insist that the city will be rebuilt. It goes without saying that these people risk suffering the same fate again and again. Now it may be that clever businessmen figure out that in the short term it will be profitable to rebuild and resettle the people in a rebuilt city in the same place. But the data suggests that this is only short term solution. But what happens in their own time is perhaps all these imaginary businessmen are interested in. But the data stands and we ignore it to our peril. At some point in time the data will determine the tipping point. What this means theologically is that we must think about adjusting our belief system by the data rather than ignoring it. Ignoring it may make economic sense in the short term, but bring bankruptcy in the long.

Acknowledging that in organized religion there is an economic interest involved, there are other ways of construing religious belief and practice than concentrating on intellectual assent to propositions. Every creed and practice should declare that truth and God are more definable by what we don’t know about them rather than by what we think we do know. Thus, many of our questions about God are left to our imaginations to ponder, but go unanswered. This may be a fruitful and promising way going into the future. It certainly is agreeable with what we learn from physics about reality, i.e. it is basically unknowable.

I think most everyone would agree that data is important. My problem is with the conceit that some people are data driven and some are belief driven, the former being intellectuals. If anyone took such a claim seriously before ciimategate, surely the fraud and deceit recently revealed by the "crutape emails", Yamal bristlecone data, and claims of rapidly receding glaciers in the Himalayans, should make any objective observer realize that intellectuals are as prone to manipulate data to fit their beliefs as any true believer. 

Unfortunately, Joe Grieg ignores that God can only be known experientially and relationally. Jesus said, "If you have known me, you have known the Father; I am the way, the truth, and the life." To thus know God is to know all we need to know about Him. The God that is more definable by what we do not know about Him is surely a God that is not worth dying for. And a God that is not worth dying for is a God that is not worth living for either. 

Lysle Williams Jr. wrote:

"Are you trying to ascert that the creation narrative was made of no effect by the New Testament? 

The Pentateuch, the Torah and the Law of Moses are all used to describe the first five Books of the Old Testament.  When people say Arizona is the Grand Canyon state, it does not imply that all of Arizona is one large canyon, but rather that the Grand Canyon is a prominent feature of Arizona, for which it is known.  Similarly, the Books authored by Moses are termed the Law of Moses because of the appearance of the Ten Commanments, the civil and ceremonial laws.  Whichever parts of the Law found in the Torah you feel are referenced by Paul when he states that you are no longer under the Law but under Grace, are irrelevant to the historicity of the creation narrative." 

What I am asserting is that the primary purpose of the historical narratives in the Pentateuch is to  support God's authority to proclaim laws.  Therefore, since we are not bound by the laws of the Pentateuch, it is not longer important to believe that they literally happened just as described.  I think that it continues to be useful for understanding how our beliefs came to be, but our motivations for behaving have changed.   After all, how many of us are kind to others because we fear that God might smite us?

Nathan,

I appreciate your response. The materials that I teach relate specifically to the science underpinning disciplines such as physiology, pharmacology and molecular biology as well as biophysics. My "philosophy" of Christian education has nothing to do with those topics. However, in areas such as what are the possible consequences for a believer in a modern scientific world and science/faith issues, those topics appropriately belong in a religion or theology course. Or these issues are probed in a theology based Sabbath School class of which there are a few of these on the LLU campus.

Now privately if a student approaches me with a personal issue outside of the disciplines I teach that is another matter. We laugh, joke, inspire our students and we share in their disappointments and tragedies. My Christian faith demands that I remain thoughtful and caring towards students and colleagues in areas outside of academic purview. Prayers before admin meetings, exams etc are always carried out but once the prayer is over we get down to business. But, the business that we engage in is hopefully guided by Gods wisdom and compassion.

Nathan,

Right here with you on that issue. Fraud was employed because science prostituted itself for an environmental political agenda.  When politics of fear and science are mixed, honesty goes out the window. Much of the current "raw" data when you look at it does not support the AGW theory. However, raw data was manipulated by algorithms with a predisposed warming bias. They got caught and this scandal has really hurt all science based enterprises.

I have archived a lot of data and have had rigorous debates with colleagues.  I was one of the few skeptics and I am being vindicated.

The issue of global warming is unfortunate; it polarizes people and detracts from very real ecological issues that warrant much more attention: population growth, deforestation, excessive pollution, rapidly deteriorating water and air quality, accelerating biodiversity loss, damaged ecosystem services...the list goes on and on. The recent upheaval in Haiti, where intractable environmental damage (e.g., 98% loss of forests) ensured inescapable poverty and now greatly confounds recovery, should put things in better perspective for those on both sides of the climate change debate.

Continued dialogue on this highly politicized issue creates a schism that delights our enemy (Satan). When SDAs and other Christians are ready to put "environment" and "social responsibility" in the same sentence, perhaps they will unite and return to the urgent work of redeeming souls rather than defining pigeonholes to put souls in and debating how long it has been since pigeons first graced our planet.

ProfessorNotKent's attempt to jettison AGW from the environmentalist agenda in which it has been embedded for at least two decades is amusing. Now that the "settled science" underlying claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is being exposed as a fraud, let's throw the bums under the bus and pretend we never were in bed with them, so as to preserve the rest of our "settled science" statist agenda. Last time the"brightest" people in the world decided to light the way to a socio-political, environmentalist utopia, we got WWII and The Holocaust.

There certainly are cost-effective ways to protect the environment and encourage economic progress. But they must be founded on good science and sound economics rather than the demogaoguery and fear-mongering that has characterized false prophets of the environmental movement such as Paul Erlich, Rachel Carson, John Holdren, and The Club of Rome. Read The Skeptical Environmentalist, by Bjorn Lomborg, and you will see how deceptively statistics have been used and manipulated to advance extremist agendas. 

As responsible Christian citizens of an earthly kingdom, we cannot confuse high-minded platitudes with hard policy choices involving indeterminate trade-offs and unknown contingencies.  Reasonable Christians may differ on these issues just as much as they differ on Global Warming.  Why is it that the Left, which urges tolerance for non-orthodox science and religious beliefs at SDA colleges,  sees no room for tolerance or diversity when it comes to its own views of socio-political issues?       

This article exposes the scientific fraud of the AGW theory. This is just getting to be one big mess and calls into question all peer reviewed data buttressing the AGW theory. This is sad. Scientists with a political agenda committing a cover up.

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2010m1d29-British-climate-scientists-at-center-of-Climate-found-to-have-broken-the-law 

Bob's essay, way up on this long trail, opened up a topic that I have been dealing with for at least three blogs, one concurrently. Einstein's dictum has been my theological mantra: "Everything should be as simple as possible but not simpler." For my blogs on AGW, it should be retouched: "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not unsimple with personal agendas." In theory, DDP should have the stage before mere, sadly misinformed BDPs. But that is not reality. We have no DDP anywhere who operate on the basis of sheer facts.

What about Priestley in ca 1775 who went to his death bed fighting Antoine Lavoisier who had demolished Priestley's phlogiston theory with his breakthrough of the oxygren theory of combustion.  And books have been written simply recording these data driven experts who had most of their world of specialists trotting behind them until finally "data" moved on. Think Copernicus.

Looking for the simple is our highest challenge. For me, God has shown us the way as we keep reviewing His data correctly.

Both BBP and DBP have the same problem: what is the worldview one begins with? Basic assumptions?  Both so-called groups should re-examine their presuppositions while they think about LSU-Creation Science, etc. Wjhy not lay all the cards on the table? Cheers, Herb

"If liberals went out and established their own institutions, I would have some respect for them.  But they don't.  Instead, they infest institutions that belief-driven people have established and built up--often at great cost and sacrifice--and proceed to undermine the purposes for which the institutions were founded.  And we're supposed to get all exercised over the prospect of these people leaving?  May the tribe of the "faith driven" increase."

 I agree 100% with this statement. But the liberals hang around and attempt to change established SDA doctrine. I would not wish to stand in their shoes during the Great Judgement.

Truth Seeker

Nathan, you wrote: "Why is it that the Left, which urges tolerance for non-orthodox science and religious beliefs at SDA colleges, sees no room for tolerance or diversity when it comes to its own views of socio-political issues?"

I may be "left behind" one day, but I don't think I'm as "left" as you think. My position, which I feel you mischaracterized, is that we as Christians should be concerned about long-term sustainability. God created us to be caretakers of Eden, not plunderers. Our health and well-being are absolutely dependent on the health of our environments, and there is a LOT of very good science, and real-life examples that are obvious to all (including Haiti), to back this up.

I'm not voicing intolerance toward different views, as you seem to imply. I'm suggesting that we focus on common ground and find practical solutions for the good of humanity and the good of our planet. I maintain that global warming, the evidence for which you too readily dismiss and I concede is problematic, should not be used as the focal point for motivating change. It polarizes people. You want "cost-effective ways to protect the environment and encourage economic progress," and you insist that they "must be founded on good science and sound economics." I couldn't agree with you more. But if two polarized camps continue to attack each other over a politicized issue like global-warming, where does that get us? What's wrong with suggesting that we move on? (And how does that make me "left?")

Science and religion need to get over their differences and distrust of each other (which stem largely from the largely inconsequential creation/evolution issues that so many of you people simply cannot let go of) and work together for the benefit of humanity and the ecosystems we depend on. We need to set politics aside, forget about the quibbling over origins and global warming and left/right name-calling, and get on with the work of saving souls and properly tending Eden.

If you are willing to back up your assertion that good science is needed for solving our most critical problems, then why don't you tell your pals to stop labeling as "junk science" any science that doesn't meet the predetermined answers from the Bible. And why don't you tell David Read that going to college is indeed worthwhile if you want capable scientists to provide the science you are asking for. Frankly, the approach your pals advocate ain't gonna get us anywhere.

You gave me a good laugh, ProfessorNot Kent, characterizing folks I have never met, spoken to, or corresponded with, as my "pals". I think you've read enough of my posts to realize that I do not subscribe to the Genesis story as science. I simply think their demands for transparency in Adventist academia are legitimate and do not warrant demonization.  Calls for professors to be fired are premature, and calls for rigid orthodoxy in the curriculum are disturbing.

While you may not endorse all the positions of the Left, it sounds to me like you share their mental environment. A primary element of that environment is a belief that the highly educated and political elites know what is best for the common good, and should be entrusted with authority to formulate and impose solutions on the rest of us. The unfortunate reality is that what will benefit humanity and the ecosystems on which we depend is hardly self-evident, particularly when there is no consensus on the primary threats to humanity and our ecosystems. As long as we live in a world of limited resources and conflicting priorities, debate is not only inevitable, but it is the only way to find the best political solutions.  It is childish and dangerous to imply that we can find important policy solutions that we all agree on, and then just hold hands and sing Kumbaya.  

The suggestion that we "move on" is an evasion which ignores the importance of diagnosing the problems and dealing with the causes. The same progressives that told us, "The debate is over - let's move on" - have been proven wrong over and over and over again when it comes to ideas for benefiting humanity and our ecosystems. To "move on", when Climategate is still unfolding and our self-anointed elites have scarcely acknowledged the uncomfortable truths exposed by the scandal, would be the height of irresponsibility. How can we learn from unwelcome reality if we simply look the other way?  Government funding of research, peer review processes, academic blacklisting, must all be examined carefully before we can with integrity and credibility move on. Most schemes to benefit humanity and our ecosystems are fraught with the same foundational rot as climate science.  

We've strayed a bit off topic here. But the same principles are true for higher education. Academic freedom should not trump transparency and accountability. "We know more" does not equal "we know better".  And as long as there is stonewalling, denial, and arrogance, the questions need to be pressed. 

Nathan, you wrote, "A primary element of that environment ["the Left"] is a belief that the highly educated and political elites know what is best for the common good, and should be entrusted with authority to formulate and impose solutions on the rest of us." Actually, I don't subscribe that view, but I do find ironic your defense of those, like Pitman, who lack expertise in geology and evolutionary biology yet, like others on "the Right," seek unrelentingly to impose rules on how other Christians should think and communicate about these topics.

I'm not interesting in moving on as a means of evasion, but heck, we can do it your way...let's stick with global warming as a big issue; let's spend millions more to find out whether our millions thus far have been well spent; and let's let other issues slide that can be addressed more practically and affordably.

And while we're at it, let's make sure that politically-neutral critics like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, who we can trust to be thoroughly knowledgable about the research and are unencumbered by relevant academic degrees, are not trumped by the self-appointed experts known as scientists actually doing the research who have only one thing in mind (unlike creationists): engineering if necessary, and accepting only those results that match their preconceived notions. Let's argue the need for science, but let's not be fools to believe or accept it.

I'm moving on.

Nathan,

I've exaggerated your views a bit and painted you as "Right" deliberately. Truthfully, I do agree with much of what you are saying; "the highly educated and political elites" should not alone "be entrusted with authority to formulate and impose solutions on the rest of us."

I do object mildly to your conclusion, however, that global warming science is a farce. I've been in science long enough that I don't believe for a minute that >90% of the hundreds or thousands of publishing scientists finding evidence for it are wrong, and that >90% of the (fewer in number) scientists finding evidence against it are right. Has there been fraud or genuine error? Science will never be free from these. Is the fraud or error entirely one-sided? That's wishful thinking. I'll remain on middle ground, content to see what the future brings.

I don't think you recognize my main position, which has nothing to do with being "Left" or "Right" or "highly educated" (it's just an opinion in a sea of many, that's all). Global warming was a mistake to invest millions of dollars into investigating and pushing on society (by possibly well-meaning but very human people), with the end result likely being the opposite that advocates wanted: more resistance to changing our lifestyle and more indifference toward the creation. As a Christian believing that God expects better of us, I personally am saddened by this.

Please have the last word, my friend. I do appreciate what you have to say.

That's twice in a row you've provided me with a LOL moment, Professor. You know us attorneys too well. We always want the last word. Seriously, I don't know if all of AGW is a farce. I think the Warmists have not met their burden of proof, and are in free fall. I know that catastrophic AGW is snake oil. And I know that the paleoclimatological aspects of global warming, which form the cornerstone of IPCC conclusions, have been totally discredited. When the evidence is overwhelming that the historical temperature record has been constructed through fraud and manipulation, I don't care if 100% of scientists believe in AGW; when a prominent climatologist like Gerry North admits recently to not having even read the email evidence, I am forced to conclude that, like SDA fundamentalists, those who are emotionally attached to the religion of global warming aren't interested in the empirical evidence and will not be swayed by such evidence.

Like Darwinism, there is a lot of solid science being done in climatology. But it is irrefutable that both theory and science have been cherry-picked and blended to support agendas inimical to the principles and spirit of scientific inquiry.  The problem with your middle ground, ProfessorNot Kent is that it gives purchase to a theory that has been built on lies, bad science, and bad math by top scientists in their field, whose own words leave them exposed and defenseless. Whatever happened to skepticism? How many times, and in how many ways, does a theory have to be not only unverifiable, but actually falsified, before one can say, "Sorry, not proven."?

"How many times, and in how many ways, does a theory have to be not only unverifiable, but actually falsified, before one can say, 'Sorry, not proven.'?"

Seventy times seven.

(Sorry...didn't mean to take back the last word; I simply could not resist!)

Richard L. Noel, DMD

I like the approach taken by the writer that makes it easier to discuss an issue by dividing it into two parts.  

This reminds me of a meeting at Harvard University some time ago with an on-the- ground expert in Iraq.  He was describing the over 50 factions in Iraq, when he was interrupted by someone who said that there were only three factions as described in the media.  The expert responded that a solution was impossible without taking into consideration the reality of over 50 factions in a country with centuries of tribalism.

The SDA church definitely has many people with different emphases regarding doctrine and practice. We could be arranged along several different continui. So the problems are much more complicated.  The binary premise does help us to recognize the problem of seeking "unity" in a very diverse group of people.

I understand the extremism in some areas.  I was driven out of the SDA church by such radical people.  Their hostility to the Bible was almost violent. 

Thus I consider myself a data driven believer. The Bible is the ruling part of the data. I still follow Jesus and the Bible fervently in felllowship with a group of true believers who do not belong to the structures of the SDA church. This was a painful decision to walk away from those in power who are violently opposed to the plain teaching of the Bible.  But, I had no other choice.

I believe that talk of a "remnant church" is neither Biblical nor honest in the environment of the current organization called SDA.  God has remnant people idenitifed by Himself, not by some organization of people.

Dick,

It pleases me greatly to hear testimonies such as yours. I am always saddened by people who use negative experiences with the SDA Church to reject altogether life with Christ in a community of faith. Why God has seen fit to reveal Christ through fallible, nasty human beings, prone to obscure Him through the very vehicles He has provided to reveal Himself, will always be a mystery. But I am glad that you still seek Him, and that He continues to speak to you within a community of believers.

I agree that it is "easier" to discuss issues by dividing their elements into fewer parts. But it does not follow that we thereby come up with better or truer pictures of reality.  Whenever we rhetorically circumscribe things - especially people - we become caricaturists to one degree or another. We highlight one truth at the expense of other truths. When I buy an apple in the grocery store, I reflexively default to a two-part analysis: price vs. quality. That equation automatically eliminates organically grown apples as an option, since in my experience they usually meet neither criteria. I ignore issues such as "green miles", exploitiation of labor, chemical adulteration, etc., to meet my needs and desires, and thus end up reinforcing my own values and priorities by a simple two-element analysis.  Oversimplification makes common sense living possible.

But in my experience, when we divide people into two, three, or even more categories - and I agree that it is often necessary and helpful to do so - we generally do it not to better understand reality, but to validate our presuppositional values and beliefs about reality. We do it for demagogical or polemical puposes. The divisions which we choose usually pose false choices and beg foundational questions about how values should be prioritized. 

When one honestly acknowledges the truth that all humans are both data driven and belief driven, the distinction between belief driven people and value driven people loses its value as a tool of understanding. Because everything we experience can be considered data, we are all data driven people. Because we attach meaning to the data we receive, we are all belief driven people. Only by a process of circular reasoning can one lay claim to being more one than the other. And that process is ultimately belief driven. 

So you tell me. Is the most important question of life data driven or belief driven? It is the question Jesus posed to Peter: "Who do you say that I am?" And then tell me, Was the response more belief driven or data driven: "You are the Christ, the son of the living God."? If you tell me it was data driven, then for you, I want to be a data driven person. If you tell me it was belief driven, then for you, I want to be a belief driven person. 

Ella M

Ron Corson:  Way back there you missed my point completely. 

I think it is interesting that every time I ask the question of theistic evolutionists as there seem to be some on this site, they ignore it.  How can they believe in a resurrection when there is no evidence or data for it.  How can they be Christian without this belief--the cornerstone of Christiondom.  It is totally unscientific to what we know now.

How can Christ die to deliver us from death that has reportedly gone on for millions of years before "the fall" and humans existed?  Isn't this point of all our concern over evolution?  The two beliefs are incompatible from my viewpoint.  Does any theistic evolutionist out there want to risk explaining this?

Ella M

J. Greig:

Followers of Christ give their lives out of love for God and man, for without love it is nothing (see 1 Cor. 13).  This chapter tells why much of so-called religion of the past and even now is self-centered or fear-centered.

Yet Christians (and other religious people) have done more charitable work in the world than all the atheists who ever lived.  Christians died because they would not reject Christ. I trust you will see the difference from today's terrorists.

There is much we cannot know about God, but what we do know is that He love as He says He is.  The evidence is there in the story of Christ.  If you want to take this as metaphor at the beginning of a spiritual journey, that is all right.  Scientifically I see no possibility that the earth could be maintained to such a strict degree to sustain life as it is without a Creator. That is evidence, and that is Love.  And yes there is a battle between good and evil which also exists.

Richard Noel,

You have made some valuable contributions to Biblical understanding. It's a real tragedy when people like you are run out of the church, any church.

People on both ends of the spectrum are opposed to Scripture. One group is open about their opposition, preferring science and reason to inspiration and faith. While they have no legitimate place in a community of faith, they are, more or less, honest about their position. On the other end, the "traditionalists" are also opposed to Scripture. Rather than science or reason, they prefer EGW. Many of them are not honest about their position.  They maintain a certain interpretation of Scripture within the framework construed by EGW. Anything outside of that is heresy.

That  is an issue with some, perhaps most, of the educate truth tribe. The questions they ask of others, the slant of their view, suggests that they are measuring words by EGW's point of view. That's the impression I get. Most would deny they are using EGW as a rule of faith.

The email from Wilson to Pierson which identified the doctrinal authority of EGW as the issue with Dr. Ford well illustrates this point. I don't want to extrapolate too much from a single email but it is a nice illustration

Some of the things EGW said are wrong. She is not a legitimate substitute for Scripture. Her emphasis, especially now, is misdirected and at times, misleading. Many other denominations have hospitals, schools, and a functional administration. They didn't need EGW to develop them.

EGW is somewhat like a meat analog-- helpful during a transitional period, bad news over the long term.

Richard L. Noel, DMD

Nathan,  Thanks for your response. I used to think labels were more important than reality.  Unfortunately, ...or fortunately... , I discovered that all labels suffer from the weakness of language.  Since language as we use it is fluid, it does change in subtle and major ways during our lives.

When I deal with the Bible, my first question is what does it actually say.  This forces me frequently to go back the the languages of Hebrew and Greek. Then I still have to ask how did the writer use that word or phrase?  If the word or phrase is used frequently enough, I can get a starting point.

A Rabbi friend of me was somewhat upset after I proved to him that a point he was asserting disagreed with Moses.  His wife then said that I was more of Karaite than Rabbinic in my style of Bible study.

I believe that the Bible is perfect for its purpose.  IF I am willing to submit to its purpose of me becoming a child of God.  This always comes back to a statement someone else made. "There is only one God and I am not Him."

Dear Ella

You wrote and asked:

"I think it is interesting that every time I ask the question of theistic evolutionists as there seem to be some on this site, they ignore it.  How can they believe in a resurrection when there is no evidence or data for it.  How can they be Christian without this belief--the cornerstone of Christiondom.  It is totally unscientific to what we know now."

You seem to believe that if you can't explain everything right now then you are wrong about everything.  Scientists are generally open about their ability to explain things.  We are well aware of what we know and what we believe.  Theistic evolutionists who believe in the resurrection do not do so because of scientific evidence.  We simply accept it on faith like all others who believe in the resurrection.  We would, however, point out to you that there is no evidence that it did not happen.  There is abundant evidence that the flood of Noah did, in fact, not happen as described.  The reason you have not gotten an answer to the question is that so many of the assumptions of your premise are wrong.

You also wrote:

"How can Christ die to deliver us from death that has reportedly gone on for millions of years before "the fall" and humans existed?  Isn't this point of all our concern over evolution?  The two beliefs are incompatible from my viewpoint.  Does any theistic evolutionist out there want to risk explaining this?"

I know of no theistic evolutionary explaination of that question.

And now I wish to test your wisdom:

Did God really tell Moses that the Isrealites could marry the virgin girls captured in a battle against the Midianites, but that all their mothers and younger brothers should be slaughtered? 

Why did God allow Job's children and servants to be slaughtered by Satan when he was able to protect Job?  Why didn't God just raise them all from the dead?   Are some people just expendable?

And why would the God, who was so concerned about all the little children of Niniveh, feel so free to kill all the little children of the Egyptians?  I'd love to hear [an] explaination of that. 

You may think that I am just like you Ella, but there is a significant difference: I am not demanding that you and those like you be driven from the church.  All I am asking for is to be represented just as competently and passionately as the conservatives such as yourself are.

Martin

Martin,

You said: "Theistic evolutionists who believe in the resurrection do not do so because of scientific evidence.  We simply accept it on faith like all others who believe in the resurrection.  We would, however, point out to you that there is no evidence that it did not happen."

Do you mean to say you accept it on blind faith? In other words, you believe in the resurrection, yet have no direct or indirect evidence that it's true? Lack of evidence that Christ's resurrection did not happen is hardly reason to believe it's true.

Are our sins forgiven when we ask God to forgive us? What is your rationale for believing this is true?

You might respond that you accept it on simple faith, but don't you have any evidence to base your faith on?

I submit that spiritual truths stated in the Bible are only as real as the facts they are based upon, and any spiritual truth that is not directly or indirectly based on reality is as true as the tooth fairy.

Shane Hilde

Shane Hilde wrote, "I submit that spiritual truths stated in the Bible are only as real as the facts they are based upon, and any spiritual truth that is not directly or indirectly based on reality is as true as the tooth fairy."

Please stop belittling the faith of others. There are many reasons (some objective, some subjective) to sustain one's faith, and for many of us the most important stems from a personal relationship with Christ--which is not something one could consider objective evidence, or somethat that Educatetruthers like you care to write much about (one could certainly wonder why).

Frankly, I think you would have belittled the thief on the Cross, who for all we know knew absolutely nothing about the Bible, the resurrection, or the tooth fairy that you and Pitman employ to taunt others.

Martin Schratt says "Theistic evolutionists who believe in the resurrection do not do so because of scientific evidence.  We simply accept it on faith like all others who believe in the resurrection.  We would, however, point out to you that there is no evidence that it did not happen.  There is abundant evidence that the flood of Noah did, in fact, not happen as described.  The reason you have not gotten an answer to the question is that so many of the assumptions of your premise are wrong."

 Martin, this makes no sense. Are you honestly telling me that you can believe (with no evidence) that a man was literally raised from the dead but you can't believe this same God that raised Christ, could not have destroyed the world by a flood (of which there is evidence)? It takes much more faith in the supernatural and miracles to believe in a resurrection than a global flood. Is evidence all that matters? In one breath you debunk one thing based on evidence, but in another more fantastical scenario, you ignore lack of evidence for faith.  Lack of evidence to disprove a scenario like the resurrection doesn't make resurrection any more true. There is no evidence that there aren't little green men running around the earth garbed in human form either. Do I believe that earth is overrun with space aliens?

 Did it also occur to you that the same man, Paul, who spoke whole heartedly about the resurrection of Christ also spoke of Adam and Eve and Noah? Either the Bible is the word of God or it isn't. You can't do this smorgasbord approach to make some parts of the bible fit your theology while ignoring the rest. It is illogical. Either Paul was right about what he was speaking of in all cases of his theology, or he was wrong. If Paul is wrong about Adam and Eve and Noah, he cannot be trusted for He received ALL of these things from Christ, Himself. If Paul was deluded in some things, how can you trust him for others? The simple fact that we feel we must sift through Paul's writings to determine what was truth from God or his miguided beliefs show that the Bible is not infallible and cannot be trusted as a standard for all truth.

 Darrell

I pointed out some serious accreditation issues for La Sierra in this post upstream: http://www.atoday.com/comment/reply/4858/6096#comment-6096

And now we have this from EducateTruth (which might be truthful reporting):

Here are some excerpts from Larry Blackmer, during a Q&A session after his presentation Sunday morning. The questioner had asked him to comment on the controversy over La Sierra University.

Academic freedom seems to be a code word for I can do anything I want to do. We are doing our best, trying to find a way to say to all of our universities and I think that Dr. Paulsen’s letter a number of months ago said it pretty clearly. We will not accept Adventist teachers teaching things in our schools that are not biblical or Adventist. I think he said it very clearly.

Now WASC at La Sierra has contacted La Sierra and said, "We believe in academic freedom as an accreditation agency. And if the church is going to meddle in what goes on in the classroom, then we will pull your accreditation.”

By the way, it’s an ex-Adventist that is chairing that [committee] and understands who we are very very clearly. And so my office is beginning to play hardball with the accrediting agency.

We have the right to teach what we want in our schools. We have the right to teach Adventist values in Adventist schools, period, that’s reality. And we’re going to do that whether they like it or not and we will fight that with every breathe of our body that an accrediting agency is not going to tell us what we can teach in our classes.

Q: Without accreditation, what would happen?

No federal financial aid to any of the students. None of the credits from La Sierra would transfer to any other university. They would not be accepted into the University of California system for graduate programs. Just minor things like that (the audience laughs).

Q: Will there be discussion in the General Conference Session regarding this issue?

I can guarantee you there will be discussion in the General Conference about this issue, but it will probably be in the hallways more than it will be up front. I doubt there will be a lot of discussion up front about this issue. It’s not a world church issue. It’s a North American Division issue and I think the leaders would like to keep it that way. Not to sweep it under the rug, but there is no sense in having – When I was in Africa talking about these issues and they said, “What’s your problem just fire the teachers and have it over with? That’s what we would do.”

And that’s what would happen. We’re a different system and we work differently.

Only a secretary at WASC Senior could be reached for comment since at the time she did not have permission to give us contact information for the WASC representative for La Sierra University.

To continue, I'd like to merely point out that WASC has established standards and guidelines to which it will want to adhere, REGARDLESS of who the chair of any committee might be. WASC standard 1.6 leaves no room for misinterpretation:

1.6 Even when supported by or affiliated with political, corporate, or religious organizations, the institution has education as its primary purpose and operates as an academic institution with appropriate autonomy.

GUIDELINE: The institution has no history of interference in substantive decisions or educational functions by political, religious, corporate, or other external bodies outside the institution’s own governance arrangements.

These may be found in a document at http://www.apu.edu/wasc/pdfs/wasc_accreditation_handbook.pdf

Now I submit that many of the EducateTruthers would absolutely REJOICE to see La Sierra either lose its accreditation or leave the fold of the SDA church (or, better yet, both). In the former case, the damage would be catastrophic to the students, their families, and many of the employees whose jobs would be in jeopardy from a marked decline in attendance until accreditation could be restored (almost surely by the latter). In the latter case, a multitude of students would gradually lose any exposure to or reinforcement of SDA beliefs. In my mind, these would be "hollow" victories at best -- but when the REAL ISSUE is nothing more than control, these would be seen by EducateTruthers as landmark victories and an object lesson to any other institution that fails to bow to their power.

I predict that the control freaks will only increase their shrieking until the vultures gather around the carcass to celebrate its demise. And...to point out the obvious if anyone cares...the everlasting gospel will go unto less of the world.

Remarkably, the transcript of the talk and question-and-answer session in Michigan by Larry Blackmer, Vice President of Education for the North American Division, abruptly disappeared from EducateTruth yesterday. And why? According to the website, "it has come to our attention this information has caused much friction in Elder Blackmer’s work as Vice President of Education for the North American Division. We want to support the Seventh-day Adventist leadership as much as we can, so we have removed the transcripts that were previously posted."

AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY...

The comments in the aftermath of the original posting were utterly predictable. These included statements like (as I paraphrase them): "We went against God's will in getting our schools accredited in the first place;" "we should never let the government dictate God's will;" "we don't need WASC accreditation, we can get accreditation from any of many other sources;" "Harvard and Yale don't have accreditation" (quite laughable, as they most certainly are accredited); "we can just slug it out in court where God will prevail;" "La Sierra needs to be shut down anyway;" and the most stunning of all, "you can make more money without a college degree, as higher education is a liberal lie." A liberal lie?! One college student took umbrage at the last remark, suggesting readers should Google something like "lifetime earnings by education level." I love the sophistication of EducateTruthers!

But the killer comment came from Larry Blackmer himself, who posted a lengthy and stunning explanation of his statements to the Michigan audience. He began by expressing how he felt betrayed by EducateTruth, indicating that his quotes were taken out of context. He clarified a number of things, including: (1) the fact that LSU recently had a site visit from WASC that went very well; (2) the inconsequential conversation with a former SDA at WASC had happened months ago; (3) his view that college campuses were an important venue for discussing evolution and other contentious issues, always with the aim of bringing the student back to the Church's central faith; (4) his keen dissapointment with the attacks on LSU intended to publicly denigrate the university; (5) his disappointment with certain (unspecified) aspects of LSU and of all SDA campuses, but also his confidence in their leadership and mission; and (6) his grave concern that too many Adventists were yielding to the Enemy in their haste to attack each other and the Church's leadership, resulting in division. For the latter point, he cited a beautiful quote from Ellen White (I wish someone could post it here), and emphasized that a divided house cannot stand.

Immediately following the post, at least one individual (Bob Ryan) wrote a snide response with his customary, "what you failed to say was such-and-such." I had to run an errand and when I returned, the slate had been wiped clean. Clearly, the post struck a devastating blow to Shane Hilde. I suspect it angered him and many of his disciples, who have every intention to maintain their public humiliation of LSU. And they call this "support" of SDA leadership? I'm wondering whether SDA leadership has explicitly asked them to carry on this work, or to cease and desist. If leadership asked them to stop the campaign and remove the website, would they do so? Somehow, I don't think so.

I wish that we all could see the poignant post once again, because it offered some insight--much better than I have summarized--into the thinking and frustrations of a key Church leader. I personally feel we should be praying for our leaders, not working hard to undo what they are seeking to accomplish in ways that we have little knowledge and understanding of. Many EducateTruthers are brutally accusatory of Church leadership, often listing individuals by name, applying derogatory labels, and publically calling for their dismissal. I wish that more Adventists would stand up against the accusers of the brethren; they are, without question, creating a divided house.

ProfessorNot Kent,

You have, in my opinion, framed the issue perfectly. Both sides in this controversy would do well to honestly acknowledge the trade-offs implicit in their positions. I think you are correct, that the educatetruthers would be willing to give up accreditation in order to preserve what they perceive as the fundamental raison d'etre for SDA colleges and universities - advancing the historic mission of Adventism. Progressives, on the other hand, see SDA higher education as the only reliable agent of change and growth in the Church, and would welcome forces that threaten the historic mission of Adventism.

Unfortunately, both sides in this controversy would rather  claim the moral high ground than honestly acknowledge the hazards and trade-offs implicit in their respective positions.

Nathan,

Didn't I read once, somewhere, "Come, let us reason together...?"

Wishful thinking, I know, but how I yearn to see both groups working together--with the many who are in the middle of the road--finding common ground and putting the Gospel Comission ahead of all other concerns.