The irony in this cannot be overemphasized. Asscherick and Pittman are correct in saying that employees of Adventist institutions are ethically responsible to do what they are paid to do; they forget, for some peculiar reason, that scientists are paid to do science (and not theology). Science, by its very nature, cannot and must not begin with any cosmological presuppositions (whether evolution or creation). To expect scientists to teach what the church teaches is to ask them to have a conclusion before doing science. Any scientist who is willing to affirm a religious dogma as a starting point of scientific inquiry is not a scientist, and does not deserve a paycheck from anyone.

Second, Asscherick and Pittman are ignoring a rich history of Adventist anti-creedalism. When a person is baptized in an Adventist church, and welcomed in as a member of our community, they take a baptismal vow. This is what Adventists are held to theologically. Nowhere in that vow is the doctrine of creation (any interpretation of it). They have no right in this community to deny anyone's Adventist identity based on a belief that no one is asked to affirm as a test of fellowship.

They want people who "carry the company card" to say the "company line." The Adventist company line is not dogma about a specific interpretation of the Bible; our company line is that Jesus is coming, and that all people are called to the obedience of the faith of Jesus. Perhaps Asscherick and Pittman have forgotten our other fundamental beliefs, such as Unity in the Body. Yes, that must be the one that they forgot. They forgot that unity assumes diversity, and never homogeneity.

Asscherick laments critique from within the church. He said that truth can withstand scrutiny, but apparently doesn't think it can do so from within the religious community. Strange indeed. We as a church have affirmed our belief in a growing understanding of truth, and said that we expect to refine our belief statements as we grow in understanding. Where else should we think critically about our own beliefs if not in our academic institutions? Critique from the academy is a service to the church, not a detriment. 

Mattburdette, the idea that scientists are open-minded on creation v. evolution could not be farther from the truth.  Mainstream scientists are committed to naturalism and thus thoroughly committed against supernaturalistic theories of origins:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."  Lewontin, Richard, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Times book reviews, January 9, 1997, a review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World, (New York: Random House, 1996).

The baptismal vows also affirm creation.  No. 5 of the 13 point vow states, "Do you believe that the Bible is God's inspired word, and that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian?"  To throw out the Bible's teaching on a six-day creation in favor of Darwinism and long ages is elevate man's theories over the plain teaching of Scripture, contrary to affirmation No. 5.  The short form vow, No. 2 states: "Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and do you pledge by God’s grace to live your life in harmony with these teachings?"  Obviously the 28 fundamental beliefs include the six-day creation.

Regarding unity in the faith, it is those who are promoting a novel, un-biblical and anti-Spirit of Prophecy view of origins who are promoting disunity, who are in fact forcing disunity, because no orthodox Adventist can ever be united with them in their unorthodoxy. 

I agree that our institutions of higher learning should challenge us to think critically.  But adopting Darwinism is not critical thinking, it is war on the church.

David Read's comments are right on target. As for mattburdette's assertion, "To expect scientists to teach what the church teaches is to ask them to have a conclusion before doing science," it is news to me that the church's colleges and universities have scientists in their employ. Science teachers and professors, yes, but scientists? I don't know, it's been a while since I was a student. I imagine there may be a few who receive grants for research and/or have published books or articles in scientific journals. I would hope those who do have made contributions, as did Marsh, Price, Clark, Coffin, Gentry, Gish and others in the past, in support of biblical creation. Had I not resolved doubts, through Clark's "Genesis and Science" in particular, re. the biblical account of creation and the Noahic flood, I seriously doubt I would have even become a Christian, let alone a SDA. (How can the Bible be trusted if Moses and Jesus were misinformed re. creation? And where's the need of a savior from death if there was no fall and death was forever the norm?) Eventually, after reading from SDA science professors at peace with the Bible, it took less faith for me, based on available evidence interpreted by creation scientists, to accept the biblical account of creation, than to suppose that the order, complexity and beauty all about us arose by chance.

Those who think it unfair that our universities should require science teachers, when presenting competing theories, to affirm their support of the church's fundamental statement of belief in creation, might want to check out Ben Stein's, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." (Maybe when secular universities stop harassing and firing profs. who uphold intelligent design, SDA schools should likewise retain proponents of evolution. Major difference: parents don't pay for their kids to attend secular schools with the expectation that they will uphold their church's beliefs.) In Stein's interview with Richard Dawkins, he gets Dawkins to admit that earth simply hasn't existed long enough by magnitudes for life with all it's complexity to have arisen spontaneously (not even enough time for the simplest DNA chain to have formed by chance.)  Dawkins asserted some higher ET intelligence must have seeded life on earth, but Stein could not goad him into labeling such as God, or even a Supreme Being. I noticed a lot of Dawkins books prominently displayed at Barnes and Noble lately. Alister McGrath's "The Dawkins Delusion," while brief, does a good job showing how adept Dawkins was at erecting creationist straw men--theories supported by few creationists--which he proceeded to demolish. McGrath also cautions against Christians embracing Intelligent Design, as promoting "the forced relocation of God...into the hidden recesses of the universe, beyond evaluation or investigation," thus making "Christianity deeply--and needlessly--vulnerable to scientific progress." (p. 30). Intelligent Design may be a step in the right direction for a secular school, but Adventist schools and parents might want to regard it as the sound of retreat.

Finally, I commend Jay Gallimore for his eloquent and moderate plea that our schools employ teachers who, in discussing issues pertaining to biblical creation vs. evolution, will uphold biblical principles and SDA doctrines those who pay the bill have to right to expect will be inculcated and reinforced in the minds of the precious children they entrust to our institutions.  (Michigan Memo,” August 2009, Volume 21, Number 5.) It seemed a reasonable enough request and expectation. So why am I hearing via the grapevine that some of our denomination's administrators are very upset with him?  Is it just in our schools that skepticism and doubt re. biblical creation are being harbored and fostered? Perhaps this is an issue that should be dealt with at Atlanta, perhaps with some kind of loyalty oath for church employees from top to bottom. Too bad it might have to come to that. Why don't those leaders who no longer believe a major SDA doctrine--especially one that so undergirds the Sabbath truth--and who have become intransigent and militant in their opposition, simply leave the church for the company of those who believe as they do?  Oh, I forgot; it's the paycheck.

I suspect some will find in the great day of reckoning that one can just as readily rob God by receiving His tithe--and especially by planting seeds of doubt in the minds of the young that will lead them to skepticism and infidelity--as others do by withholding it. And didn't Jesus say, "Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."--Mark 9:42. But I guess, like the proverbial scorpion on the back of the frog, it's just become the character of those who have lost their way, to want to take others down with them. And they're so cute and trusting, when they're little. Worse than pedophiles, who only ruin kids for this life, skeptics and infidels allowed to teach in our institutions will deprive many of eternal life! And those in a position to stop them bear their guilt as well.

When many of our best and brightest who have been taught in church schools that Adventist Creationism is supported by the "weight of scientific evidence" and then when they grow up and discover this to be absolutely false, and leave our faith community, who should feel guilty about causing these younger members to leave?

dear Jude3Trustee,

I appreciate your fervor for an authentic Adventism, but I think you are misguided in your statements, to say the least.

 First, in reference to your assertion that teaching evolution is worse than pedophilia, I would like you to say that to a sexually abused, Creationist, Seventh-Day Adventist and see who they think is worse.  Your statement was unacceptable and is another indication of the unchristian road that this discourse over creation/evolution has taken.

 Second, I would like you to visit an Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremist website and see how similar your statements are to theirs.  I think you will be surprised at how closely your rhetoric and attitude towards those that disagree with you resemble theirs.  You won't appreciate the way they feel about you or me, yet you are exemplifying their behavior within an Adventist Christian context.

 I pray that your statements don't hurt anyone else, as I'm sure they have already done significant damage. 

 Your brother that was created by God and believes in evolution,

-kdev 

Ervin, you are leaving out option number three: (3) Those who "know" that the Adventist Church's traditional teaching on creationism is both bad theology and bad science could simply join one of the many liberal denominations that already agree with them, rather than trying to force a change in the doctrines of the SDA Church (even if forcing the change means civil war in the denomination).  Wouldn't that be easier and more sensible, not to mention a much better Christian witness, for everyone involved? 

A fourth option would be that those who "know" that the SDA position on origins is bad science and bad theology could start their own denomination, in which they could retain those aspects of Adventism they like (Big Franks, perhaps?) and blend them with a Darwinian/Lyellian view of origins.  But I fear that this is impossible for liberals, because it requires faith to go forth and start any new thing, and liberals seem to have only corrosive skepticism. 

David, RE: your statement to Ervin:

I don't understand why there has to be a civil war. Evidently, there are Adventist Christians who believe in evolution and still retain Christian faith. To them, evolution has not undermined their faith so much as to abandon Christianity or Adventism. These are not people who are trying to change the beliefs of the denomination; they are people who are asking for the freedom to believe what they believe without having their commitment to Christian faith come into question.

You mention civil war. I remind you that those who would make a war of this are those who are trying to round up and expel the so-called liberals. The only war we are having is the war waged against those who are trying to stay in their community of faith in spite of their ideological differences. The real question is whether or not the rest of the denomination can handle the presence of people who hold a variety of opinions.

Do we really need another denomination? Is Christ divided? 

KDev, we have basic factual disagreement.  You say, "These are not people who are trying to change the beliefs of the denomination."  I think they are trying to change the beliefs of the denomination.  Ervin Taylor has just stated that the traditional Adventist view on origins is both bad theology and bad science.  He wants to change that view to incorporate Darwinism and the type of liberal theology and biblical hermeneutic that is necessary to accommodate Darwinism. 

Moreover, as has now become painfully obvious, people who share Ervin's view have quietly insinuated themselves into positions of responsibility and authority in the denomination.  Just to take one recent, highly publicized example, there is not one creationist on the biology faculty at LaSierra, and the Darwinists who teach there are teaching Darwinism as the norm, as the preferred view, not as a view with which Adventists could or should disagree.  They obviously are trying to change the beliefs of the denomination, one student at a time. 

Everyone has the freedom to believe what they want to believe.  That is not and has never been the issue.  Whether you can be a Christian and a Darwinist is a subject for another day, but I just admitted that there are plenty of liberal Christian denominations that have made peace with Darwinism, and I suggested, and suggest, that "Adventist" Darwnists join one of those.  What you cannot be, absolutely cannot be, is both an Adventist and a Darwinist.  Adventism is, and has been from its founding, committed to the view that the world was specially created in six literal 24-hour days in the fairly recent past.  If you don't believe this, you have denied a pillar of Adventist doctrine, but, more importantly, you have embraced a hermeneutic of biblical interpretation that must cause the entire structure of Adventism to crumble. 

If I am, as you imply, firing the first shot in the civil war, I am happy to do so.  I would rather burn this church to the ground than see it make any sort of accommodation of Darwinism and Lyellism.  I would much prefer to see LaSierra separate from the SDA church than to continue to call itself Adventist while teaching a Satanically-inspired theory of origins.  That there are people like you who, incredibly, surrealistically, see no conflict between Darwinism and Adventism shows that the rot is far advanced, and the time for soothing platitudes about unity, tolerance and diversity is long past.  I strongly believe it is time to effectively implement doctrinal discipline, and that means firing and disfellowshipping Darwinists.   

Do you still think civil war can be avoided? 

The effective way to gain power to enact conditions that are desired is to become appointed to decision-making bodies, and in sufficient numbers to overrided any opposition.  AToday is not an appropriate venue for that.

"Carping and harping" has achieved limited success if real change is desired.  Until, and unless the official church wishes to take on the burden of excommunicating members who do not "toe the party line" all the carping has nothing but hot air to recommend it. 

If the GC and individual churches where these designated "dissident members" chooses not to take action against them, the continued attack against the university is attacking windmills, and equally effective.  The hierarchy of the church has not asked for "spies" to infiltrate and record science teachers' lectures, have they?  Or, are there unpaid volunteers who choose to offer their services for such activities?   

Easy there kdev, I'm not suggesting anyone should lose their head over this. (It's just hard for me to understand why our institutions should be expected to keep in their employ those who undermine the teachings and mission of the church.) And if I have indeed offended anyone, especially any victim(s) of pedophilia, I sincerely apologize for my "over-the-top" characterization. I would only hope such victims--even if it be at the hands of creationist believing SDA's--did not thereby have their faith in the Scriptures destroyed (as may be the result of being subject to the teaching Darwinism in our schools) and have been able to find comfort and hope in the ancient and timeless wisdom our Maker bequeathed to us.

And if you don't mind sharing further with us, kdev, no doubt I'm not the only one curious to know how you, personally, have apparently maintained your faith in the Bible, despite Moses' having blown it re. origins, and Jesus going along with it.  If you believe your existence is the result of eons of evolution, did God then somehow intervene directly when your turn to live came? Do the fall and redemption fit into your cosmological understanding, and if so, how do they mesh with evolution? I'm not trying to mock or goad you. Having been satisfied with my faith in the Scriptures, and having found sufficient reassurance through creation scientists cited in my former post, I'm simply not sufficiently well read on theistic evolution to know how its proponents might reconcile that which seems irreconcilable for one determined to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. And I expect most creationists among us would rather see skeptics reconverted rather than driven out from among us. But if such cannot be happy and satisfied in the company of those who adhere to "bad theology and bad science," it would seem, after the expenditure of considerable time, effort and resources, that the most loving thing the church could do for them and the church would be to at least require that they seek other employment. 

Thank you for your efforts to encourage civil discourse.

RE: David C. Read and Jude3trustee:

First, that second comment by Kdev (about avoiding civil war) was actually me. He was using my computer, and I accidentally left a comment while he was logged in. Sorry!!

David, I do think civil war can be avoided. I believe this because I believe that God wants us to be at peace with one another, and I believe that God enables us to have peace. Please don't fire the first shot. If you do, you will not be shot back. I cannot speak for (nor will I speak against) people such as Ervin who you say are trying to change Adventist beliefs. Yes, church beliefs can be expected to change, and that often happens through the influence of the academy. What you are saying (if I'm understanding you; correct me if I'm wrong) is that Adventist theology cannot be maintained without belief in a literal, six 24-hour day creation week that ends in a seventh-day Sabbath. It is on this point that I disagree with you.

I am not an evolutionist, but I am hesitant to call myself a six-day creationist. On this issue, I am agnostic. Beyond the great amount of scientific evidence that contradicts a recent creation without suffering or death, when I read Genesis 1-2 I sincerely do not think that it is intended to be read as literal history. I affirm the doctrine of creation in so far as I believe that God is the beginning and goal of all creation, and that all that we have and enjoy is a gift from God for which we should be thankful. I believe in the seventh-day Sabbath, not because it is rooted in a specific historical event, but because that is the day that God has chosen for us to rest and have fellowship with one another in God's Spirit.

What I am trying to say, briefly, is that I maintain a genuine Adventist, Christian faith, and yet I do not feel the necessity to believe in a six-day creation. I have no problem with people who do; I have no problem with people who do not. Christian faith is rooted in Jesus, nothing else. This faith is big enough for all of us, even those of us who doubt. And the Adventist church is no club for elitists who have no questions or doubts.

Jude3trustee, your questions are good ones, and I'm still working through them. I just don't have clear-cut answers. What I want to avoid is this: that somehow, if evolution were proven beyond any doubt, my faith could not survive. I want to have the kind of Christian faith that is not so tied to one interpretable doctrine that it cannot handle some redefinition or tweaking. I don't know what to think of all the Bible passages, or how the fall fits into the picture. I think about these things often. Personally, what I keep coming back to is that I believe that the crucified Jesus is the resurrected Christ, and that this God-Man will one day appear again and restore all creation (however creation got here). I don't consider myself a liberal. I am only embracing my ignorance, and doing my best to be honest with myself and with the evidence.

Jonathan Pichot

Jonathan Pichot, thanks for your post about the class "Self & Society."  I'd be very grateful if you could concisely summarize the philosophy that allows you to freely embrace Adventism as a community while remaining skeptical of its truth claims.

I come from the opposite perspective.  Adventism as a community I don't have much use for.  I don't much like the people, some of whom are downright ornery.  I hate the low church worship style and the insipid "praise music."  The pastors, on average, are a sad lot, poor preachers and generally uninspiring; as for common business sense or good judgment, most of them I wouldn't put in charge of a hot dog stand.

But Adventism's truth claims are an entirely different matter.  In Adventism's grand, integrated doctrinal structure there is a beauty and internal consistency that is unequaled, in fact unapproached, by any other religion I know of.  Adventists have gotten far more deeply into the Bible, and have gotten more truth out of it, than any other Christian denomination.  No other denomination is even a close second.  If I didn't believe that, if I didn't know that, boy I would be gone before you can say "gone."

David, The post was a quote from Jonathan Pichot. It appeared in a recent Spectrum article which profiled Jonathan as a member of the Spectrum staff. Jonathan did not submit the quote.

While the curent discussion focuses on the Creation issue and biologists,  other Adventist academics, for some time now, have been laying the groundwork for the views currently being discussed.

Sigfried Horn and his protege, Larry Geraty, a former La Sierra University president, apparently both rejected "fundamentalist" interpretations  of the chronology in Genesis. This is well documented in articles  published by Dr Geraty. It is probable that they were not  alone in this view.

Some of the brightest minds in Adventism, both scientific and theological, are or were skeptical of Genesis as a reliable guide to the age of the earth.

This conflict may not accurately be framed as a conflict between Scripture and science, if even the theologians reject ths YEC scenario. When individuals as prominent as Horn and Geraty have problems with the Genesis record, as interpreted by so called conservative or fundamantalist Adventists, people should tread lightly.

There are many "theologians" who study the OT from a humanistc rather than redemptive perspective. Faith is not required, when the Bible is approached as just another historical document.   I'm not saying that either Dr. Horn or Dr.Geraty fit this description.

Individuals who have devoted their lives to the study of archaeology, OT, Semitic languages, ancient history, and the work of the church, see things differently than people who might well be considered novices in the field. Who should people believe? Why?

David,

No one "told" me that Darwinism and Adventism are compatible. Nor did I say that they are compatible. What I said is that six-day creationism is not a precondition for Adventist Christianity. Certainly Darwinism poses challenges to Christian theology; I don't deny that. But those challenges do not have the final word.

I must admit, I am curious as to which things I said you found worthy of ridicule. I reread what I wrote, and based on your previous comments the only thing I can think of that you would ridicule is the idea of church unity. If that is the case, all I can say is that you'll have to work that one out on your own, because I'm just affirming what Jesus said (John 17).

If you want to know more about my background, you can look at my short bio on my blog:

http://constructingadventisttheology.wordpress.com/matt-burdette/ 

" Adventism is utterly incompatible with the pagan origins myth currently gussied up in pseudo-scientific garb"

 This demonstrates remarkable ignorance on the multiple pagan myths that were adopted by the biblical writers.  They are far too numerous to mention, but it should be remembered that these "pagan myths" predates the Christian and biblical ones by centuries, even a millennia.  I.e., the epic of Sargon is much older than Moses and is far too similar to merely be a coincidence; there are many gods who impregnated virgins producing a god, there are numerous gods in these pagan myths who died and were resurrected.  Coincidence?  How so? 

Matt, thanks for the url.  I've been to your site, read your bio and read some of your thoughts on theology.  Obviously you are young and your thoughts somewhat fluid, and I'm sure you will continue to grow and mature in your thinking.  But your journey so far has placed you far outside the Adventist mainstream, as I'm sure you are aware. 

You denigrate the Adventist hermeneutic as "biblical studies" and subordinate it to theology.  You deny that "the Bible as a whole has a singular theology that can be extracted from it and thus taught as “the biblical position,” yet this is very much the Adventist view.  Adventists believe that the Bible was inspired by one God, the same God throughout all time and space, and thus does present a singular or unitary theology.

You also basically deny the prophetic authority of Ellen White:

"I have respect for Ellen White, but I do not acknowledge her as an authoritative voice in theological discourse. You may not like this, but I think this is evidently true: the Bible is difficult enough to interpret, and having another supposedly inspired author to help you interpret (even though you have to interpret her writings too!) only muddies the water. So, whether or not I believe that Ellen White was a prophet or messenger or whatever makes no difference; I have personally decided that she is excluded from my theological work. What I come up with theologically must be universal, and the simple fact is that she is completely irrelevant to every non-Adventist Christian. Second, I refuse to participate in perpetuating the problem of ‘the cult of Ellen White.’ Too many Adventists have allowed her to become a crutch and an authoritative voice that is used to end conversations. I believe that she can be disagreed with, and at times she must be disagreed with."

Your view of Scripture includes the idea that it is sometimes errant, even theologically.  You write, "I believe that the Bible is sometimes wrong, both in fact and in theology."  You think that, "we can no longer settle theological issues by appeal to the authority of scripture or tradition.”  This places you well outside the Adventist tradition, because we have always sought to settle matters of faith and doctrine by appeal to Scripture. 

You place the Gospels in a preferred position vis-a-vis other parts of Scripture, writing that, "I do not believe that the authority of scripture can be seen as equally distributed throughout the Bible. Not to be hyperbolic, but I think that position is untenable, and destructive to the message of the gospel. Based on the decisive nature of the revelation in the Christ event, I see in Christian faith an automatic tension with the Hebrew scriptures, and a radical reinterpretation of its theology."  And, "The move away from the evenly-distributed, intrinsically invested authority and truthfulness of the Bible may seem like a ‘liberal’ move, but in reality it is quite the opposite. Too often I have seen people use the Bible to justify whichever opinion or dogma that they are committed to; I believe that the insistence on the greater authority of the gospel will actually serve to prevent the wide variety of (dare I say) unacceptable biblical interpretations."  Again, this is in marked contrast to the Adventist view of Scripture, which does see a unitary theology emerging from Scripture.

Before we could have a debate about origins, I would have to convince you of the wrongheadedness of all of the above, and I wouldn't know where to start.  I could start by comments from Jesus, like his indication that a literal flood "came and took them all away" or his talk on the road to Emmaus that began "with Moses and all the prophets" in which he expounded from Scripture (the Old Testament) "the things concerning himself," thereby hoping to convince you that Jesus endorses all of Scripture.  But I don't think you'd find even that authoritave, because you've reduced even the Gospels down to just death, burial and Resurrection:  "I can say that Christian theological construction can and must happen within the parameters of the gospel according to the biblical witness—that Jesus, God in flesh, died on behalf of sinners, and rose again, bringing God’s own life into creation."

Obviously, we can't have any meaningful doctrinal unity, because we don't share a common authority.  My preferred authorities would be Scripture and the messages of Ellen White, but you've placed yourself above both of those.  That leaves us at an impasse, and if that doesn't plant the seeds of a divided church, I can't imagine what would.

David,

A couple of things...

First, I hope (and think) that you are not suggesting by saying that I am young that somehow my thoughts on these issues can be dismissed. If you're going to dismiss my ideas, do so based on the ideas themselves, not because I'm in my twenties. Also, that my ideas are fluid is something that I am glad for. If, when I turn fifty, I think the same things that I think today, I will have wasted twenty-some years.

Second, I find it odd that you would say that I denigrate the Adventist hermeneutic. Just the fact that you called it a hermeneutic implies that, yes, we gather the biblical material and develop theology. And I certainly am not criticizing biblical studies. I am only saying that there is a difference between biblical studies and theology.

I don't deny the prophetic authority of Ellen White (in the true sense of the word prophetic). I do, however, deny her theological authority.

The statements you quotes about my views of the errancy of Scripture were a little misrepresented outside of their original context, but yes, I stand by what I said. I don't think this is so far outside of Adventism. Not at all.

You write that we cannot have a debate about origins before sorting through these issues. First, I am not interested in debating origins. The reality is that we have been debating biblical interpretation, and my whole point is that you don't get to decide which interpretation (or which understanding of biblical authority) is the Adventist one. So when you say that we cannot have doctrinal unity because of this, I agree with you! We don't need doctrinal unity to have unity! That is what I have been trying to communicate this whole time. No matter what we say or do, no matter how many people you disfellowship or fire, you will NEVER have doctrinal unity! Yet God calls the church of Jesus to unity!

What does that mean? It means we have unity with one another as Christians in spite of our theological differences, important as they are. 

On December 2nd, 2009 mattburdette says:

The irony in this cannot be overemphasized. Asscherick and Pittman are correct in saying that employees of Adventist institutions are ethically responsible to do what they are paid to do; they forget, for some peculiar reason, that scientists are paid to do science (and not theology). Science, by its very nature, cannot and must not begin with any cosmological presuppositions (whether evolution or creation). To expect scientists to teach what the church teaches is to ask them to have a conclusion before doing science. Any scientist who is willing to affirm a religious dogma as a starting point of scientific inquiry is not a scientist, and does not deserve a paycheck from anyone.

You forget that the SDA Church has in fact directly asked all teachers and school boards to actively support the stated SDA position on origins.  

"We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins.  We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world."

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat55.html

One more thing on this particular point:  It is erroneous, in my opinion, to suggest that science and religion are inherently separate enterprises.  The conclusions of science do in fact have religious implications and religion, if it is based on anything more than wishful thinking and blind faith, can be very scientific.  Certainly the Bible advises us to test all things and hold even religious ideas up for potential falsification under reasonable analysis.  

Second, Asscherick and Pittman are ignoring a rich history of Adventist anti-creedalism. When a person is baptized in an Adventist church, and welcomed in as a member of our community, they take a baptismal vow. This is what Adventists are held to theologically. Nowhere in that vow is the doctrine of creation (any interpretation of it). They have no right in this community to deny anyone's Adventist identity based on a belief that no one is asked to affirm as a test of fellowship.

The baptismal vow asks one if they believe in and uphold the stated SDA fundamental beliefs.  Beyond this, you don't seem to be well informed on early SDA history.  While it is true that the early SDA Church tried to avoid creedal statements, as the church grew bigger, a statement of faith became unavoidable.  The same thing is true of a basis of paid representation.  

Consider the following comments and quotes by JN Loughborough in his The Church, Its Organization, Order and Discipline (1907):

     "When those who back in the "sixties" [1860s] witnessed the battle of establishing church order now hear persons, as conscientious no doubt as those back there, utter almost the identical words that were then used by those opposing order, it need not be wondered that they fear the result of such statements as the following: "Perfect unity means absolute independence, - each one knowing for himself. Why, we could not have outward disorganization if we all believed in the Lord. . . . This question of organization is a simple thing. All there is to it is for each individual to give himself to the Lord, and then the Lord will do with him just what he wants to, and that all the time. . . . Our only safety, under God, is to go back to the place where God is able to take a multitude of people and make them one, without parliamentary rules, without committee work, without legislation of any kind." - General Conference Bulletin of 1899.

God Requires Rules:

     "Superficially considered, this might seem to be a blessed state, a heaven indeed; but, as already noted on a preceding page, we read of heaven itself and its leadings that "the god of heaven is a god of order, and he requires all his followers to have rules and regulations to preserve order." - "Testimonies for the Church," No. 32, page 30.

   "As our numbers increased, it was evident that without some form of organization, there would be great confusion, and the work could not be carried forward successfully. To provide for the support of the ministry, for carrying on the work in new fields, for protecting both the church and ministry from unworthy members, for holding church property, for the publication of the truth through the press, and for other objects, organization was indispensable." 

As it turns out, the leaders of the early SDA Church at first thought that no enforcement of any kind was needed to keep the Church from fragmenting.  This was true as long as the Church was small and made up of originally like-minded people.  However, as the Church grew larger, this view soon became obviously untenable.  Loughborough was one of the main proponents of this sort of church order and discipline - along with James White.  Very quickly all of the early Church leaders changed their minds regarding Church order and discipline when they saw that their original ideas of completely hands-off freedom of Church representatives were quickly failing to do what they thought they would do.  So, the leadership started issuing cards of commendation signed by James White or John Loughborough.

Of course, those who were not considered to accurately represent the views of the Church did not receive these cards of commendation.  And what was the attitude of such persons? - according to Loughborough?:

"Of course those who claimed "liberty to do as they pleased," to "preach what they pleased," and to "go when and where they pleased," without "consultation with any one," failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were "depriving them of their liberty." Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish "order," these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that "when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.' "

One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it "abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed," etc. Upon this point, when church order was contested, we read: "Satan well knows that success only attend order and harmonious action. He well knows that everything connected with heaven is in perfect order, that subjection and thorough discipline mark the movements of the angelic host. . . . He deceives even the professed people of God, and makes them believe that order and discipline are enemies to spirituality; that the only safety for them is to let each pursue his own course. . . . All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery." - "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. I, page 650.

Burdette:

They want people who "carry the company card" to say the "company line." The Adventist company line is not dogma about a specific interpretation of the Bible; our company line is that Jesus is coming, and that all people are called to the obedience of the faith of Jesus. Perhaps Asscherick and Pittman have forgotten our other fundamental beliefs, such as Unity in the Body. Yes, that must be the one that they forgot. They forgot that unity assumes diversity, and never homogeneity.

If our company line were in fact limited to these basic statements, which are very good indeed by the way, there would be no point in having a unique SDA Church.  We could all simply join any old group that had nothing more to say than these basic points.  But, the fact of the matter is, the SDA Church thinks more truths have been discovered beyond these two you've mentioned here - which are also important to spread as part of the Gospel's Good News...  

Burdette:

Asscherick laments critique from within the church. He said that truth can withstand scrutiny, but apparently doesn't think it can do so from within the religious community. Strange indeed. We as a church have affirmed our belief in a growing understanding of truth, and said that we expect to refine our belief statements as we grow in understanding. Where else should we think critically about our own beliefs if not in our academic institutions? Critique from the academy is a service to the church, not a detriment.

Asscherick and I simply think that it is pointless to be extremely schizophrenic as an organization that wishes to remain viable.  Employees cannot be allowed to advance significantly faster or slower than the organization as a whole if the organization itself is to remain vaible and effective.  If you have truth that goes fundamentally beyond the organization, perhaps you need to leave the organization in order to best present your truth. 

Certain you shouldn't expect the organization to pay you to go around telling everyone that the stated ideals of the organization are "ludicrious" - right? - Especially if that organization has specifically asked you not to do what you are in fact doing. Continuing to do what your employer has specifically asked you not to do, on the employers dime, is robbery of your employer's time and money. How is this not patently obviously?

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean, a little bit of clarification and a couple of questions:

First, I may have been unclear about my beliefs about science and presuppositions, so I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I said specifically was that science cannot have cosmological presuppositions. You may say that this would make the default position "naturalism" (not necessarily materialism); I am not going to call it that. I still maintain that science is not science if it begins with a conclusion. That the church's official position is that students should have a "thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation" may only suggest that the church is unwilling to rethink its theology on this point. As an Adventist, I am not comfortable with any position which raises any doctrine to the level of being unquestionable within the institution.

I completely agree with you that science has theological implications. To be perfectly clear, I am disturbed by some of the theological implications of evolution. Nevertheless, those implications do not devastate Christian faith.

One facet of your argument, and that of Asscherick and those at Educate Truth, is that Adventist theology cannot be maintained while also believing in evolution. I fully understand why you say that, and don't deny that it is challenging. However, when I think about those things that are uniquely Adventist (as you have implicitly expressed a desire to preserve), I do not believe that Adventism necessitates a young earth and a six-day creation. Sanctuary? Sabbath? Maybe the ministry of Ellen White? On this point we may agree to disagree.

Second, you raise the issue of employment and the responsibility of being faithful to the ethos of the company/community. According to the way you have painted the picture, you are correct. I am not saying that, as things are, it is acceptable for someone to teach or preach whatever he or she wants. I think that "the company" should be sensitive to the fact that unanimity on this issue will simply not happen, and that it should allow for some diversity. It is in this sense that I think we should retain our anti-creedal stance. I'm not saying that we should let everything go, or that we should not have standards.

Sean, I thank you for your comments. I found them helpful. 

On December 4th, 2009 mattburdette says:

Sean, a little bit of clarification and a couple of questions:

First, I may have been unclear about my beliefs about science and presuppositions, so I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I said specifically was that science cannot have cosmological presuppositions. You may say that this would make the default position "naturalism" (not necessarily materialism); I am not going to call it that. I still maintain that science is not science if it begins with a conclusion.

My point is that it is impossible to begin a scientific investigation without any starting conclusions. It is also impossible to teach a particular view on science without conclusions.  Even mainstream scientists disagree on the correct interpretation for a give set of data.  This has been made very prominent in the news recently on the issue of Global warming - in case you weren't aware of this firestorm.  Who then gets to define was is and is not a valid scientific conclusion?  Only mainstream scientists with the most popular opinion or the most powerful political backing of the day?    Who are you to say that creation science isn't real science? - or that those who subscribe to the conclusions of a literal 6-day creation week don't base this conclusion on valid science?  Who are you to say that this notion is "just religion" and shouldn't be presented in the science classroom?  Upon what do you base this conclusion?  Popular opinion?  That's it?  

That the church's official position is that students should have a "thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation" may only suggest that the church is unwilling to rethink its theology on this point. As an Adventist, I am not comfortable with any position which raises any doctrine to the level of being unquestionable within the institution.

As a paid employee, you will be held to a higher standard as an official representative of any organization, to include the SDA Church.  The SDA Church, as an organization, has made this very clear.  It has called, in no uncertain terms, for all of its pastors and teachers to actively promote its stated fundamental positions - to include its position on a literal 6-day creation week.  Its science teacher are not excluded from this request. 

Now, you can disagree all day long, but this is in fact the official position of the SDA Church and employees who try to counter this position by publicly doing just the opposite of what they've clearly been asked to do, are stealing the time and money of their employer.  This is a moral wrong - even if you think you're right and the Church is wrong. Go ahead and present what you think is "the truth", but do it on your own dime - not mine, and not the Church's. 

I give my tithes and offerings to the Church to support its organized effort to present a particular view of reality to the world.  I therefore do not appreciate anyone taking my money to do anything other than what I am personally paying for.   That's stealing from my own pocket. 

I completely agree with you that science has theological implications. To be perfectly clear, I am disturbed by some of the theological implications of evolution. Nevertheless, those implications do not devastate Christian faith.

You wouldn't be disturbed by the theological implications of evolution if it didn't really have anything disturbing to say about Christian faith.  Sure, one might be able to maintain basic Christian ethics and be an evolutionist, but it is very hard to support the basis of the Gospel's Good News in the reality of a bright physical future if you're an evolutionist. 

Ultimately, if you're serious about evolution and its implications, you have to end up agreeing with the likes of Richard Dawkins or William Provine.  For example, William Provine, late professor of biological sciences at Cornell University, gave a very interesting speech for a 1998 Darwin Day keynote address in which he pointed out the following:

     "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.

No gods worth having exist;

No life after death exists;

No ultimate foundation for ethics exists;

No ultimate meaning in life exists; and

Human free will is nonexistent.”

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

Provine also wrote, "In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism." - Academe January 1987, pp.51-52

It seems to me that Provine was right.  Darwinian-style evolution is just one more argument for the philosophical position of "Naturalism" - a position that suggests that everything within the physical world, everything that we can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell, is ultimately the result of non-deliberate mindless forces of nature.  These forces do not have feelings or care about you or me or our feelings regarding what they are or are not doing to us or for us.

This basically undermines any real argument for the necessity of God and removes the solid basis for the Christian Hope - or any other worthwhile hope in the future for that matter. After all, even Erv Taylor, the executive editor of this self-styled "progressive" journal AdventistToday, admittedly doesn't know of anything in nature which he could point to which would convincingly argue for the input of a God or even a God-like power.  All he has left, really, is warm fuzzy feelings or a strong desire for a God as far as I can tell - and I haven't seen him argue otherwise...

You say that you aren't much of a one for "blind faith" or "emotion-driven religion" on your website.  If that's true, you should be very disturbed about the implications of mainstream evolutionary thinking because this type of thinking leaves you with nothing solid beyond wishful thinking and an emotion-driven religion.   

One facet of your argument, and that of Asscherick and those at Educate Truth, is that Adventist theology cannot be maintained while also believing in evolution. I fully understand why you say that, and don't deny that it is challenging. However, when I think about those things that are uniquely Adventist (as you have implicitly expressed a desire to preserve), I do not believe that Adventism necessitates a young earth and a six-day creation. Sanctuary? Sabbath? Maybe the ministry of Ellen White? On this point we may agree to disagree.

Without the reality of young-life on Earth, you, again, are left with no solid basis for a belief in a personal God who is detectably involved with this universe or life on this planet.  You are left with nothing upon which to base your beliefs in any of the metaphysical claims of the Bible beyond some warm fuzzy feeling inside yourself.  If that is enough for you, great.  It just doesn't do it for me personally.  If I became convinced of Darwinism, I'd leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as well.  I might believe in some form of God, but certainly not the Christian-style God.  The Christian God is simply inconsistent with the idea that an extremely cruel mechanism, like evolution, would be deliberately used to create life and its diversity on this planet over hundreds of millions of years…

Second, you raise the issue of employment and the responsibility of being faithful to the ethos of the company/community. According to the way you have painted the picture, you are correct. I am not saying that, as things are, it is acceptable for someone to teach or preach whatever he or she wants. I think that "the company" should be sensitive to the fact that unanimity on this issue will simply not happen, and that it should allow for some diversity. It is in this sense that I think we should retain our anti-creedal stance. I'm not saying that we should let everything go, or that we should not have standards.

Indeed.  Yet, who gets to set the standards?  You?  I'm sorry, but standards have to be set by any viable organization in order to avoid utter chaos and anarchy.  If you don't like the standards that have in fact been set, that's fine.  You are perfectly free to start your own organization with your own standards and to get paid by those who are willing to pay you for your opinions.  This is a free country after all… Thankfully ; )

Sean, I thank you for your comments. I found them helpful. 

Likewise.  All the best with your search. I appreciate your interest and your sincerity…

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

The news staff writes in the article above:

--The irony in this cannot be overemphasized. Asscherick and Pittman are correct in saying that employees of Adventist institutions are ethically responsible to do what they are paid to do;

--

Our Adventist colleges and Universities like other Universities protect themselves from outside intervention by people like Asscherick and Pittman by offering a "Faculty tenure system" The purpose of faculty tenure is described here http://www.webs.uidaho.edu/fsh/3520.html

B. PURPOSE OF TENURE. Tenure has as its fundamental purpose the protection of academic freedom in order to maintain a free and open intellectual atmosphere. The justification lies in the character of scholarly activity, which requires protection from improper influences from either outside or inside the university. A tenure policy strengthens the capability of a university to attract and retain superior teachers and scholars as members of the faculty. UI’s tenure policy improves the quality of the faculty by requiring that each faculty member’s performance be carefully scrutinized before tenure is granted and periodically thereafter [see 3320 C]. [ed. 7-98]

Our professors our paid to do their jobs, they are not paid to spread propaganda for the denomination. It is time to stop this nonsense.

Matt, as the Apostle Paul said, "let no man despise thy youth." (1 Tim. 4:12) And I'm not dismissing your views because you are young, nor am I even dismissing your views, although I do disagree with them very sharply. 

You say you are not denigrating that Adventist hermeneutic (which is to value all Scripture eually [2 Tim. 3:16] and apply the historical-grammatical method of interpretation), but you are certainly choosing not to follow it.  And you are placing "theology," which has a pleasing elasticity about it, above "biblical studies," which leads to objective truths.  So I think it is fair to say you are denigrating the Adventist hermeneutic.

You say, "I don't deny the prophetic authority of Ellen White (in the true sense of the word prophetic). I do, however, deny her theological authority."  I wish you would further explain this statement.  My understanding is that a prophet is just a messenger who brings messages from God.  If you deny the truth of her messages (and she wrote a great deal about a six-day creation), don't you deny her prophetic authority?  If her messages were untrue, especially one repeated as often as her message affirming a literal six-day creation, were her messages really coming from God?  If not, whence came they?

You write that I "don't get to decide which interpretation (or which understanding of biblical authority) is the Adventist one."  True enough, but there still is an Adventist view of Biblical authority and an Adventist interpretation of Biblical passages, and the Adventist view of the authority of Scripture is that it trumps human theories of origins, and the Adventist intepretation of Genesis 1 is that it refers to literal, 24-hour days.  Surely you don't dispute that? 

Finally, I think we do need doctrinal unity to have any sort of meaningful unity.  The idea that we don't sounds nice, but in its practical applications throws the whole mission of the church--the preaching, teaching, evangelism, college education, etc.--into great doubt and dispute, as we are seeing from the LaSierra controversy.  As Sean has painstakingly pointed out, the initial resistance to a creed does not mean that Adventism should allow itself to descend into doctrinal chaos.  As a practical matter, we do need doctrinal unity.  

Ron

As this conversation concerns LSU. It is interesting to see how LSU describes Tenure (from the Faculty Handbook, Section 3.4, empahsis added):

3.4 Tenure  
Tenure is an expression of mutual confidence between the university and a faculty member and expectation that continuing service of the faculty is appropriate and desirable, from the standpoint of both the faculty member and the institution, and that this service is expected to continue unless adequate cause to warrant termination would subsequently arise. (See III:6) It is an expression of confidence that a faculty member will continue to be a valued colleague, a good teacher, and an active scholar, artist or leader in one’s profession. Tenure is granted by the Board of Trustees to a faculty member who has completed a probationary period within the university and has received positive recommendations through the prescribed faculty and administrative review processes. To the faculty member, tenure provides a reasonable assurance of continuing faculty service, continuing exercise of the opportunity and responsibility of academic freedom and an accompanying degree of financial stability. To the institution, tenure provides a reasonable assurance of responsibility, mature leadership and continuity in the faculty. Tenure is an affirmation that the faculty member has shown evidence of personal and professional development during the pre-tenure probationary period, aspires to continue this development, accepts and embraces the mission and standards of La Sierra University, and accepts the responsibility to work in spirit and in deed for the support of its mission.

Do the faculty members involved believe their actions are "in spirit and in deed for the support" of LSU's mission?

From Sean Pitman (to Matt Burnette):

The baptismal vow asks one if they believe in and uphold the stated SDA fundamental beliefs.  Beyond this, you don't seem to be well informed on early SDA history.  While it is true that the early SDA Church tried to avoid creedal statements, as the church grew bigger, a statement of faith became unavoidable. 

Sean - the actual original formal baptismal vow does no such thing.  You may be referring to the optional version, introduced in 2005, which originated in the South Pacific Division.  Its use, even if it is optional only, is not without controversy, the primary objection being that it elevates the 28 fundamental beliefs to a creed. 

I believe the church in general is still fundamentally opposed to adopting a creed, and I think this fundamental opposition is reflected in the generally lukewarm reception EducateTruth's petition received.  The number of signatures gathered represents a statistically insignificant percentage of the membership of the SDA church.  If 80 or 90 percent of the SDA membership, like Matt and me and many others, believe in a literal 6 day creation, and they agreed with you that if you don't embrace it as they do, you should leave or be excommunicated, then the petition's signators should have numbered in the millions.  It shouldn't have fallen woefully short of the seemingly simple (and statistically insignificant to begin with) stated goal of 10,000.

As Ron and others have pointed out above and many times before, Universities serve an important role that has and always will fall outside of the elementary school purpose of rote repetition of reading, writing, and 'rithmatic.  They should be a hotbed of ideas, metamorphasis, and evolution of thought.  The youth, with their inquisitive minds and malleable ideals are the fuel for this fire, and this fire is what keeps our church alive. 

If the church was unchanging, then the interview you and David participated in would ever have taken place.  Not only was TV considered a spectacularly  evil thing that was generally excluded from SDA homes, but it was unquestionably an inappropriate venue from which to preach the word of God.  Now, 3ABN is a partner of sorts of the SDA church.  The black gentleman that interviewed you, if EGW's writings were strictly adhered to, would never be in a position of leadership in the church.  I find it ironic that he'd protest examination of church thoughts or practices - I can't imagine he'd ever have become SDA if we were still the exact same church that our founders envisioned, and I know our church would never have allowed him to become an elder or minister. 

The idea that blacks could be leaders, even in the southern states of America, didn't germinate at the general conference.   The idea that blacks and whites could intermarry didn't begin with middle-aged, anglo church members like Sean Pitman and David Asscherick.  The idea that women, aside from EGW could minister or serve as elders didn't originate or catch momentum because the old people in the church suddenly came up with the idea.  Celebration-style worship, which is appalling to some, but, well... celebrated by others, wasn't conceived by James White or JN Andrews. 

All change - good and bad - begins with our youth.  It is the potent combination of energy and naivete that sparks progress, and it is our University system's job to protect and encourage that spark.  For anyone to compare a professor to a southeast asian sweatshop worker in a Nike factory is simply insulting, and shows a basic misunderstanding of the nature of their purpose. 

The very fact that we have 28 fundamental beliefs that some people believe are to be a test of fellowship and apostacy is a resounding testament to the fact that our universities and our young people need to test and retest and protest our leadership.  If they don't, who will?  And unless we are prepared to declare a state of perfection of thought and complete understanding of God, we should welcome their debate and embrace their questioning nature. 

As an aside, the editors of AdventistToday might like to know that the correct spelling of my last name is with one "t" - as in Pitman.

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

StateFarmSteve,

You wrote:

The very fact that we have 28 fundamental beliefs that some people believe are to be a test of fellowship and apostacy is a resounding testament to the fact that our universities and our young people need to test and retest and protest our leadership.

You should then be writing to the leadership of the SDA Church and LSU asking them to be open and honest about what they are already doing - promoting the truth of the Theory of Evolution in all of their science classrooms.  As it currently stands, the PR staff at LSU are actively trying to cover this information up - indicating that LSU is in full support of the stated SDA fundamentals.  Isn't that upsetting to you? - such blantant disregard for honest transparency?  

As David and I pointed out, at the very least LSU should be transparent.  It is only right that parents, students, and SDA membership at large know what we all are paying for in support of LSU. 

Beyond this, we aren't talking basic membership here.  We are talking about the basis for paid representation - big difference.  You simply can't pay everybody for just any idea.  That isn't the formula for a viable organization.  Sorry.  This is why Loughborough and White quickly came to the realization that imposed order and discipline was required for paid representatives.  Not just anyone was given or can be given "cards of commendation".  Just handing out such paid positions willy nilly is a recipy for schizophrenia which rapidly leads to chaos and collapse.

Also, despite the assertions of some in this forum, not even public universities practice true accademic freedom.  You just can't get a science job in the first place at a public university as a young-life creationist - period.  Yet, when one suggests that a Church school follow the same basic practive of order and government, you "progressive" people cry foul?  Do you actually prefer schizophrenia in your "organizations"?  If so, you won't be around long. 

The fact is that you don't prefer such schizophrenia at all.  You want order and government.  You just want it to support your own ideas is all.  Well, that's fine.  Start your own organization then that does in fact wish to pay you for your ideals.  It is a free country after all - Thank God.

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean - One one hand, you demand transparency, and on the other, you demand they be fired. 

If transparency were your ultimate goal, I would have signed your petition and offered my support.  However, you and others, your protestations to the contrary, clearly had a stake and a pyre awaiting at the end of your mission. 

I, like Matt Burdette, have over and over again expressed my personal belief in a literal six-day creation.  I guess it's inconvenient that the vast majority of SDA's, like Matt and I, are Creationists, but aren't on board with your program to to hunt down and exterminate people that question the literal Genesis account. 

So, now you've turned your "GET OUT" message toward me.  Well, you're free to taunt me and tell me to leave to church and start my own - as you mentioned, it is a free country.

But, I can't help but view as odd all of your talk about paid representation, and hypocrisy, and intellectual and spiritual integrity, coming from someone who has mentioned before that they have chosen to work as a physician within the Catholic church's medical branch, meaning - according to traditional SDA views - your paycheck is in a roundabout way ultimately signed by the Beast of the Revelation, and your work currently furthers the mission of those who someday intend to pass a Sunday law and commence the persecution of SDA's. 

Yours is an awkward position from which to argue for the structural integrity of the SDA church, considering you work in the employ of those that seek to destroy the SDA church.  Yours is a particularly awkward position from which to tell me to get out of the SDA church. 

If SDA escatology is something to believe in, then one would think that your earnest work for the Catholic church is doing at least as much to hasten the demise of the SDA church as the work of the LSU science professors. 

Hey Sean,

Right on!!  LSU needs a Reformation much like Luther started in the 16th century. It also would seem fitting for some heads to roll at LSU in order for some sense of creditability to return to LSU in the eyes of the church at large. 

Sean Pitman wrote this: "You should then be writing to the leadership of the SDA Church and LSU asking them to be open and honest about what they are already doing - promoting the truth of the Theory of Evolution in all of their science classrooms" (emphasis added).

 I keep seeing similar sweeping statements at Educate Truth with a lot of continuing criticism about the LSU Board's "response." What I would like to see is the evidence that ALL of the LSU scientistists have taught, or even that ANY continue to teach, theistic evolution or just plain evolution as fact in ANY of their classes, much less ALL of them. The so-called evidence at their site is based on older material, without anything from the current academic school year. For all we know, the university and the biology department have become much more sensitive in their teachings and attitudes, and now tote the company line. Perhaps the recent and much ballyhooed PR video is factually correct. All the statements to the contrary at Educate Truth offer no evidence whatsoever of the current teaching on that campus. At some point, I wonder whether faculty at LSU will sue for libel. Surely some scientist there, who happens to be a YEC, must feel harmed by the hostile accusations which, in all likelihood, have damaged their ability to find employment elsewhere--both within the denomination and outside of it. In my mind, the libel applies to all who make such sweeping statements, particularly those who are "spiny" enough to use their names with their posts (and who are quick to label others as "spineless").

Of course, I should be posting these remarks at Educate Truth, but Shane Hilde has an intense dislike for me and will not allow me to post there. I guess he is afraid of my opposing views. Perhaps he's not so spiny after all.

statefarmsteve,

I think your post hit the nail on the head. Sean Pitman and other crusaders at Educate Truth are more concerned about doctrine and being right and less concerned about saving souls. They value the Church more so than souls--and damned be those who get in the way of the Church.

Regarding Sean in particular, I am amazed by how argumentive the guy is. From his prolific posts defending creationism and his Church, you'd think the guy devotes all of his spare time to arguing with others. I'd be more impressed if he took a break from the computer to spend some time with his wife and kids, associated more with fellow believers (including those like you who share his views but not his methods), did some local community work, wrote words of encouragement to those in need of support, and prayed for the souls of others.

I believe that heaven will be a very boring place for those who devote their proudest life's work to arguing endlessly with others.

Hey ProfessorNot - I truly do find it amazing that people are willing to draw these types of lines in the sand, and if you don't take their exact position, from God's methodology and timeline of creation, down to the punishment for those that don't agree, you're subject to shunning, burning at the stake, or as Truthwave mentioned, beheading. 

Even young Mr Burdette has been subject to scorn and ridicule for refusing to jump on the "hang 'em high, hang 'em low" bandwagon. 

Perhaps the hardliners can spend some of their time arguing whether or not God actually "spoke" the earth into existence.  Did he actually inhale, and while exhaling, literally form words via vibration of vocal cords and manipulation of his tounge, lips, and teeth?  Did he speak Babylonian or Hebrew or Aramaic or King James English?

The Bible is a fantastic, centuries-old road map to salvation.  I have a road map that I got about 10 years ago, and wouldn't you know it - it's already out of date.  There are some roads and expressways that don't show up, and others that are on the map that have been shut down.  I think there is even a spot where I noticed an error or two.  However, it is important to note that in order to get to California, I still pretty much face Canada, turn left 90 degrees, and go.  That hasn't changed.  But I'm not going to try to kill my travelling buddy if he insists Route 66 is the way to go, and I want to take I-10.  If we kill each other, neither one is going to get to our destination. 

Regarding Sean in particular, I am amazed by how argumentive the guy is. From his prolific posts defending creationism and his Church, you'd think the guy devotes all of his spare time to arguing with others. I'd be more impressed if he took a break from the computer to spend some time with his wife and kids, associated more with fellow believers (including those like you who share his views but not his methods), did some local community work, wrote words of encouragement to those in need of support, and prayed for the souls of others.

Interesting that you think to know me so well.  How do you know that I don't spend a great deal of time with my wife and son?  I probably spend more time with them than 90% of husbands/fathers.  I'm also an elder in our local church and spend lots of time with good friends - believers and nonbelievers.  

I'm a full time pathologist. I'm big into outdoor physical and sporting activities.  I play basketball with a community group of guys for several hours almost every Sunday.  I write many letters and personally visit and support those with various physical and emotional needs. I'm part of a community Bible study group that meets weekly. I often prepare and lead the lesson discussion in Sabbath school.

Also, I don't debate just to argue, but with the motive of providing an appologetic basis for a solid hope in a bright future for those who are looking for something more than blind faith. I get many letters, all the time, from those who are very greatful for the information I've presented - telling me that it has saved or re-established their faith in God.  If I only got one such letter in my whole life, the effort would have been worth it.

So, you see, just because you personally only see one side of me doesn't mean that's all there is.  After all, I've only seen one side of you myself - doesn't mean I think that's all there is for you...

See the problem when you try to make this personal?

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com   

TruthWave, anymore nuggets of useless wisdom? "Truth is simple." So simple that everyone gets it? So simple that it's obvious?

If complexity is a sign of error, then we should probably trash the idea of resurrection and the Trinity and the Incarnation of Jesus. Wait, you know, come to think of it.. We might just want to get rid of the Bible, since its complexity probably means that it's erroneous.

constructingadventisttheology.wordpress.com

On December 6th, 2009 TruthWave says:

Truth is simple, error is complex.

 Finyah wrote:

--

Do the faculty members involved believe their actions are "in spirit and in deed for the support" of LSU's mission?

--

The answer I would think would be found in the mission statement and it appears to say nothing about promoting SDA doctrines. rather ideals and values. So yes they could easily disagree with church doctrines and still support the mission of the School. 

 --

As members of the diverse La Sierra Community, we are committed to inquiry, learning, and service. Our community is rooted in the Christian gospel and Seventh-day Adventist values and ideals.

Our mission is:

TO SEEK truth, enlarging human understanding through scholarship;

TO KNOW God, ourselves, and the world through reflection, instruction, and mentoring;

TO SERVE others, contributing to the good of our local and global communities.

We pursue this mission with excellence, integrity, compassion, and mutual respect.  http://www.lasierra.edu/index.php?id=673

On December 7th, 2009 RonCorson says:

[The LSU Mission Statement] appears to say nothing about promoting SDA doctrines. rather ideals and values. So yes they could easily disagree with church doctrines and still support the mission of the School.

"As members of the diverse La Sierra Community, we are committed to inquiry, learning, and service. Our community is rooted in the Christian gospel and Seventh-day Adventist values and ideals."

SDA ideals include the fundamental SDA doctrinal positions.  Beyond this, LSU is owned by the SDA Church and is therefore responsible to the SDA Church for everything that goes on there.  The SDA Church isn't simply a sponsor of LSU.  It is the owner of LSU.  Big difference...

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

On December 5th, 2009 statefarmsteve says:

From Sean Pitman (to Matt Burnette):

The baptismal vow asks one if they believe in and uphold the stated SDA fundamental beliefs.  Beyond this, you don't seem to be well informed on early SDA history.  While it is true that the early SDA Church tried to avoid creedal statements, as the church grew bigger, a statement of faith became unavoidable. 

Sean - the actual original formal baptismal vow does no such thing.  You may be referring to the optional version, introduced in 2005, which originated in the South Pacific Division.  Its use, even if it is optional only, is not without controversy, the primary objection being that it elevates the 28 fundamental beliefs to a creed. 

I suppose that depends upon what original vow you're talking about...

The Basis of Membership for the Early SDA Church:

     New questions arose, such as the way in which those who were a part of the loose-knit Sabbathkeeping groups would be accepted into newly organized churches. In the issue of the Review for October 22 James White sounded a timely warning: {1BIO 456.3}

        Great caution should be used in taking members into the
     churches. There should be great faithfulness in the examination
     of persons who offer themselves as members. {1BIO 456.4}

        If we, without examination, take into our churches all who
     profess the Sabbath, we may find our condition worse than it
     now is. If the matter of organization be judiciously and faithfully
managed, it may prove the means of relieving the brethren of
     many who are a burden and hindrance to the cause: first, in
     showing all the necessity of doing right; and, second, those who
     will not receive admonition and instruction can be left where
     they belong; viz., outside of the church. . . . {1BIO 456.5}

        All should understand New Testament discipline before
     uniting with a church. Let those who cannot yield to the pure
     discipline of the Word remain outside until they can. Goats will
     at once wander away from the fold, but the sheep and lambs,
     should they be left out awhile, will bleat around the fold.--
     Ibid., Oct. 22, 1861. {1BIO 456.6}

J. N. Loughborough's Position on the Basis of Membership

     Two weeks later, J. N. Loughborough, whose name was frequently in the Review giving reports and answering questions, took up some inquiries on close points in the matter of receiving members: {1BIO 456.7}

        You ask, "How do you manage in forming a church about
     taking in members who use tea, coffee, tobacco, and wear
     hoops, and some who do not believe in Sister White's
     visions?-- Ibid., Nov. 5, 1861. {1BIO 457.1}

     Loughborough worked very closely with James and Ellen White, and White was editor of the Review, where the answers would be published. So we may be very certain there was some counseling together on these points--what appeared in print represented the mind of the three. To this question Loughborough answered: {1BIO 457.2}

        To this I simply answer, We do not take in any who use
     tobacco, and reject the gifts of the Spirit of God, if we know it.
     One of the very objects to be accomplished by church
     organization is to lop off these things, and only have those come
     together who stand in the light. To take in those who are holding
     on to their sins and wrongs would be to encourage the things we
are seeking to remedy. {1BIO 457.3}

        You ask, "What shall be done with such? Should such
     persons be taken into the church before they break away from
     these things, or should they be taken in and labored with?" {1BIO 457.4 }

        To both of these questions I answer, No. To take persons into
     the church is saying that we fully fellowship them; and to labor
     with them then would throw them into distraction, if it did not
entirely destroy them. Better let them know the straitness of the
     way before taking them into the church. If they cannot stand the
     truth, don't bring them into the church to fill that with darkness,
     and perhaps in the end, with trial and confusion. {1BIO 457.5}

        As to taking in members and laboring with them, the very
     time to commence to labor is when their names are proposed for
     membership. (See "Conference Address.") Then if they cannot
be brought to terms, it will be best to let them stand outside till
     they can come in right.--Ibid. {1BIO 457.6}

     One cannot miss the points made by Loughborough. No one, not even those who had been united in worshiping on Sabbath with a company of believers, should be taken into the church as a member unless he or she was in full harmony with the beliefs of the church. {1BIO 457.7}

     This was followed by an in-depth article from Loughborough titled "Church Discipline," which he opened by quoting 1 Timothy 3:15: "That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Loughborough elaborated: {1BIO 458.3}

        At the present time when we are talking of, making effective
     moves toward, more permanent order in the church, it is highly
     important for us each to obtain the knowledge spoken of by Paul
     in the above text, to "know how to behave ourselves in the
     church." . . . To each know our proper sphere, and our duty; to
     know our position and fill it; to know how to occupy our proper
place and not meddle with that which belongs to the rulers in the
     church.--Ibid. {1BIO 458.4}

     Loughborough wrote at length of the relation of members to church officers, of the problems of dealing with those who have never been under discipline, of some inclined to rebel against the Spirit of Prophecy counsels, of receiving and propagating rumors and accusations, et cetera. {1BIO 458.5}

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean,

So now belief in Ellen White is a test of fellowship? That makes the Adventist church a cult.

On December 6th, 2009 ProfessorNot Kent says: Sean, after reading your letter, I see that I clearly am not ready for sainthood and question whether I ever will be. Maybe someday I can discern Truth like you. Maybe.

Anyone who has an opinion on a given topic thinks that he/she is able to discern truth to at least some useful degree which is worthy to be shared with others.  You and I are both clearly members of this group of opinionated people...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

On December 7th, 2009 mattburdette says:

Sean,

So now belief in Ellen White is a test of fellowship? That makes the Adventist church a cult.

People tend to label anything new or just a bit different or unusual as a "cult". Any test of membership or paid representation would be labeled "cultish" by some.  But hey, at least you're free to join or leave at will, without fear of any civil repercussions.  You don't have to be a paid representative of the crazy SDA Church you know.  I'm sure there are many other organizations would would be more than happy to pay you to teach your ideas...

One more reason for posting these comments of Loughborough and White is that people in this forum have a habbit of suggesting that the founding fathers of the SDA Church were these completely open and free minded people who were averse to any hint at creeds or any other test of membership.  This view is true of the very early SDA Church, before it became organized. However, it is simply mistaken when it comes to the beginnings of SDA Church order and government.  Early on in the establishment of Church government there were very specific requirements for membership and especially for paid representation within the early SDA Church organization.  If you didn't meet these specific criteria, you weren't given a "card of commendation" - period.   

Of course, those who were not considered to accurately represent the views of the Church did not receive these cards of commendation.  And what was the attitude of such persons? - according to Loughborough?:

 

"Of course those who claimed "liberty to do as they pleased," to "preach what they pleased," and to "go when and where they pleased," without "consultation with any one," failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were "depriving them of their liberty." Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish "order," these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that "when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.' "

One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it "abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed," etc. Upon this point, when church order was contested, we read: "Satan well knows that success only attend order and harmonious action. He well knows that everything connected with heaven is in perfect order, that subjection and thorough discipline mark the movements of the angelic host. . . . He deceives even the professed people of God, and makes them believe that order and discipline are enemies to spirituality; that the only safety for them is to let each pursue his own course. . . . All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery." - "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. I, page 650.

As an aside, Mrs. White herself was opposed to the idea that her wrightings and inspiration be used as a test of fellowship - arguing that a person may accept the biblical basis for the fundamental truths supporting Adventism without fully accepting her own inspired role in the Church.  However, she did support the idea that the unique SDA interpretation of the Bible most certainly be used as a test of membership and paid representation for the SDA Church government. 

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

On December 7th, 2009 statefarmsteve says: Sean - if there is another original SDA baptismal vow that I am unaware of, simply post it so I may reply. And if caffeine consumption was still a violation worthy of excommunication, we'd have thin ranks at early service, indeed.

Personally, I'm not concerned with baptismal vows or tests of basic fellowship. I personally think that baptismal vows should be made as broad as possible to allow as many people as possible into the tent of basic fellowship. 

I am very concerned, however, with paid representatives.  I think that official paid representatives of the organized SDA Church should be held to a much higher standard than basic membership/fellowship. 

At the very least, I think paid representatives should be held to what they have been very specifically asked to do by the Church organization.  The SDA Church is their employer after all.  We all owe a duty to our employers to give them what they are specifically paying us to do.  And, they are the ones who decide what they want to spend their money to obtain.  It is not up to the individual to decide what is best for the employer.  If the employer asks you to do something that isn't illegal, you should do it or resign if you don't want to do it or if you think the employer is mistaken.

If you cannot follow the instructions of your employer, in good conscience, then you should simply go and work for someone who is actually willing to pay you for your particular views. And, if there is no such organization, perhaps you're in the wrong line of work?  

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com 

Sean - your banal contention that University Professors are the equivalent of McDonald's fry guys or car salesman is tiresome. 

You continue to maintain that the employer is the one who gets to decide who works there - so unless you are the owner, that would remove you from the LSU/Biology Department equation.  Otherwise, you're merely another church member, disgruntled perhaps, but one whose opinion carries no more or no less weight than mine - and I happen to be satisfied with the current staffing of the Universities. 

Again - you seem to be concerned with the intellectual integrity of the professors at LSU, while ignoring what one would think would be your own personal moral dilemna of working in the employ of those whom our church teaches is the Beast of the Revelation.  Why concern yourself with their employer-employee relationship if your own employer-employee relationship is so obviously counter-intuitive?  Why would it be more surprising that an evolutionist would be at peace working in the science department of an SDA institution than an SDA physician would work in the medical mission arm of the institution that is plotting the demise of our Church and the persecution of God's remnant?

Sean, RE: Ellen White as test of fellowship/employment:

I'm sorry, but I think that your suggestion is unchristian. There is no biblical or theological basis whatsoever for her writings to be binding on anyone, even in the Adventist church.

I suppose what I should expect from you is what you have been saying consistently: "No one's asking you to stay in the Adventist church, or to be employed by it. Go worship or work elsewhere."

Sean, I'm not your enemy. So I ask you this as one Christian to another--don't you see that what you are trying to create is a community that is reform-proof? The only reform that you are allowing is one that goes back to the "good old days" when a supposedly-inspired person was around to dictate what to do. I cannot believe that we are bound to our own past, thankful as we are that we came from it.

I respect that you have invested yourself in this church, and that you feel that it is your right to see your church remain faithful to its own identity. But identities change, my friend.

Matt

http://constructingadventisttheology.wordpress.com/ 

statefarmsteve,

I like your posts. I wonder why it is that a university employee must practice and teach his employer's beliefs, whereas a hospital employee has no such requirement. I see inconsistency in a Catholic employee working feverishly to promote non-Catholic views while insisting that an Adventist employee must promote only Adventist views and is otherwise stealing from the pocket of his/her employer. Very strange.

Pitman wrote:

--

SDA ideals include the fundamental SDA doctrinal positions.

--

Upon what do you base that assertion? Is there somewhere that the Adventist church defines the terms "ideals and values" as encompasing the fundamental beliefs of 1980 and 2007 or 8 when they added a new fundamental belief? If that was part of their ideals then why say in the preface that they can be changed if lead by the Holy Spirit? An ideal that can change? That does not even fit with the meaning of an ideal. Nor does the use of ideals and values ever equate to doctrines. If it did then the church would be saying that their doctrines are the ideal thus their church has reached teaching and belief perfection.

David C Read wrote:

Tell the truth David, you're really just a psuedonym for Clifford Goldstein right? I find your posts to be very thought provoking, unfortunately they not usually thoughts I should share with the forum.

So you are going to burn down the church? One wonders why you continue to attempt to reform an organization that is so filled with "rot". I find your approach to reconciliation to be rather stunning as you proport to be speaking on behalf of the Member of the Godhead who's main purpose of existence is to reconcile the entire sinful human race to God. Jesus taught the people what the Father wanted them to know, But it is very, very clear that he steadfastly refused to use politics to promote the Kingdom. He never demanded the removal of the Sadducees from the Sanhedran even though he clearly disagreed with them. Your suggestion (demand really) is just that; firing and disfellowshipping are political tools when persuassion and the Holy Spirit fail. I hope the church continues to publish those who strong believe that belief in the six day creation is critical to salvation, but I think it would be a major mistake for the church to censor the opposition.

Jude3trustee writes:

Those who think it unfair that our universities should require science teachers, when presenting competing theories, to affirm their support of the church's fundamental statement of belief in creation, might want to check out Ben Stein's, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

I did. It was a pack of lies and extreme misrepresentations. While I don't have the information to completely exonerate each individual institution, I have seen evidence that some of the cases Stein presents are simply wrong and in other cases there is simply not enough evidence to evaluate. However his assertion that Darwin made Hilter possible was shocking and deeply offensive. I understand that the German nation, which I am a citrizen of, had a profoundly negative impact on Steins life personally. I am truly sorry, that we can't provide him with nazis to punish. But that does not give him license to transfer that guilt to scientists in general simply because he can demostrate some association between the two. Further, while his ancestors were German, he is not. He is American and as such was obligated to address how Darwins book influenced Thomas Jefferson's thinking on slavery and Andrew Jackson's thinking about American Aboriginal people ("Indians" as Jackson called them)

I couldn't agree more, so why promote "Expelled"?

Are you seriously arguing that a little "head-learning" is going to have a greater negative impact people than an absolute "heart stomping"? Apparently you have never heard the reaction of the victims of sexual abuse by the clergy and how that impacts their perception of God.

Know what Jude? Most cities and towns have a place where one can find all kinds of information. It's called a library; and there people there, called "librarians", who would love help you find more information on the victims of sexual abuse. Go educate yourself.

On December 9th, 2009 Martin Schratt says:

Truthwave writes:

Really?  How exactly would that work? As far as I can see Shane Hilde and Sean Pitman have rolled out their thesis' over at Educatetruth. Are we going to see further writings?

Know what happened because Luther wrote the 95 thesis? Pretty much nothing. Had Luther not continued to press the issue he would have simply been ignored. The Papacy understood that Luther was essentially right and there was nothing to be gained by standing up to Luther. The local dioses, however, did stand to lose some money if they didn't oppose Luther. (They would have saved more money had they, like the papacy, ignored Luther) Fortunately, they didn't and Luther began to explain himself better. Two books resulted; On Liberty of the Christian Man and An Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation. I highly recommend reading these two books they can be found on-line. These two books were the main subject of concern in Worms 6 years after the 95 thesis were published. There the church demanded that the state kill Luther, but the state declined and Luther went back to Wittemberg and people throughout the German-speaking lands began to discuss Luthers assertion that loyalty to the papacy was not obligatory. Churches thoughout northern Germany and in some places even south of the Alps became independent of the RCC and that was the situation still, 25 years after the 95 thesis.

The side in the conflict that wanted people fired and started the war was the RCC. Are you suggesting we look to them for guidance on how to handle our conflict?

Ah! Yes; well that did work so well for the Roman Catholic Church.

On December 7th, 2009 mattburdette says:

Sean, RE: Ellen White as test of fellowship/employment:

I'm sorry, but I think that your suggestion is unchristian. There is no biblical or theological basis whatsoever for her writings to be binding on anyone, even in the Adventist church.

Any organization can put up any criterion for paid representation.  The SDA Church has in fact made its official position, as an organization, very clear.  As a paid representative, you simply aren't clear to go ahead and do your own thing contrary to what your employer has specifically asked you to do.  That's called stealing.  It is robbery of your employer's time and money - even if you think your employer is wrong. 

Your original arugment that the SDA Church has a long history of avoiding any basis of internally inforced government and organization simply isn't true.  From the early days of the SDA Church, very specific hiring practices were in fact enforced internally within the Church. 

This is a necessity.  Organizations simply don't exist without this sort of discipline. 

I suppose what I should expect from you is what you have been saying consistently: "No one's asking you to stay in the Adventist church, or to be employed by it. Go worship or work elsewhere."

I welcome all who wish to worship with the SDA community.  However, don't expect to be paid by the SDA organization for promoting ideas fundamentally opposed to the stated position of the organized SDA Church. That's nonsense.  It is simply an obvious impracticality to expect any organization to pay just anyone and everyone for any and all ideas. How do you not grasp this concept?

Sean, I'm not your enemy.

I'm not yours either.  Just because I think you're wrong doesn't mean I don't or wouldn't like you.  None of this is personal.  I just think your ideas are wrong, not your motives. 

So I ask you this as one Christian to another--don't you see that what you are trying to create is a community that is reform-proof? The only reform that you are allowing is one that goes back to the "good old days" when a supposedly-inspired person was around to dictate what to do. I cannot believe that we are bound to our own past, thankful as we are that we came from it.

If you change who you are too much, your original name really doesn't mean anything any more.  The title "Seventh-day Adventist" should have some recognizable meaning reflected in the actual organization that bears this name.  If the organization changes too much, it might as well change its name too.  What you are proposing is that an actual organized SDA Church that truly believes in and actively promotes the currently stated SDA fundamentals, in an organized manner, shouldn't exist society... That is what you are saying...

Reform is fine and all, but to deny the inspiration of the origin of the SDA Church is to deny the very concept that God was involved with the origin of the SDA movement.  God does not change.  He doesn't say one thing and then a few years down the line say, "Oh, by the way, all that prior stuff was completely wrong.  All those visions I gave to Ellen White - a bunch of nonsense." 

While additional truths may be revealed by God, these are never contrary to the original truths revealed by God. 

I respect that you have invested yourself in this church, and that you feel that it is your right to see your church remain faithful to its own identity. But identities change, my friend.

Yes, and chaos happens too.  You are arguing for chaos and anarchy here, not actual government or order or the presentation of truths or changes which would do anything but completely destroy the reason for the unique identity of the SDA Church - and even the basis of the Christian Gospel in general (i.e., a solid hope in a very real and literal future).

Matt

 Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."  Saul Bellow

"All of us are born ignorant, but not all of us overcome it."

"Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored."  Aldous Huxley

On December 7th, 2009 statefarmsteve says:

Sean - your banal contention that University Professors are the equivalent of McDonald's fry guys or car salesman is tiresome. 

As is your repeated assertion that the Church should pay anyone and everyone for any old idea that may be out there...  just because everyone deserves to be paid just for being honest...

If you weren't so serious about this idea, it would be rather humerous...

You continue to maintain that the employer is the one who gets to decide who works there - so unless you are the owner, that would remove you from the LSU/Biology Department equation.  Otherwise, you're merely another church member, disgruntled perhaps, but one whose opinion carries no more or no less weight than mine - and I happen to be satisfied with the current staffing of the Universities. 

The SDA Church is the owner and the SDA Church has specifically asked its paid teachers to support its fundamental doctrinal positions in all classrooms - to include its science classrooms. 

This isn't my decision.  If the SDA Church changed its mind, as an organization, and decided to support the promotion of the modern synthesis view of evolution from its classrooms, I'd have no problem leaving the SDA Church at that point.  It simply wouldn't be honest of me to do anything else - to carry the title of an organization with which I so fundamentally disagree and publicly oppose. 

Again - you seem to be concerned with the intellectual integrity of the professors at LSU, while ignoring what one would think would be your own personal moral dilemna of working in the employ of those whom our church teaches is the Beast of the Revelation.  Why concern yourself with their employer-employee relationship if your own employer-employee relationship is so obviously counter-intuitive?  Why would it be more surprising that an evolutionist would be at peace working in the science department of an SDA institution than an SDA physician would work in the medical mission arm of the institution that is plotting the demise of our Church and the persecution of God's remnant?

 LOL - you can't be serious!  Not every aspect of even a misguided organization is evil or even wrong.  There are many things that the Catholic Church actually got right - and these things should be supported.  All good, whereever it is found, should be supported as coming from God.  Take the good and reject the bad.  Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater... etc.

By the way, I only work in, not for, a Catholic hospital (not that it would be wrong if I did).  My pathology partnership is an independent organization.  And, in my work for the Catholic hospital, I do support the stated Catholic position on how to treat patients in their hospital.  I don't actively subvert their unique take on patient care - even though I don't personally agree with all of it. 

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

On December 9th, 2009 Elaine Nelson says:

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."  Saul Bellow

"All of us are born ignorant, but not all of us overcome it."

"Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored."  Aldous Huxley

Yes yes, everybody with an opinion thinks that his/her own ideas are right and that those who disagree are ignoring or ignorant of the obvious facts right in front of them.   This is why Richard Dawkins called creationists "ignorant, stupid, or insane - - or evil." 

It couldn't possibly be that you are the one who is actually wrong here?  could it?  That's completely impossible! - right?  You're so smart after all.  You and those on your side clearly know so much more stuff. 

So,of course...  we both believe that your little quotes here apply to the other person or we wouldn't be so opinionated.  But, let's at least admit that it is possible that our own intelligence has been invested in ignorance, that our own needs or biases have affected our reason, and that our own ideas could be wrong, even yours, as unlikely as that may be...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

On December 9th, 2009 Martin Schratt says:

German-speaking lands began to discuss Luthers assertion that loyalty to the papacy was not obligatory.

 This is true of all Church organizations.  No one should ever be obliged, against his/her own will, to be loyal to any Church organization (contrary to what the Catholic Church did in thinking to take on civil authority during the Dark Ages).  This should always be a strictly personal decision... 

However, if one does decide, of his/her own free will, to take on a paid position within the Church, or any other organization for that matter, one is also morally obliged to do what the Church asks for that employed position.  After all, if the Church didn't force you to take the job, you are morally obligated by the moral law, the Royal Law, to give in return that which are you being paid to do.

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

" one is also morally obliged to do what the Church asks for that employed position."

If the church is the employer, it is the church who should decide whether the employee is properly filling the position for which he is hired, not simply a member who might disagree with the church's position.  Only if one who disagrees is in a position to hire and pay for the employee in question, should his objection have any validity.

What is a plan of action for those who disagree with those employed by the church?  Should they be vetted by all the members?  Should each and every member be obligated to either approve or disprove of an employee?

Sean:

I don't understand why you picked that particular sentence to respond to.  My point was that, Truthwave was name dropping the name of Martin Luther in a place where it had no relevance.

You said that the Catholic Church has done some things right and, shocking I know, I agree with you.  Though perhaps not in the particulars.

The Roman church did not and does not reject every call for reform.  The cases of Peter Waldo(?), Wyciffe, Hus, Savonarola, Zwingli and Luther are not the standard.  Usually the church simply allows a minstry (an order) to be founded which is then steered for several years until the ferver of the moment has past and then is dealt with beaurocratically.  This usually avoids the killing and schisms that direct confrontation  results in.  In the case of the Fransiscans (specifically those refered to as the Spiritual Fransiscans) the ferver did not abate and direct confrontation followed.  Unfortunately I know of no instance where, once the church engaged in direct confrontation, the church was able to reconcile without violence.  And let me add that Zwingli handeled his direct confrontation with his former students equally disasterously.

I understand that the majority of the church believes in a six-day creation.  But this will probably always be true, because of the power of tradition.  There is however a sizable minority which is uncomfortable with a "strong" stand on creation.  This minority deserves to be heard and represented in church employment.  If one looks at all the people the chuch employs one would find that, as in the membership, the overwhelming number of employees are "creationist".  Those who question the dominant interpretation of the creation story, just like in the general membership, are going to be people who are scientific in their jobs.  I really don't believe that they pose a numerical threat to creationism.  What they do represent is an intellectual threat.  That is, over time, as people listen to the case that they make and get to see that they are not the fire-breathing dragons they are portrayed to be the people might start to support them instead of the traditionalists.  It seem as though "creationists" have decided to keep people from hearing the case by making sure there is no one to make the case and then they don't have to put forth as much effort to maintain their dominance.  And that is why I have refused to sign the petion over at educatetruth.  I do not believe that church can engage in direct confrontation and continue to represent God to the world.  Just look the posts of those who are ardently fighting to preserve tradition here, or at spectrum, or even at educatetruth.  It has never worked that way and I think Jesus explicitly warned us away from that strategy.  To the best of my knowledge I know of no "evolutionist" inside the church who has been attacking creationists or creationism with the kind of venom that I frequently hear from the traditionalists.

(for venom read    p e d o p h i l e)

Martin Schratt, for an intellectually consistent Darwinist, all talk of God and Jesus is mumbo jumbo and nonsense.  Likewise, any theist who believes in a God that has the attributes that Christians have typically attributed to God--omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresences, etc.--has no need of the Darwinian hypothesis.  So please don't talk to me about Jesus while you promote Darwinism in the church. 

I'm not sure if you are one of the Seventh-day Darwinians, but if you are, I will tell you frankly I have a good deal of contempt for you.  I regard you as weak, mentally weak, psychologically weak, because you have some sort of unfathomable psychological need to hang around Adventism after you have ceased to believe in the doctrines, ALL of which are utterly and totally inconsistent with Darwinism.  I can assure that if and when I cease to believe in a God powerful enough to create the world in six days, I would be gone before you can say "gone."  The idea that Adventism's bizarre little "subculture" would have any hold on me after I ceased to believe in its grand, integrated doctrinal structure is too ludicrous to contemplate.

Statefarm, allow me to defend my brother Sean for a moment.  My understanding of his job duties as a pathologist is that he is called upon to medically analyze surgically removed tissue.  Nothing in the way he performs his duties is insconsistent with the mission of the Roman Catholic Church or of the hospital where he is employed.  If it were, he would expect to be fired and would have no grounds for complaint. 

Whether an Adventist should work for a Catholic institution is a matter for the personal conscience of the believer.  Personally I wouldn't have a problem working for a Catholic hospital, because the operation of hospitals is not an aspect of Catholicism that is wrong or unbiblical.  If I were called upon to teach the catechism, I would have to quit.  I suspect Sean feels the same way.

I know of an evangelical Christian who was teaching in a Catholic school here in Southern California.  He insisted on teaching creationism to his students.  He was warned by the principal that his views were inconsistent with Catholicism.  When he persisted in communicating his creationist views to his students, he was fired.  True story.  But Sean is not teaching un-Catholic doctrine to students in a Catholic school.

Hello Martin:

I visited in Germany while I was in school and enjoyed my time there very much. I could not help noticing the following comment in your post: 

"He [Ben Stein] is American and as such was obligated to address how Darwins book influenced Thomas Jefferson's thinking on slavery and Andrew Jackson's thinking about American Aboriginal people ("Indians" as Jackson called them)." 

Stein could not do that as Darwin's book was written after Jefferson and Jackson died.

I am also curious as to why you thought the fim "a pack of lies." I have some experience in academia and I didn't think the film's claims regarding treatment of dissenters from the majority incredible at all.

Dave Dildy

To David Dildy

I found that nowhere in the movie did Stein make a strong case that any individual had definately been persecuted solely for their beliefs.  Instead he used a number of examples and asked us to see a pattern.  Circumstantial evidence is a weak, though certainly legimate, way to make a case.  But in order for the case to work the listeners must grant the presenter credibility.  Ben Stein is a known right-winger and a former Nixon speechwriter; already he is not doing well with me.

Six scientist are not a large sample to work with and while I was unaware of 5 of the cases raised, I did remember the Sternberg case.  I think Sternberg did circumvent the rules of peer review because he really like the article he was given.  When I looked at the sites which defended him they were almost all right wing extremist sites (Discovery Institue, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal etc.)  So I have been given six cases and one is a terrible example.  One wonders what the real story of the 5 are and, if the cases offered really are the strongest possible, whether there really are any others. 

The holocaust scenes however were conclusively over top and irrelevant.  I also have a minor math.  The paragraph that follows the sentence with Jefferson and Jackson should be so obvious that I did not need to write it out .  Nonetheless:

Jefferson and Jackson both promoted racism in very extreme ways before the Origen of Species.  Where did their racist ideas come from without Darwin to guide them.  Is it possible that Darwin had no influence on Hilter or the holocaust?

Look, I sympathize with creationists who want a legimate seat at the science table.  My advice to them is to start disassociating themselves the crazies among their supporters.  Just read above the hatred oozing from the words David C Read (David, thanks I am honored by your words).  Is it any wonder the mainstream science feels threatened by these people.  Look what Pitman and Asserick are doing to LSU.  I think mainstream scientist have a lot fear from these ignorant rabble-rousers.  Like it or not science is a concensus enterprise. Get too far out and one will be treated with suspicion.  But, to then try and bolster the arguement by claiming the support of a large number of people, who have no understanding of science at all, will immediately destroy any and all credibility that one may have had.  What Pitman, Hilde and Asserick are doing is completely counterproductive to their aims of promoting creationism as a science and I wish the church would take them aside and ask them to tone it down and if they refuse then to publically rebuke them.

From David Read

Whether an Adventist should work for a Catholic institution is a matter for the personal conscience of the believer.  Personally I wouldn't have a problem working for a Catholic hospital, because the operation of hospitals is not an aspect of Catholicism that is wrong or unbiblical.

David - It's easy to miss that I have my tounge firmly planted within my cheek here in cyberspace. 

But if Sean hadn't been so vocal in his attack on the spiritual and moral integrity of scientists teaching at SDA institutions, I'd never have felt compelled to mention the obvious questions regarding his spiritual and moral integrity in light of his significant role in advancing the medical mission of the Anti-Christ.

Sean enjoys significant compensation in exchange for his role in one of the most visible, and therefore, the most powerful tools used to forward the agenda of deception of the Beast of the Revelation.  Although he doesn't teach the catechism himself, he still draws people into the welcoming arms of Satan by using the skills God blessed him with to provide healing and care and comfort from underneath the umbrella of Hell.  How many people has the Catholic Health system convinced or influenced to turn their back on the light of truth?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  After the clinicians have helped the sick, they are emotionally and spiritually vulnerable and exposed to the priests and nuns that roam the halls.  The doctors and nurses literally set the patients up on a tee so the forces of evil can take a free swing. 

I hope the paycheck is worth it, Sean.  LOL. 

statefarmsteve said:

<blockquote>Sean enjoys significant compensation in exchange for his role in one of the most visible, and therefore, the most powerful tools used to forward the agenda of deception of the Beast of the Revelation.  Although he doesn't teach the catechism himself, he still draws people into the welcoming arms of Satan by using the skills God blessed him with to provide healing and care and comfort from underneath the umbrella of Hell.  How many people has the Catholic Health system convinced or influenced to turn their back on the light of truth?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  After the clinicians have helped the sick, they are emotionally and spiritually vulnerable and exposed to the priests and nuns that roam the halls.  The doctors and nurses literally set the patients up on a tee so the forces of evil can take a free swing.</blockquote>

Sean Pitman said:

<blockquote>By the way, I only work in, not for, a Catholic hospital (not that it would be wrong if I did).  My pathology partnership is an independent organization.  And, in my work for the Catholic hospital, I do support the stated Catholic position on how to treat patients in their hospital.  I don't actively subvert their unique take on patient care - even though I don't personally agree with all of it.</blockquote>

statefarmsteve,

Did you miss Sean's key sentence?

"I don't actively subvert their unique take on patient care - even though I don't personally agree with all of it."

While your ad hominin attack is irrelevant to the issue of LSU professors misrepresenting the Seventh-day Adventist Church in their classroom, it is irrelevant for another reason--Sean does not actively subvert the hospitals patient care policies while he's on the clock.

However, the professors of LSU, in the biology department, are actively promoting the theory of evolution as the superior worldview to their employer, the Seventh-day Adventist Church. You're comparing oranges and apples.

No is talking about or attempting to force these professors to agree with the church's position. We're merely asking that LSU either publicly endorse the biology departments position or get the biology department in line with the church's position.

At least one of these options would allow for people to make educated decisions on kind of education they wanted without getting the bate and switch treat they are currently getting from LSU.

Shane Hilde

www.EducateTruth.com

Steve said:

"I'm not cricizing the Catholic Church for paying Sean to further their evil agenda."

His pathology group runs tests FOR the Catholic hospital. That can harder be called furthering their "evil" agenda.

"I'm just wondering how Sean reconciles his SDA faith with his willingness to use his God-given skills and talents to further the mission of the Anti-Christ."

LOL. Really? Are you being serious?

"Sean stated that the LSU profs lacked integrity because of their willingness to accept a paycheck from the SDA church."

You're not reading/understanding everything I wrote. Sean's situation is completely differen that what's going on at LSU.

Did you not pick up the differences I pointed out.

Statefarm, you're right: before, your satire was too subtle.  Now, you're laying it on so thick that even I can't miss it.  

It should be obvious, however, that the Roman Catholic Church does alot of good charity work; we would look foolish indeed if we opposed the many good and worthwhile things they do because the system of belief they promote is a false one. 

The problem today is in the other direction: the iron laws of political correctness dictate that one not say anything bad about another person's belief system, no matter how wrong and destructive it is.  Our continuing obligation to promote truth and resist error puts us in opposition to the prevailing zeitgeist.

Shane Hilde wrote, "No is talking about or attempting to force these professors to agree with the church's position. We're merely asking that LSU either publicly endorse the biology departments position or get the biology department in line with the church's position."

LOL. Another untruth. And how are you "merely asking" to "get the biology department in line?" You have three obvious options: (1) you must get the faculty to change their positions (no one is attempting this?); (2) they must shut up and tote the company line (if not voluntarily, then through orders from their superiors; and they may well be toting the company line by now despite your continuing accusations); and (3) resign and go elsewhere or be fired (a frequent plea at your website and here). And, to encourage any of these positions, you and your cronies relentlessly attack the scientists' views as unscriptual, inferior, and unsupported by any evidence, and you unabashedly imply that they and their superiors are liars, cheats, and thieves. Public humiliation is your lock, stock, and trade. And you're proud enough of it to gloat about it.

There is a verse: "Not by might, but by my Spirit says the Lord." Ahh...never mind; forget it.

We, members of the church, are not responsible for the "how" of the solution to the problem at LSU. That is the job of the LSU administration and the board.

Are you implying it is ethical for an employee to "work at cross purposes" with their employer?

What you are suggesting would not be considered common sense for any business? I'd be curious to know how many who disagree with the church's position--employees should represent the organization while on the job--own their own business.

I think Nathan Renner's sermon put it well. Would Yahoo continue to pay you if you were writing code for Google?

The church has a right to teach whatever it wants and to ensure that its employees uphold that belief. This is true of any organization. I'm baffled that you and some others disagree with this.

Following your model would make for an unsustainable business model.

Shane Hilde

www.EducateTruth.com

Mr. Hilde acknowledges his fundamental misunderstanding of what a church community is all about with a classic statement that essentially admits that he views a faith community as a "business."

His point and the often repeated mantra of Sean is If you allow Adventist "employees" and "workers" to openly disagree with elements of the purported "business plan" of the Adventist Church, then they are somehow "unethical."  

Far from it.  The Adventist Church is not a "business."  It is a faith community.  It's "employees" have a higher calling than to "make a profit" for the business.  They have a duty to constantly make sure by their word and deed that the Adventist faith community is continually reinventing itself in the image of the founding faith community that Jesus established.  We have a long way to go and we need more and more Adventist "employees" who are willing to be a prophetic witness that we have a long way to go.  The La Sierra University biology faculty are part of that prophetic witness.

Erv,

True, the church is not in the business of making money. Its schools though, are in the business of educating. Part of that education includes teaching the core beliefs of the church.

Employees are welcome to disagree with the fundamental beliefs of the church; however, they're not welcome to promote thier opposing views in the class room.

Sorry Erv, contrary to what you may think, SDA parents do not send their kids to our schools to have the church's fundamental beliefs disregarded as lunatic.

They're paying for a particular type of education, and for the vast majority of Adventists LSU is not providing what they are paying for.

LSU is giving them the old bait and switch, which is actually illegal in this country, I think. You can't advertise that you're providing one product and then give another. This goes for any organization that's providing a product/service.

Shane Hilde

www.EducateTruth.com

This goes for any organization that's providing a product/service.

I don't think education can be reduced to a simple product or service, to do so would be a very superficial evaluation.  A fulfilling education cannot be confined in such a manner that a student's exploration is limited.  The very idea is counter-educational.

davgill

On December 11th, 2009 statefarmsteve says: Shane - the absurdity of your suppositions is nearly inconceivable. Now you are accusing LSU of criminal Bait & Switch activity? For teaching science in their Science Department? Methinks the only B & S in the immediate vicinity emanates from the ironically named Educatetruth.com.

Don't be so obtuse Steve.  The bait-n-switch is when the LSU PR department  actively advertises that its teachers, all of them, actively support and promote the SDA ideals within their classrooms.  This is the bait.  The PR department is presenting an advertisement that is simply not true. The switch is that many if not all of LSU's science teachers actually tell their students that the SDA position on a literal 6-day creation week is clearly ludicrous in light of what they consider to be the vast weight of evidence that contradicts such nonsense.  This claim has even been presented in print in a popular journal article by a senior LSU science professor...with the aid of some colorful language to add impact...

There simply is no other term for saying one thing while doing another besides "Bait and Switch"...

Erv Taylor's arguments against any sort of internal control, imposed order, or internal government within the Church is an appeal for chaos and anarchy.  Loughborough was confrunted by the very same arguments when he and James White started to promote actual church government during the founding of the SDA organization:

Of course those who claimed “liberty to do as they pleased,” to “preach what they pleased,” and to “go when and where they pleased,” without “consultation with any one,” failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were “depriving them of their liberty.” Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish “order,” these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that “when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.’ ”

One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it “abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed,” etc. Upon this point, when church order was contested, we read: “Satan well knows that success only attend order and harmonious action. He well knows that everything connected with heaven is in perfect order, that subjection and thorough discipline mark the movements of the angelic host. . . . He deceives even the professed people of God, and makes them believe that order and discipline are enemies to spirituality; that the only safety for them is to let each pursue his own course. . . . All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.” – “Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. I, page 650.

Sound familiar? - Erv? 

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

My employer has some health insurance policies that aggravate me no end. My colleagues and I were all complaining about them the other day. I had not realized that my sharing an opinion that disagreed completely with my employer's stated policies made me a thief. Now I'm nervous that I may have been overheard by, or quoted to, a superior, and will soon be charged with theft.

You know, I wish I had a nickle for every employee who disagreed with their boss or employer and shared their opinion with others. I'm confident I'd be a millionaire by now.

On December 12th, 2009 ProfessorNot Kent says:

My employer has some health insurance policies that aggravate me no end. My colleagues and I were all complaining about them the other day. I had not realized that my sharing an opinion that disagreed completely with my employer's stated policies made me a thief. Now I'm nervous that I may have been overheard by, or quoted to, a superior, and will soon be charged with theft.

You know, I wish I had a nickle for every employee who disagreed with their boss or employer and shared their opinion with others. I'm confident I'd be a millionaire by now.

We're not talking here about some minor complaints, but about not doing what your boss is specifically paying you to do as your boss's primary goal.  That is stealing. 

Someone comes up to you and says, "I'll pay you $50/hour to do X, Y, and Z.  You say, "Ok".  Then you don't do X, Y and Z, - - and, worse still, you work against the boss's stated goal of obtaining X, Y and Z - - and you still expect to get paid?  - and you don't call that stealing?  What do you call it?  Rationalization?

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com 

From Sean -

We're not talking here about some minor complaints, but about not doing what your boss is specifically paying you to do as your boss's primary goal.  That is stealing. 

Sean  - I finally understand exactly what your frustration is!  You are under the mistaken impression that the "primary goal" of the entire adventist university system is to teach a literal six-day creation. 

Well, allow me to help you out and relieve some of that intellectual constipation.  The primary goal of the SDA university system is provide a high-quality education to bright young minds.  It's not there to indoctrinate our youth, as if it were some kind of Hitler youth rally.  It's not some adolescent young adult version of Cradle Roll. 

It's University!

It's a time and place for young adults to explore and expand and discover (sometimes we refer to this dynamic process as "higher learning".)  Professors are charged with the very unique, very specialized job of fostering this dynamic process, which is why we  usually don't equate them with burger flippers, shoe factory workers, car salesmen, or even physicians.  The benefit to our society at large, and the benefit to our church specifically, of fostering these centers of intellectual freedom, is that out of this boiling cauldron arises essentially all of the last 400 years of  metamorphasis of ideas and thought. 

Yes, some of the change is a step forward, and sometimes, it's a step backward.  LSU may be the SDA version of the integration of the University of Alabama, and it may be Kent State.  What I'm not willing to do is eat my chicken because it might lay a bad egg - frankly, we don't have anywhere else to get eggs.  Today, we have blacks and women working as ministers and church leaders because the universities didn't cling to traditional beliefs and limitations.  We have a beautifully integrated membership, with bi-racial marriages and children of those relationships, because universities failed to follow EGW's admonitions against such unions. 

You seem to suggest in some of your posts that if the church let a 6-day creation go as a fundamental belief, you'd be fine with the University teaching some sort of evolutionary or ID theory.  Well, University is where the questions get asked, where the genesis of thought change occurs.  It doesn't occur at the General Conference, or in my office, and it certainly doesn't occur in your pathology lab.  Universities don't wait for thoughts to change, they initiate it.  That's what they do. 

And, as history proves, somebody from the establishment begins to bellyache and lament the freedom of thought that takes place in Universities. 

On December 12th, 2009 statefarmsteve says:

Sean  - I finally understand exactly what your frustration is!  You are under the mistaken impression that the "primary goal" of the entire adventist university system is to teach a literal six-day creation. 

Well, allow me to help you out and relieve some of that intellectual constipation.  The primary goal of the SDA university system is provide a high-quality education to bright young minds.  It's not there to indoctrinate our youth, as if it were some kind of Hitler youth rally.  It's not some adolescent young adult version of Cradle Roll. 

You may wish that the promotion of a literal 6-day creation week by all paid SDA Church representatives was not the stated goal of the SDA Church as an organization, but you are mistaken.  This is a very clearly stated primary goal of the SDA Church for its own university system.

We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins.  We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat55.html

This primary goal of the SDA Church cannot be stated any more clearly to its paid representatives within its own universities.  You may not agree with this statement, but you cannot deny that this is the express wish of the organized SDA Church.  It is therefore stealing from this organization's time and money for a paid employee to continue doing exactly the opposite of this express primary goal of his/her employer...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Ahhh...now I get it! So for all those years, the primary goals of our universities were as statefarmsteve so eloquently stated (thank you!). And then...someone got a different idea. In 2004, the "Church" decided that the primary goal should be indoctrination of only one idea regarding origins. (Of course, the words "primary goal" were inadvertently left out of the new policy, but we can thank Shane and Sean for clarifying this.)

So, for all those years, we parents were sending our children off to universities to get higher education, and then along came 2004, when things changed and we were thereafter sending them off to get indoctrinated on a six-day creation week. Talk about a bait-and-switch!

Of course, we parents, the administrators, and the faculty should have recognized this all along. We should all have known to go to http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/index.html. Our bad.

Oh, but check this out. Apparently, the "primary goal" of the Church has changed repeatedly in recent years. Looking at the following website, here are but a few conclusions:

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/index.html

In 1990, the primary goal became education for prevention of AIDS (I'm sure this is still indoctrinated by LSU Biology; we haven't heard otherwise and we are not informed of arrests for theft).

In 1992, the primary goal became to address the ethical issues at the end of life and to oppose active euthanasia (I'm sure this is still indoctrinated by LSU Biology; we haven't heard otherwise and we are not informed of arrests for theft).

In 1995, the primary goal became to affirm the dignity and worth of each human being and decry all forms of physical, sexual and emotional abuse and family violence (I'm sure this is still indoctrinated by LSU Biology; we haven't heard otherwise and we are not informed of arrests for theft).

In 1997, the primary goal became to regard all men and women as equal in the sight of God (except for evilutionists, an obvious oversight in the wording here), to recognize some positive changes in recent Catholicism, and to stress the conviction that many Roman Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ (I'm sure this is still indoctrinated by LSU Biology; we haven't heard otherwise and we are not informed of arrests for theft)

In 1999, the primary goal became to teach that sexual intimacy belongs only within the marital relationship of a man and a woman (I'm sure this is still indoctrinated by LSU Biology; we haven't heard otherwise and we are not informed of arrests for theft).

In 2000, the primary goal became to oppose female genital mutilation (I'm sure this is still indoctrinated by LSU Biology; we haven't heard otherwise and we are not informed of arrests for theft).

Wow...I had no idea the Church changes its "primary goal" so often! We should all read and contemplate on these statements daily. The "primary goals" (however changing) of the SDA Church cannot be stated any more clearly to its paid representatives within its own universities. We must be educated in truth!

From the quote posted by Sean:

--

even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world. 

--

However it appears if they are taught the dominate scientific philosophies of origins they would be accused of not teaching the churches literal 6 day creation and thus they are stealing from the church. Unless of course every 3rd or forth lecture sentance says but we Adventists believe in a literal recent 6 day creation of everything except God and His helpers in Heaven not to be confused with space and stars and planets and light which were created in the 6 literal days of creation.

Problem solved.

The entire concept of a university education is not indoctrination, but an endeavor to create critical thinking that an adult will encounter throughout her entire life:  how to evaluate different opinions in all areas, business, government, science, religion and philosopy. 

Indoctrination in the methods of learning is for the beginning grade school student who must be taught the basics just as a pre-med student must thoroughly understand the basics of chemistry, biology, and related disciplines.  As one eminent medical school professor has stated:  "Fifty percent of what you will learn in this class will be obsolete in a few years; but even I do not know which half it will be."

Science is forever changing.  That is what the student of science should understand:  nothing is permanent and always subject to newer findings. This fact should always be remembered.

Theology, too, is subject to change.  As any student of Christian and Adventist history should know, there have been many changes in doctrinal beliefs throughout its origin.  Unless one is open to study and recognize changes, the status quo will be idolized and worshiped, rather than being open to newer revelation. 

 No one can turn back the clock to an earlier concept.  If so, our world would not have become modernized and industrialized and we would still be goat-herders living in the stone age.  Is that the ideal wished for by some?

From Sean -

This primary goal of the SDA Church cannot be stated any more clearly to its paid representatives within its own universities. 

A couple of things, Sean.  First, just because you keep calling them "paid representatives" doesn't change the fact that they are "University Professors".  And as I keep stating over and over again in response to you, Professors operate and conduct their work in a different manner than shoe factory workers, car salesmen, and McDonald's shift workers. 

Secondly, as ProfessorNotKent pointed out, you conveniently added the label "primary goal" to the call to action from the General Conference.  It seems obvious that you exercised generous editorial liberty in order to make the declaration from the Conference appear more in line with EducateTruth's goal, but it is nonetheless your edit, and your's alone.  If this were the primary goal of the Conference, I trust that they would be capable of declaring exactly that, rather than rely on you for added emphasis or translation of their intent.

Even the Conference leadership seems to understand that the details of the situation are not defined in the manner you assert.  If they considered the Professors to be mouthpieces, and if their actions were indeed theivery, I would guess that rather than release a statement, they would take legal action against those Professors. 

Asking or calling upon Boards and educators to uphold our current position on origins, while expected, is hardly a call to arms.  It's also not a demand to toe the company line - no matter how much you say it is.  I'd rather just let their statement - and more significantly, their action (or the notable lack thereof) speak for themselves.

Translating the words and actions of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference may appear to give EducateTruth a reason to exist, but in reality, the website is a fetid attempt by a radically fundamentalist-minded minority to insert themselves into the politics of the church.  No matter how hard you work to create a crisis, most will understand that our SDA faith is secure, that our church can remain fundamentally sound without cowtowing and caving to the demands of fundamentalists.

Asking or calling upon Boards and educators to uphold our current position on origins, while expected, is hardly a call to arms.  It's also not a demand to toe the company line - no matter how much you say it is.  I'd rather just let their statement - and more significantly, their action (or the notable lack thereof) speak for themselves.

Ah, so because the Church organization doesn't emediately fire someone for doing contrary to what the organization has clearly requested, it must mean that it is morally Ok to keep doing contrary to what your employer is clearly paying you to do?  Come on now - how much more of a rationalization can you get?

Those who argue that University professors are not hired employees like shoe salesmen are simply incorrect.  They are hired employees who are hired to do a particular job which includes presenting ideas which are unique to the company.  The very same thing is true of public university professors.  You simply wouldn't get hired unless you assent to present the ideas currently endorsed by the university (it really doesn't matter what the university endorsed or didn't endorse before - but what it currently endorses and asks of its paid representatives).  

This is a requirement to avoid chaos in any viable organization.  It's a matter of practicality. You simply cannot pay everyone for just any old ideas.  That notion is simple nonsense for anyone considering this issue with a candid mind.  

According to your arguments, and those like Erv Taylor and others who frequent Atoday, the SDA Church would have to maintain religion professors who started telling their students that they'd better start praying to the Virgin Mary for crying out loud... 

Don't you see that your position is one of anarchy, not of order and government for any viable organization?

And, if you're correct that the SDA Church organization thinks it's just fine to allow for the promotion of the truth of Darwinism in its own university classrooms, why is the PR department at LSU trying to hide what it is actually doing?  Why is LSU presenting itself as being in full support of the stated SDA fundamentals in all of its classrooms?  Why not at least be open and honest about what you're doing if you think your boss really doesn't mind so much?  Hmmmm? 

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com 

On December 12th, 2009 Elaine Nelson says:

The entire concept of a university education is not indoctrination, but an endeavor to create critical thinking that an adult will encounter throughout her entire life:  how to evaluate different opinions in all areas, business, government, science, religion and philosopy. 

University education isn't just one big class in critical thinking.  Certain specific ideas are presented by professors as being "true" or "false".  This is a form of indoctrination.  Just try disagreeing with a professor in class on an idea that he/she has just presented as the obvious truth and see if that isn't reflected in your grade...

Indoctrination in the methods of learning is for the beginning grade school student who must be taught the basics just as a pre-med student must thoroughly understand the basics of chemistry, biology, and related disciplines.  As one eminent medical school professor has stated:  "Fifty percent of what you will learn in this class will be obsolete in a few years; but even I do not know which half it will be."

Every time you are taught something by someone else with any sort of opinion on the topic, you are getting a form of indoctrination.  There is bias everywhere, even in science.  In fact, it would be impossible to do science without bias.  The same thing is true of religion. 

Science is forever changing.  That is what the student of science should understand:  nothing is permanent and always subject to newer findings. This fact should always be remembered.

You mean nothing can be absolutely known in science.  That's true.  The same thing is true of religion.  However, this doesn't change the fact that people with an opinion on a topic do in fact think that they have a better handle on it compared to those who disagree...

Theology, too, is subject to change.  As any student of Christian and Adventist history should know, there have been many changes in doctrinal beliefs throughout its origin.  Unless one is open to study and recognize changes, the status quo will be idolized and worshiped, rather than being open to newer revelation. 

If the "newer revelation" happens to fundamentally disagree with the earlier revelations that formed the basis for a unique identity, then perhaps the unique identity is no longer needed and the organization should desolve.  

The SDA Church does, of course, recognize that our human understanding of truth is progressive.  However, the SDA take on revelation is that new truth will never counter the clarity of earlier bedrock revelations which were also from God. Newer revelations may add additional features which compliment, but do not undermine earlier revelations...  If they are in fact from God.

No one can turn back the clock to an earlier concept.  If so, our world would not have become modernized and industrialized and we would still be goat-herders living in the stone age.  Is that the ideal wished for by some?

 Clocks are "turned back" all the time.  You might not agree that such an attitude is logical, but that's simply your opinion.  Others have a right to their own opinions which differ from yours - even if they are in fact wrong and you just happen to be right.  They are also free to form organizations of like minds and to use their own money to specifically hire people who will accurately reflect their own views to the public and to their own children - even if you think they are "living in the stone age".  

That's the glory of living in a free civil society...  No one is twisting your arm to be part of the backward goat-herding mentality of the organized SDA Church.  You are certainly free to leave and join a far more progressive organization.  Just don't expect to be paid for your ideas by the stone age SDA Church.  Even stone agers aren't that dumb... hopefully!  ; )

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Round and round and round it goes, Sean. 

Have you given the church a deadline for which to fall into lockstep with your request to fix LSU? 

Again, the church's written response (minus your editorial work) and their course of action speaks volumes.  It seems even the GC realizes that when science professors teach science, the university organization remains viable, even vibrant.  Inasmuch as you and the EducateTruth crowd would like to declare LSU a failed organization that threatens the viability of the worldwide SDA church, it seems that you are in a miniscule, though vocal minority.  It just goes to show the power of the world wide web:  any exhibitionist can become either a politician or a porn star.

As one would expect, you seem to have fallen into the expected trap of creedal thinking - that anyone who challenges the church creed should leave the church or be excommunicated.  See, the church holds many beliefs that are equally significant to those that through a very human, very political process have been declared to be "fundamental."  When a belief is labeled as "fundamental", it gives the false impression that they are a test of fellowship, a falsehood which fuels your rabid "get on board or get out" website.  This psychotic behavior-inducing tendency is the fundamental flaw with our church's declaration of fundamental beliefs. 

You obviously have an argument for Creation vs. Evolution.  If there is a qualified professor who will teach your point of view, you should see if he is willing to work at LSU and you should promote his hire at LSU.  For all of your arguments against the science department at LSU, I have yet to see you present a list of names of qualified PhD's who wish to work at LSU for consideration by the board and the president of the institution.

The manner in which you and EducateTruth have gone about your business has been counterproductive, negative, politically charged, and conducted in a poor manner overall.  If you wished to help LSU make changes, it would seem that you could have done a better job of doing it in a more positive manner.  Right now, to many reasonable-minded people, EducateTruth.com looks like a church-politics driven "look at me" thrill ride for you, Asscherick, and Hilde - mostly because you very easily could have promoted your views in a much more positive manner, had you chosen to do so. 

People may have responded differently, if you had.  Perhaps your signature drive wouldn't have gotten such a statistically insignificant, tepid response.  I can say for certain that you'd have gotten my support. 

Hi Steve,

Re your comment "People may have responded differently, if you had.  Perhaps your signature drive wouldn't have gotten such a statistically insignificant, tepid response.  I can say for certain that you'd have gotten my support."

My understanding is that Sean spent several years questioning what was being promoted within LSU science.  Then when suddenly it gets some air time within a small section of Adventism everyone cries foul - including the leadership of LSU.  When transparency is demanded everyone runs for cover and the stones begin to be thrown at those evil conservative lemmings.

Tepid response?  Not sure if I agree with this.  Lets just see how this plays out.  The issue is not going away.  The conservative element, so dispised by the Atoday crowd are inevitably the guys that fund a significant portion of the operations of the church.  This includes LSU.  Yes, those faithful Adventists who still believe that tithe and offerings fund the Advent message.  If we did a survey, how many of the Atoday crowd subscribe to the concept of tithe?  Like many of the 28, no doubt this is optional - yet they are the first to start demanding that the churchs message is outdated and the equivalent of lunacy.  I read some contributors to this discussion who are not SDA, yet freely give advice on how we should operate the church funded colleges. 

And what would have been your approach to this issue Steve?  You 'may' have supported the cause.  I have not followed your comments closely enough.  Are you comfortable with LSU promoting evoluion as the preferred view of origins within the science faculty?

Hi Blair - my position on this topic is well documented throughout the various threads here on AToday, but I can summarize. First, I'm not a fan of using the 27, now the 28 fundamental beliefs as a creedal test of fellowship. Secondly, I personally believe in the 6-day creation story as told to us in the bible, but I haven't and have no desire to mull over the science of the matter. The debate over how God created the earth and when, and how long it took is rather uninteresting to me. I'll leave this debate to men and women of science and theology. This brings me to my third point - I believe that our university professors should teach up to date subject matter. For instance, our English majors need to read a wide range of fiction, although fiction was forbidden by EGW, and many of the classics are disparaged as pornographic or sexually explicit or morally out of line with SDA ideals. Our art students need to study Michaelangelo's David as a masterpiece of sculpture, not be protected from exposure to homoerotic art, although it clearly is and falls well outside of our church standards. Likewise, our science students should be thoroughly versed in evolution, Darwinism, intelligent design, etc. Would I encourage and promote the hire of qualified creationist university professors? Absolutely, but I'm not in position to know any, much less any who have applied to LSU or want to work there. Am I uncomfortable with derision of creation? Yes. Am I comforted by the fact that creation is the standard in required religion courses and at campus church, worship, and chapel services? Absolutely.

Now, as to your other questions and comments. There's no need for you to agree or disagree with my characterization of the EducateTruth petition. No matter how you choose to look at it, collecting 5000 signatures from a membership of 16,000,000 is a non-event. If I understand your statements on conservative tithing habits and the implied power we hold because we tithe and fund "a significant portion of church operations" then my negative assessment of the EducateTruth crowd is spot on. What will you do? Withhold your tithes, and therefore break one of your fundamental beliefs because LSU doesn't comply? Or should your thinly-veiled threat be enough to intimidate the university? This is reflective of the prevailing problem with the methodology of EducateTruth, and is the reason that I didn't sign their petition. Although I agree with Shane and Sean and David theologically, I vehemently disagree with the tone and tenor of their site, particularly the attitude of the vast majority of commenters who have posted there. EducateTruth promotes not mere transparency, but, in the words of one of the EducateTruthers, "heads to roll". In so many words, "Acquiese or else.". And, "EducateTruthers pay more tithe than ATodayers." I'm simply not going to be a part of that movement.

Moderator's note: As we educate our readers to our new moderation policy [see posted announcement], we're publishing this comment as an example of what will no longer fly. As we raise the bar, we urge readers to add to the discussion, stay on topic, avoid singling out other readers, and engage in a positive manner. 

"I read some contributors to this discussion who are not SDA, yet freely give advice on how we should operate the church funded colleges."

And one such person you will find incessantly dissing the SDA church here and on another liberal website. I almost never read her comments as I don't believe we need former or never SDAS advising us how to operate our educational system.

Truth Seeker

PEEVED!  PEEVED!  PEEVED!

There is no doubt that if an SDA college curriculum includes courses that teach evolution, then the people who are espousing it need to be questionned and challenged. 

The problem I have with this is the choice of media to which it has been challenged. 3ABN has claimed to be a supporting ministry of the SDA church. Yet 3ABN has proclaimed very opposing views to the SDA church on subjects such as divorce and remarriage. Furthermore, the leadership of 3ABN has discouraged and in many cases actually fired employees who have questionned or challenged their judgement and operating decisions. They have insisted on absolute deference and homage of their employees to their leadership. Hardly a supporting entity, but signs of a cult.

If Ascherick and Pittman want to make their point, then that should be encouraged. But there are much wiser media choices than 3ABN.

To be considered fair and equitable, any discussion should be a debate between both sides, and consisting of qualified scientists in the required fields.  Anything else is more propaganda and unworthy of a church approval.  Apologists not needed.