Erv, as always your writing is so concise and succinct there can be no doubting your mastery of the subject of education.

All SDAs point to LLU as a shining beacon, yet few know the history behind it and how it infused all of SDA education in forcing the "feeder" colleges and universities to meet the highest accreditation standards.  Without that, few parents would be willing to pay the tuition for an unaccredited "Bible" college education. 

If the Fundamentalists are successful in their endeavors to eliminate all scientific education from these schools, it will be the deathknell of Adventist education:  they are trying to kill what they wish to  preserve. 

With education becoming more expensive every day, why should any parent be willing to sacrifice to send his children to a "Bible college" that cannot meet accreditation standards.  Might as well send them to the 6-month "missionary schools" that should be more appealing.  For all the rest:  non-accredited schools will close shop within a few years if they are forced to eliminate their science departments.  The Fundamentalists know not what they end result could be.

I'm confused, Erv.  Do the science departments in SDA universities - particularly La Sierra - teach evolutionary theory as scientific fact?  Is this teaching not diametrically opposed to the official position of the Church? Assuming, as I do, that your answer is yes, it appears to me that you are on the same side as the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists ask how Adventist educational institutions can justify teachings which are in conflict with official Church teachings; you ask how the Church can continue to hold positions which are inconsistent with the truth of reason and science.  You both want to overcome this schizophrenia, as you call it. (I view this as a healthy development, because it seems to me that, until now, you have been defending a "circle-the-wagons", "don't-ask-don't-tell" approach.)

I have mixed feelings, and am too ignorant about the science to wade in on the merits.  But I have been disturbed by the ongoing attempts by progressives to psychoanalyze, demonize, and censor those who have asked for openness and transparency in Adventist academia. Is it now your position that dissent is divisive and destructive?

Again making what I believe is a safe assumption - that the overwhelming majority of Church laity believe in a literal 6-day creation of relatively recent origin - precisely how do you see the Progressive formula for "maturing" the Church overcoming division?  I have been under the impression that Progressive attempts to silence and marginalize La Sierra's interlocutors were intended to enable, not overcome, schizophrenia, so that heterodoxy could proceed unabated among SDA scientists, without producing schism and threatening Progressivism in the Church.  What am I missing? 

BTW, Erv, don't you feel a bit like President Obama telling Republicans what they need to do to overcome divisions in their party? 

" that the overwhelming majority of Church laity believe in a literal 6-day creation of relatively recent origin"

If that is the criteria for our academic institutions, it WILL be the deathknell.  Allowing the laity, few, if any who are conversant in science, deciding what will be taught in those disciplines is ludicrous on its face.  Would you suggest that chemistry PhDs should head up the religion department--this is the same analogy.

As for the statement:  "LLU was a "shining beacon" 50 years ago when it was producing fine physicians and nurses who were firmly committed to SDA "science".  Is the science significantly different now?" is a moot question.  Ask any of the physicians or nurses who graduated 50 years ago (as my late husband did) if there have been changes, and most likely the reply will be as one professor then told them:  "Fifty percent of what I will teach today will be obsolete by the time you graduate.  Except no one knows which 50% it will be."

Science is so rapidly changing today that no one discipline can keep up. If we do not constantly and consistently endeavor to maintain the latest and best knowledge in all the disciplines, and especially the sciences, we will cease being an educational worthy of the name.  If those who wish to teach "the Bible and the Bible only" gain their desires, anyone who claims to "know the Bible" will be considered an adequate teacher.  Just don't expect too many students to subsidize such a plan.

Anything being taught in science just as it was 30 years ago is completely outdated.  Should we teach homoepathy or alternative medicine alongside the regular medical curriculum at LLU.  This same analogy, applied to medicine, would suggest that all the possible theories of healing that have been known for thousands of years are of equal value.  To suggest that different theories of creation are of equal value in the teaching of creation would demand that we teach that the sun revolves around the earth, which was the prevailing knowledge for thousands of years, just as a literal 6-day creation was the only theory for a similar amount of time.  Our knowledge is moving at such a rapid rate it is getting almost impossible to keep abreast, but turning backward is not the right approach. 

If you have children or grandchildren yet to be taught, do you want them taught solely from the Bible of the theory of creation found there, and alchemy as believed in the Middle Ages.  If not, then why suggest such an outdated approach to only one discipline.

Wow!  I never thought I'd hear anyone of Ervin Taylor's ideological ilk say that, "Adventist public evangelism has brought into the denomination large numbers of converts."  Up to now, the party line among the liberal wing has been that public evangelism doesn't work.  Now, we find out that it does, and, in fact, its very efficacy is exactly why liberals like Ervin Taylor oppose it. 

The picture gets clearer every day.  Ervin Taylor wants a church composed of cultural "Adventists" who, like him, have long since ceased to be believers, but public evangelism keeps bringing in new converts who actually believe in the Adventist doctrines.  I can see how that would be upsetting.  All those converts who actually believe are spoiling the fun for the atheists who, for some reason beyond the reach of modern psychiatry, still want to call themselves Adventists.  

Elaine, you say, "allowing the laity, few, if any, of whom are conversant in science, [to decide] what will be taught in [science] disciplines, is ludicrous on its face. Would you suggest that chemistry Phds should head up the religion department[?] - this is the same analogy."  

No, it's not analogous, for reasons so self-evident that, if I have to explain, explaining won't do any good.  Are you suggesting that SDA laity have no business questioning whether faculty in SDA colleges are promoting beliefs which undermine parents' and the Church's most deeply held values and beliefs? What if an economics professor is advocating Marxism; what if a history or English professor is selling deconstructionism; what if cultural and religious relativism  is being advocated in the humanities departments; what if religion professors are encouraging students to believe in universal salvation; and what if science professors said, "belief in a creator God is scientific rubbish?  Would you say, "none of our business?" Such an attitude would truly be the deathknell of SDA education.  I personally am considerably more progressive and open-minded than most Adventists, a possibility which I suspect you find highly depressing. But I would never support any school which rejected the right of its constituents to critique its course content or curriculum.

I do think it is valid to point out, if it be the case, that belief in a literal 7-day creation is so incompatible with science as an academic discipline that it would be virtually impossible to find competent science faculty who accept the Church's doctrinal position.  I am very sympathetic to that argument.  But that is a different argument than saying non-"experts" in an academic discipline have no right to influence what is being taught or advocated in the classrooms.  It is this latter elitist argument, which seems to characterize the Progressive response, which I find highly offensive.

If the "laity" are unhappy with what is being taught, they have the option of either not supporting the schools, or not sending their children there.  What other alternatives are open to them.

The administration and the academic department heads hire the teachers, not the "laity."  They are far better equipped to judge the qualifications and teaching of their instructors.  Surely, you are not suggesting that the "laity" are better able to judge their teaching. 

Is it appropriate for religion teachers to "advocate" a particular opinion, but inappropriate for other disciplines to do so--if so, what makes the difference.

If the church allows the "laity" to pick and choose what is taught in the SDA schools, how do you propose that it be conducted, and if biology and a 6-day Creation from the Bible is to be the preferred position, it will be no different than the position taken by the one Christian church for centuries that the sun evolved around the earth.  That took 400 years to change and during that time the church's position was ridiculed by the entire scientific world.  Is that the outcome desired for SDA schools. 

Biology should never be taught as a form of religious belief.  They are two distinctive and very differernt disciplines.  The first relies on objective evidence, the second relies solely on belief--which is most subjective and is usually covered by the term "faith."  Faith cannot be "taught" but must arise in each individual.  Indoctrination is NOT, nor should be the principal method of collegiate instruction, but presentation of the best and latest evidence in a given discipline and allowing the mature student to choose and decide for himself.  Just as in economics, there are as many theories, and more, than economists.  Teaching the various ideas will only enrich the student and allow him to make his own choices.  Teaching and advocating only one is abhorent to the inquiring mind.  We should always, long after formal education, continue to be able to learn; but it can only be based on free inquiry and critical thinking which should be instilled as part of academic life.

Statefarmsteve, in my previous post in this thread, I said nothing whatsoever about science.  As it happens, I know as much about Darwinism as most science Ph.Ds, but that's neither here nor there.  The thing I object to is non-believers trying to set policy in SDA institutions.  Not only are people like Elaine and Ervin Taylor post-Adventist in their views, they are post-Christian.  Elaine doesn't believe in the supernatural; her "Christianity" is mere ethics, which is to say not Christianity in any meaningful sense.  I think Ervin is close to the same place.  Why do they feel compelled to comment on Adventism?  Better yet, why on earth would anyone care what they have to say about any Adventist institution??? 

David, I was unaware that you had been appointed to decide who is "sufficiently Christian" to participate on this forum.  Unless Adventist Today has deputized you to check the qualifications of posters.  Is that something we missed. 

I cannot speak for Erv, but I do believe as a long-time educator, he is intensely interested not only in preserving academic freedom, but preserving the integrity of Adventist education. I, too, value education and regret that there are some SDAs who wish to return to the past for their scientific studies.

During the famous 1925 Scopes trial, H. L. Mencken wrote prophetically:  "The Tennessee anti-evolution law, whatever its wisdom, was at least constitutional--that the yahoos of the State had a clear right to have their progeny taught whatever they chose, and kept secure from whatever knowledge violated their superstitions."

This is the same attitude seen today in condeming the teaching at La Sierra:  "Darwinism should be kept from the minds of an entire generation of students while at the same time mandating that the Bible should be taught as science."

However, the perspective is most inconsistent in that in the other sciences, especially medicine, the latest knowledge is taught--not from the Bible, but by objective science.

Should La Sierra teach the Bible position that the sun revolves around the earth. 

Elaine, I admire your high ethical standards.  It would have been easy enough for you to deny what I've written about you here and at Spectrum.  That you have not stooped to false denials speaks highly of your commitment to honesty and truthfulness. 

I'm also certain that you are sincere in wanting Adventist higher education to reach the highest standards.  But Adventist higher education does not exist to redundantly duplicate the community colleges and state university systems of this country.  The Christian has a different perspective on education than the non-believer, namely, that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."  Prov. 1:7; 9:10; Psalm 111:10.  "For the Lord giveth wisdom, out of His mouth comes knowledge and understanding."  Prov. 2:6. 

Some of the knowledge and understanding God has given us is in the ten commandments, the fourth of which states that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, and hallowed the Sabbath day as a memorial to his creation.  Ex. 20:8-11.  The Adventist educational system exists largely to uphold this particular piece of godly wisdom and understanding.  If Adventist education throws out the six day creation, there's really no reason for it to exist at all.  There are already plenty of tax supported colleges and universities teaching Darwinism.  In fact, it would be much, much better all around to close any Adventist institution teaching Darwinism.  An Adventist student attending a state university knows that it will teach a philosophy different from Christianity, and is on guard against such philosophy.  But an Adventist college teaching Darwinism is an insidious trap; the student's faith will be undermined much more easily at such a place. 

But, since you and Ervin Taylor have already embraced infidelity, it doesn't bother you that others might also.  To the contrary, having lost your faith, you are actually actively in favor of others losing their faith.  That's why it is of crucial importance that the reader of Atoday and Spectrum understand that he is dealing with non-believers, not Christians.  Because non-believers will have a very different perspective from Christians on a wide range of issues, not just Adventist higher education.

"The Christian has a different perspective on education than the non-believer."

 Perhaps you can enlighten us:  is there an "Adventist biology" an "Adventist chemistry" and "Adventist physics" and "Adventist geology" and "Adventist medical science."

If so, please explain how those subjects should be taught and how they can receive proper academic accreditation if they do not abide by the standards set forth by the appropriate bodies.  How and where should "Adventist" perspectives be introduced into all the non-religous courses and if a 6-day literal Creation story is the foundation for biology and the natural sciences, why should the Adventist "method" receive the necessary accreditation, and how would that affect student retention.  Is there a specific method of teaching the sciences which only Adventism educational institutions should be following.  And if so, where and when and how should such instructors be recruited if those now teaching are considered qualified to teach in those schools.

I sometimes wish we could have more of a dialogue here instead of creating straw-man arguments to attack.  If we could take the best arguments that our opponent is making, state them as he or she would be comfortable with having them stated, and then actually respond to that position, using scalpels instead of battering rams, I think we might actually produce greater clarity, though I suspect consensus is too much to hope for.

I think it is usually counterproductive to attack the spiritual integrity, or speculate as to the motivating psychopathologies, of our opponents.  Having said that, let me offer a couple of points.

Elaine, I don't think you believe the laity or sponsoring church should have no role in classroom curriculum or content in  the parochial schools that they establish.  Am I correct?  Sometimes it sounds like you simply don't believe in parochial education, but I don't want to accuse you of that unless that is your position.  Nor do I believe that the Church or the laity should dictate the details of what is taught and how it is taught.  So rather than ascribe positions to each other that we would each disclaim, perhaps we should have the more nuanced discussion about the proper role of clerics and laity in a church sponsored institution of higher learning.

Have you heard anyone arguing that alchemy be taught, or that our science departments advocate a geocentric view of the universe?  So why do you keep repeating these "chicken little" arguments.  Reductio ad absurdum, slippery slope arguments seldom produce clarity, as we see repeatedly in the political realm.  Both sides do it, and I'd love to see AToday readers, myself included, try and rise above that level.

I don't know what the end game of La Sierra's critics is.  Whether you Progressives have prophetic insight or are simply engaging in fearmongering for polemical purposes I cannot say.  What I can say is this:  I haven't heard anyone advocating that SDA science students should not be exposed to the best and most contemporary aspects of "Darwinian" thought, including its theories and dogmas.  Will you grant that, or have I missed something?

Secondly, what I have heard are requests that biology professors clarify what they believe and what they are promoting as scientific Truth  in their classrooms.  On its face, is that not a reasonable request?  If the answer depends on the supposed motivation of the questioner, then all questions can thus be invalidated.  Only when those questions are answered can we move toward a meaningful discussions of,  "okay, now what?"

Is it unreasonable to "suspect" that Darwinian dogma strongly tends to undermine faith in the personal transcendent Creator God reflected in Scripture?  If your answer is no, then further discussion is probably pointless. (I would readily concede that faith dogmas tend to threaten the truths of science.) But if you answer yes, then must you not concede that the questions being directed to La Sierra are legitimate, if not vital?  Wouldn't every scientist of faith concede the validity of this question, and shouldn't he or she be willing - no, eager - to respond?

Can we so easily separate faith from science, the material from the spiritual?  What of "free will"; what of the "nature of man"?  Do these questions belong in the realm of science - therefore off limits to all but the self-proclaimed cognoscenti who define the parameters of their own disciplines - or are they questions open to all "of good will"?  Should Truth be limited to what is revealed through reason and the senses, or is Truth best apprehended through the revelation of a transcendent God which includes, but is not limited to, reason and the senses?  These questions are dominant, recurrent themes of Scripture, which resoundingly comes down on the side of the latter. 

Despite Galileo, the Church has adapted and embraced most of science - especially empirical science.  Science, on the other hand, has demonstrated far less flexibility toward matters of religion and faith, claiming authority and precedence in most every sphere of human thought and action.

So my question for Progressive SDAs is this: Can "SDA higher education" embrace fidelity to the Truth claims and affirmations of Scripture, as well as its own faith traditions, without becoming oxymoronic?  Instead of demonizing and marginalizing those who treasure and wish to protect faith, would we perhaps not do better to look at places like Wheaton College, Hillsdale College, and other outstanding Christian colleges that combine excellence in learning with strong faith building, and see what they are doing?  Why would we "lift our eyes to the hills" - to the Asherah poles of Ivy League schools for answers to these questions?  Maybe some sacrifices and compromises on  both sides could lead to a more robust faith and a more critical look at "scientific" dogma.

"the proper role of clerics and laity in a church sponsored institution of higher learning"

I would welcome such a conversation. Currently, it is mostly polemical and without specific suggestions as to how such subjects should be taught.  I also believe that "that faith dogmas tend to threaten the truths of science."  Is that also your position, and if so, what suggestions do you offer.

Is there a priority:  should dogma take precedence over scientific knowledge, and if so, would the instructors readily concede to such a program.  That seems to be the essential question:  Dogma or Science, which shall it be.  Once decided, then we will at least have acknowledgement that one or the other will be the guide.

Elaine, I think there is an Adventist biology and an Adventist geology.  Adventist geology would not assume uniformity of rate of deposition of the geological strata, and hence would not assume that the strata were deposited over long ages.  Freed of slavish devotion to uniformity and open to catastrophic interpretations, Adventist geology might be more productive than its mainstream counterpart.  Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, no creationist, wrote that the catastrophists of the 19th Century were better and more careful field geologists than Charles Lyell and the uniformitarians. 

There is also an Adventist biology that does not assume the truth of what Leonard Brand called "megaevolution."  Freed of the need to hypothesize unlikely accidents to explain the origin of the intricate and complex machinery of life, Adventist biology might also be more productive than its Darwinian counterpart.  Even in mainstream biology, Darwinian explanations have little role.  Recently, I was perusing a friend's micro-biology textbook; there was a chapter at the end on evolution, appended seemingly as an afterthought, with very little to say about the origins of the mind-numbingly complex biological machinery that was described in the rest of the book.

As to whether there is an Adventist chemistry or physics, I don't know enough about those disciplines to comment, but they do not seem to be as controversial.  Medicine makes no practical use of evolutionary theories; to the contrary, assuming that an organ is "vestigial" might discourage medical researchers from working to discover its true function. 

I would also say that there is an Adventist history, given that Adventists are open to seeing the hand of Providence in history, whereas mainstream history is implicitly atheistic.

"Medicine makes no practical use of evolutionary theories."

Perhaps I am confused, but I was under the impression that mutation in genes, and resistant drugs is a major delevopment and is being studied in major laboratories today.

Of course, there is "Adventist history" just as there is English history or Baptist history.  Is there "Baptist biology" or Lutheran physics.  Hmmm.

I like your tone, Elaine.  But it sounds to me like you still want to have a one-way conversation - "Science or Dogma".  Do you concede, as David has many times pointed out, that there is a fair bit of dogma in science as well? (Witness the dogma and dishonesty that permeates AGW "science", a topic which I follow rather closely)

Quite honestly, I am not knowledgeable enough to make concrete suggestions for how evolution vs creation should be addressed in SDA schools.  As I said, students should be exposed to the strongest arguments and most forceful attacks against Creationism that have been mounted by evolutionists.  They should also be exposed to the strongest and best arguments of Creation scientists. Perhaps statistics and philosophy classes should address the strengths and fallacies of Intelligent Design. Students should learn critical thinking to distinguish correlation from causation, and theoretical science from empirical science. 

But I am neither an educator nor a scientist.  It just seems to me that this whole controversy has been handled so badly.  Why couldn't La Sierra have taken the high road and welcomed the inquiry as an opportunity for self-reflection and dialogue on an issue that is of great interest and concern to the Church?  Would it have been so difficult to suggest some tweaking of syllabi and respectful inclusion of Creationist perspectives?  How about proposing a new cross-disciplinary upper division class for theology and science majors where faith-science issues can be explored?  Such an approach might not have silenced the fundamentalists, but it sure would have prevented "moderates" like myself  from questioning what La Sierra had to hide, when it attempted to delegitimize the questions and questioners.

Nathan, I understand you want to have a high-toned discussion; it's a laudable goal.  But the automatic and very reasonable assumption of anyone perusing articles on a site like Atoday is that they are seeing an intra-faith discussion.  That simply is not true, and I'm going to continue to point that out, regardless who it irritates.  What we see with Ervin Taylor and Elaine is people who have lost their faith, who are functional atheists, opining on what Adventist higher education should be.  Why should a Red Sox fan listen to a Yankee fan's recommendations as to who the Red Sox should draft or trade for.  I would take such advice with more than a grain of salt.

David, you raise an important question.  I'd love to see Erv and Elaine tell us where they stand on church schools, and the extent to which they should or should not strengthen and support their sponsoring church.  I'd like to hear them explain why anyone who does not subscribe to the fundamental beliefs of Christianity should have, much less want to have, credibility when discussing how Christian institutions should behave - unless of course they are addicted to the fumes of faith.

But what strikes us as bizarre seems to be a source of post-modern moral vanity. When traditional sources of moral authority are rejected, people have to invent their own moral order to recapture moral significance.  Obsessive contempt for one's own cultural and spiritual foundations becomes the surest sign of sophistication and enlightenment.  Thus dissent is exalted as the highest form of patriotism, and traitors become the true patriots.  Welcome to The Mad Hatter's Tea Party.  Say it ain't so, Erv and Elaine!  Tell me David is wrong.

Nathan writes:  What I can say is this:  I haven't heard anyone advocating that SDA science students should not be exposed to the best and most contemporary aspects of "Darwinian" thought, including its theories and dogmas.  Will you grant that, or have I missed something?

 Well, much as I hate to advertise it, you might look in on the posters at educatetruth.  Several of them advocate just that.  Their reasoning is, that it is all a deception of the devil, which there is no need to expose our children to.

 I would love to hear more about the "sacrifices" and "compromises" you think should be considered.

Nathan also wrote:  Secondly, what I have heard are requests that biology professors clarify what they believe and what they are promoting as scientific Truth  in their classrooms.  On its face, is that not a reasonable request?

On its face, that is a reasonable request.  But examine the matter to any depth and it quickly becomes apparent that the questioners have no interest in opening a dialogue, they simply want to get people fired.  They will certainly not accept any answers which will not result teachers being terminated.  Furthermore, these disreputable decievers demand fidelity to the Bible and then deny the simply reading of the text.  Kevin Paulson, one of the most rabid of the ringleaders, has the nerve to claim that the Bible doesn't say the stars were created on the 4th day.  He claims that it was merely a parenthetical remark that should be interpreted as an affirmation that God had created the stars at some time in the past.  I see not reason anyone should give such dishonest hypocrites the time of day.

Has a reputable scientist submitted such article to Adventist Today.  If it has been rejected, please let us know; otherwise, maybe there aren't any qualified SDA scientists who are anxious to write such an essay.

Thanks Martin - That's helpful to know.  I am quite confident that I would be uncomfortable with the end game of the fundamentalists.  But I am also very suspicious, like David Read, that the end game of most vocal defenders of the don't-ask-don't-tell/circle-the-wagons approach is to encourage all disciplines of SDA academia to be independent of Church influence - to become redoubts of rationalism and philosophical materialism, pushing a transcendent, self-revealing God to a chaplaincy position in Adventist higher education.  I strongly suspect that, if some of the heterodox views of SOME religion faculty came under attack, the response of "progressives" would be identical to what we are seeing with the creation issue.

Pickle, the demand to tell a story is an obvious ad hominem attack and "Adventist" is not a trademarked word.  Historians who study the mid 19th century use it all the time to describe a group of people who expected the second "advent" of Jesus around 1844.  Our founders were part of this movement and while we are generally refered to as adventist the term  "Seventh-day Adventist" is more accurate and is the term that is actually trademarked.

The accusation of being fringe and radical could also apply to the Whites from 1844-1850.  In that regard the name of this blog is quite appropriate.  I as a reader have always understood that it does not represent the "mainstream" of Seventh-day Adventist thinking.  It does however speak to many adventists who are not represented at all in the Review; me being one. 

"What we see with Ervin Taylor and Elaine is people who have lost their faith, who are functional atheists, opining on what Adventist higher education should be.  Why should a Red Sox fan listen to a Yankee fan's recommendations as to who the Red Sox should draft or trade for.  I would take such advice with more than a grain of salt."

So why waste time and cyberspace attempting to reason with them? If I were to leave the SDA church I would not be hanging around speaking pejoratively about its theology, telling it how to run its institutions, etc.

 This is not an ad hominem attack; I can only pray that they along with others who run down the church would accept Truth and forsake error. 

Truth Seeker

Markham writes, "So why waste time and cyberspace attempting to reason with them?"  That's a good question and I don't have a good answer.  What I've learned is that many of the Spectrum/Atoday bloggers, Elaine among them, are in their 70s and 80s (it amazes me that they are so adept with their computers).  But there really is no excuse for someone closer to the prime of life, who presumably should be doing something productive with his time, to be wasting time like this.  They've lived their lives; I really should get one.

People seek massive doses of affirmation of what they believe. This applies to a believer and an unbeliever. "Birds of a feather flock together" holds some credibility. Evangelism goes both ways. The devil seeks followers just as Jesus does.

And the methods used are also simular. Just as truth goes by confrontation and infilteration, so does error. The devil sows seeds of error in the church by his followers. And Jesus said, "An enemy has done this."

Now, some of the devil's followers do not know they are following him. And so Jesus said, "Don't uproot the tares." The fact is, they may actually eventually be converted to truth. Some issues are ambiguous and some are not. Not to mention, that some truth is always inherent in errors presented. And also, visa versa.

If the reformation gave us any single truth that is non-negotiable, it is this. The bible is our only final and authoritive rule of faith and practice. This is so dynamic that we can know and believe that any who finally abandon the truth will eventually admit they do not adhere to this confession of faith.

Rome eventually admitted they did not confess this statement made by the reformers. And opted for a spirit ethic that they claim transcends the written word. In the context of bible Adventism, EGW also understood this in relationship to bible Adventism and the truth of it. She knew that any who attack and/or abandon her presentation would finally admit they did not hold the bible's authority as stated by the reformers.

The ultimate test was/is the Sabbath. And so she said, No one has the mark of the beast until they see clearly this truth and accept Sunday in place of the Sabbath contrary to scripture. That is, they know they are abandoning the bible, just like Rome.

As we see people abandon the bible today for various reasons, we know they are in the process of commiting the unpardonable and if they continue in this process, will certainly eventually receive the mark of the beast. In this context, the mark of the beast is the unpardonable sin.

Hopefully, our dialogue with anyone is for the purpose of redemption. And this works both ways. That is, our own, and theirs. If not, we should re-consider why we dialogue. "Bickering" is usually not objective nor productive. And many times gravitates to self justification and not justification of the truth.

Now it is true, if we are objective, justification of the truth of God and His kingdom and His Son, is a justification of ourselves because our eternal life and interests or bound up with Him. But it is easy to move from justifying God and His kingdom to a carnal self justification that goes beyond its true spiritual intent.

Moses striking the rock, Elijah on Mt. Carmel mocking the false prophets, Paul chiding the Judaizers in his letter to the Galatians. Sin is not so easily discernable in every aspect of life, and Christian witnessing can bring out both the best and the worst in human nature.

If you have not seen these things in your own life, you may not have much intensity in your convictions. Oh well, so much for "Christian philosophy" by Bill Sorensen.

I have seen the name "Elaine" on several discussion lists where anyone can speak pejoratively about the SDA faith and whether this is the same Elaine I can't be 100% correct. However, she is past 80 and apparently spends much of her time online disparaging the church and its beliefs.

Maybe she considers that a worthy project but is that how one wishes to spend the last years of life? Not I.

 Truth Seeker

I appreciate all those who are so interested in advising me of how I should live my life, even how I should think.  Unfortunately, many others have tried it unsuccessfully, so if you think your chances are better, be my guest.

 The forum moderator decides who should, or should not post, so until that determination is made by that person, unanimity is not dialogue. 

When any insititution is above critical questioning, it becomes dictatorial.  If that is desired, a different forum is suggested.

It is not a matter of agreeing with her. That is not the point. It is her manner of disagreeing without being disagreeable-a trait certain others might wish to practice.

If she is indeed the chronological age suggested, I, and, I am sure many others, wish her a long and healthy life or, as our Klingon friends would say (as translated into English), "Live Long and Prosper."

I couldn't agree with you more Erv,  Elaine's comments are always clear and well articulated with a sense of experience.  Her thoughts are much more important than her age and some of the comments on her age are so stereotypical, its laughable (as in I chuckle while reading them) .  From reading this site for the past several months, I'd say she's one of a handful interested in an actual authentic dialogue.

Just my thoughts,

davgill

Ah yes,.......like said, "Massive doses of affirmation".......hmmmmmm.

Bill Sorensen

I'm not trying to police what Elaine says, nor have I ever suggested that she doesn't have a right to post here.  Nor have I ever said she isn't bright, articulate, a good writer and arguer. 

What has become apparent to me after reading many of her posts here and at Spectrum is that she is radically skeptical of the Bible's truth claims, especially those that smack of the supernatural.  Her philosophy is very much at odds with the Adventist belief system as I understand it, and people should take that into account in considering her recommendations as to Adventist higher education.  I don't think that makes me Nazi or a witchhunter, but in today's political environment it probably makes me a racist.  (I don't know Elaine's race, but that's irrelevant; when a conservative has a policy disagreement with a liberal, it means the conservative is a racist.)

Erv Taylor wrote: "If she is indeed the chronological age suggested, I, and, I am sure many others, wish her a long and healthy life or, as our Klingon friends would say (as translated into English), 'Live Long and Prosper.'"

Klingon?!! Oh No! 

That is the greeting is used by the Vulcans.  Klingons were the warrior people,  Vulcans on the other hand, were the intelectuals who valued logic above all else.

Erv and Dav,

 I sincerely appreciate your affirmation and an open invitation to continue posting here.

In posting I try never to introduce ad hominem arguments as they immediately lose the reader seeking germane positions.  At my advanced age, my skin is toughend by many years and little is able to personally disturb me.  My thoughts are sincerely my own, and although they do not reflect the "official" SDA position, but few here do.  No one is able to  define that position, but it is like a supreme court justice once said about pornography:  "I know it when I see it."  That is surely a very imprecise definition and even the most dedicated Adventists do not agree entirely.  Pluralism must be allowed to exist in a religious community if it is to survive and grow.  The statistics for the church in the U.S. and first world countries are so dismal that any thing that would inhibit or preclude growth should be greatly discouraged.

I very much thank Mr. Schratt for the correction.

He is indeed correct and it is the Vulcans and my good Vulcan friend Mr. Spock who intoned the words "Live Long and Prosper."

How could I not know the difference between the intellectuals and the warriors?  I must have been confused by posting on EducateTruth. My apologies.

Re Erv and Elaine -- Birds of a feather...

 David Read -- You are courteous and incisive in your comments. Stay with it.

Truth Seeker

" Pickle, the demand to tell a story is an obvious ad hominem attack ..."

"... "Adventist" is not a trademarked word. "

6) Revocation of Permission. For cause the General Conference Corporation Board of Directors may revoke permission of any denominational entity or lay group to use the trademarks. "For cause" includes, but is not limited to, conflict with the objectives or doctrines of the Church as determined by the General Conference and commercial use by nonchurch groups.

"I as a reader have always understood that it does not represent the "mainstream" of Seventh-day Adventist thinking." 

As I believe I informed Mr. Pickle some time ago, I serve at the pleasure of the board and can be replaced at any time. Happily for the magazine, depending on what particular policy is at issue or what decision that must be made, my personal opinions are hardly determinative since Adventist Today decision-making is collegial and consensus-oriented, not authoritarian. Because Mr. Pickle perhaps has participated in or currently participates in a top-down, dictatorial decision-making environment--perhaps a church?--he might have difficulty understanding how such an alternate process might work.

Secondly, Mr. Pickle seems to believe that I have more power than I actually possess. I do not decide what appears in the pages of Adventist Today, that is the responsibility of our editor. That role is currently is the capable hands of a forward-looking, very able, experienced, and committed Adventist, the former editor of Ministry magazine, David Newman. Fortunately, Adventist Today has had a series of excellent editors, dedicated to the future of a positive and mature Adventism beginning with Raymond Cottrell, former Associate Editor at the Adventist Review, James Walters, John McLarty, and Andy Nash.

Thirdly, it appears that one has to be very careful when one answers a question posed by Mr. Pickle. He has been known to minutely parse every word and phrase in a response. Some would call what he does nit picking, but I will resist the urge to characterize it in such a manner. In some cases, such as Mr. Pickle interactions with the 3ABN organization under the direction of its former head, one must look at a lot of details and specifics to uncover what was going on.

However, for some unknown reason, Mr. Pickle seems to be very concerned about how I view the New Testament narratives that we typically together call the Sermon on the Mount. I must say I have not thought much about it until he brought the subject up. I guess I can not see what difference it makes whether Jesus made the remarks contained in that narrative at one time at one place or whether the gospel authors, as they apparently often did, took statements that Jesus' followers heard him make at many times and in many contexts and assembled them into one continuous narrative. Does Mr. Pickle really care about the details of when, where, and how the profound moral and ethical principles of Jesus that are were put into a sermon format were originally stated?

One last point, I wish I had written a comment that Elaine recently made. I can't improve on the following: "How comforting and reassuring to have the omniscience to define Truth with such confidence. Once someone can be so certain, there is nothing more to be known, all possible truth has been disclosed." Bravo.

And finally, I have been remiss in not responding to the excellent points raise by Nathan Schilt on this thread. I will do that and hope that Nate will continue to make his views known here (even though I do not share some of them). In that connection, Mr. Pickle might note that Nathan Schilt is a long-time member of the Adventist Today Foundation board.

"I want to assure him that all board members of the Adventist Today Foundation, the institutional publisher of Adventist Today, are well informed concerning my personal views and have been for more than 15 years." 

"... my personal opinions are hardly determinative since Adventist Today decision-making is collegial and consensus-oriented, not authoritarian."

"I do not decide what appears in the pages of Adventist Today, that is the responsibility of our editor. "

"Does Mr. Pickle really care about the details of when, where, and how the profound moral and ethical principles of Jesus that are were put into a sermon format were originally stated?"

"'How comforting and reassuring to have the omniscience to define Truth with such confidence. ...'"

"In that connection, Mr. Pickle might note that Nathan Schilt is a long-time member of the Adventist Today Foundation board." 

Mr. Pickle,

Should I assume that you are a citizen of the United States?  If so, you are surely familiar with the First Amendment, and it position as first, indicating its importance.

For anyone who wishes to start up a website with blogs, it should be no problem to garner support for the many who would contribute both to its support and post comments. 

As has been reiterated, the term "Adventist" is neither copyrighted, nor does its use in the magazine nor this blog in any way infringes on the official name which is, BTW, copyrighted and the church has initiated several lawsuits over that fact.  Had it been determined that this magazine and blog were doing so, it would have long ago found itself a defendant in the courts.

Your constant refusal to accept the legitimacy of this site, all the while posting, is like blaming the hand that feeds you:  this site allows you to express opinions which, while contrary to some, is the perfect example of more freedom of the press than most will receive from the official SDA publications.  You should be thankful for a site that allows you the opportunity to oppose positions posted here, rather than crticizing them.

Remember, if your wishes were granted to expel those here who you felt were opposed to your position, it could well be that it would include all those, both pro and con.  What is sauce for the goose....

"As has been reiterated, the term "Adventist" is neither copyrighted, nor does its use in the magazine nor this blog in any way infringes on the official name which is, BTW, copyrighted and the church has initiated several lawsuits over that fact." 

Guidelines

Church trademarks, such as "Seventh-day Adventist," "Adventist," and "Ministry," may be used only in connection with denominational ministries and non-commercial activities of approved lay and professional groups.

"Remember, if your wishes were granted to expel those here who you felt were opposed to your position, it could well be that it would include all those, both pro and con.  What is sauce for the goose...." 

I do not know how many years Adventist Today has been operating under that name, but I'm quite certain at least a decade.

 Had the official church wished to ask them to cease and desisit, I am not familiar with it.  Are you? 

If yout wish to protest the use of that name, you are free, as a U.S. citizen to sue and bring it  to the courts.  If not, continually harping on a subject which you do not wish to pursue is only wishful thinking and counter productive.  The old saying:  "Put your money where your mouth is" or else be quiet, is appropriate, otherwise it is accomplishing no good to beat a dead horse.

Pickle asks me if I don't see a problem with a publication which calls itself "Adventist" "having an executive publisher who..."  The publication is Adventist Today - not "Adventist".  By its very nature, Adventist Today cannot be Adventist, although I suppose if you could find a pastor willing to baptize the journal, the Board might consider taking the plunge, and proclaiming Adventist Today saved.

And as to whether I see a problem with Erv Taylor being the executive publisher, the answer is, "absolutely not". The mission of Adventist Today, in case you hadn't noticed, is not to strengthen the Church or build faith.  It is to facilitate dialogue on contemporary issues in the Adventist Church.  Neither piety nor Church loyalty are relevant to this mission.  Without dimishing Dr. Taylor's unique and considerable talents, which are indispensable to this mission, the executive publisher could be a Catholic Priest, a Buddhist monk, or an atheist with deep understanding of the SDA subculture, and dedication to the mission of open dialogue.  

If you have followed the Atoday blogs, you surely realize that Adventist Today has devoted far more space to the defenders of traditional Adventist creationism than to the views of Dr. Taylor.  So it is quite frankly nonsense to imply, as Pickle does, that AToday  censors views that Erv Taylor, or anyone else associated with the magazine, opposes.  John Stuart Mill's observation that - truth, to be kept bright, needs encounter with error - is, I hope, a guiding principle for Adventist Today.  What is truth, and what is error, is for the reader to decide.  

Anyone who browses the comments section knows that I have engaged in spirited discussion with Nathan.  In this particular case, I'm somehow pleased to agree wholeheartedly with him.  First, as an attorney, I'm sure Nathan understands that the use of the word "Adventist" within "Adventist Today" is not a trademark violation.  There is a list several hundred terms including the word "Adventist" registered to various entities.  If the Board wanted to rename the publication "Adventist" then there might be a problem. 

Of course, Pickle's fantastic voyage through the American legal system during his tussle with Danny Shelton has rendered him something of a self-annointed expert.  I would suggest that he take his protest to the GC, whose address and legal counsel can be found on the USPTO site that he referred to in his post.  If the church indeed has some ownership over the title "Adventist Today" then let the organization utilize the proper channels to address the situation.  For Pickle to suggest that a trademark infringement has occurred is a gratuitous overstepping of his educational qualifications. 

Furthermore, to suggest that proximity to the term Adventist requires one to walk in lockstep with the 28 fundamental beliefs is unbelievable and unrealistic.  Organized Religion was born the fraternal twin of Dischord, and the two have been inseperable since the beginning.  As Nathan said above, Truth and Error are a pair as well. 

Most significantly, though, our church (and the term "our" is important here) was more recently born amidst earnest discussion, debate, controversy, and study. In spite of the publication of the 28 fundamental beliefs, I don't really believe that our church leadership believes that the tome is complete, unchanging, and unchallengeable.  The only way to think this would be to claim infallability for our study of the Bible, putting our writings on the level of the Bible itself. 

The church is neither a democracy nor a totalitarian regime.  It's a living, breathing organization of people, diverse in every way.  Different ideas, feelings, and diverse opinions are inevitable, and Adventist Today provides an open forum for these differences to simmer and percolate.  Pickle, with as much time as he spends here on AToday and as freely as he posts, should understand that his voice is as welcome here as any others, including Erv's. 

If Pickle is seeking consensus, perhaps he should start his own site and police the posters and bloggers.  If he does, I'll happily visit and try to sneak a couple of posts past his guard.  But I hope he still will visit here - I'd miss him if he didn't.

Pickle, my understanding is that while the word "Adventist" is a trademark of the SDA church, the fact that the church sued Adventist Kinship, a group of gay Adventists, for trademark infringement and lost indicates they would probably also lose if they sued Adventist Today.  My understanding is that there were two lawsuits, with the second one, filed in 1991, being specifically a trademark infringement action, which the church lost.

 A plaintiff in a trademark case has the burden of proving that the defendant's use of a mark has created a likelihood-of-confusion about the origin of the defendant's goods or services.  Plaintiff should first show that it has developed a protectable right in a trademark. The plaintiff then must show that the defendant is using a confusingly similar mark in such a way that it creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake and/or deception with the consuming public. The confusion created can be that the defendant's products are the same as that of the plaintiff, or that the defendant is somehow associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by plaintiff.

I don't think anyone reading this website could reasonably imagine that it is associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by any organized religion, least of all the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 

Now that we have beaten to death the issue of whether Adventist Today legitimately incorporates the word "Adventist" into its name, I really would like to get back to the important questions raised by Erv's blog.  It seems to me that without the paradoxes of a transcendent, self-revelatory, incarnate God, there is no Church.  Anyone disagree?  And without the rational and logical, education is impossible.  Anyone disagree?

The Church has always placed high value on rationality and logic, including science, which is not to say that the Church has always gotten it right.  But I don't see progressives acknowledging that faith in a transcendent, personal, incarnate God is anything more than a fragmental genetic error, away from which humanity should continue to evolve.  Will someone please tell me if progressives would challenge these assumptions.

If I am correct, why would committed SDAs, who presumably care far more about their children's souls than their intelligence, send their children to Church schools to be educated by progressives?  As I observed, both science and religion make conflicting truth claims about many issues besides creation and evolution.  What about free will and human nature?  Exactly what realm other than the abstractions of subjective spirituality would progressives yield to the church? 

I'm not qualified to speak of Adventist college's education as I got nearly all my undergraduate and graduate degrees from "outside" schools--the undergrad. degree was from one of the finest Jesuit universities.

It is possible to speak of the SDA academies.  Some never allowed Shakespeare to be studied, nor was I introduced to the Bard while in the SDA academies.  If the church (as represented by those who wish to "take charge" of the educational system) were to decide what to teach, it would disembowel most of the curricula and become merely another unaccredited Bible college.  What parent would choose that for his children, and what would be the results for the entire SDA college and university system? 

Be careful what you wish for.

I have no difficulty in defending Adventist Higher Education, our educational intstutions ought to be leaders even with our limited resources however our universities and colleges "need not compromise to be recognzed" to borrow a phrase.

My progressive fundamentalistic upbringing allows for growth and change in my thinking however this growth and change must measure up to the following acronym THINK

Truthful, Helpful, Inspiring, Necessary and Kind

At the conclusion of our short sojourn here on earth, God asks where is thy flock thy beautiful flock?  That does not negate in any way our duty and service to God and humanity.  We are to be the best in what discipline or disciplines God has gifted us with.

Statefarmsteve, I did not mean to suggest that progressives want to marginalize God and faith.  Quite the contrary, they regularly invoke God and faith as kryptonite against anyone who opposes their political agendas.  My point was that they want to marginalize what I referred to as the transcendent, self-revealing, incarnate God. The progressive iteration of divinity is generally a sacralization of what liberals regard as reason-based morality.  Morality and the law are the progressive substitutes for piety and righteousness; character is a substitute for the soul.  You implicitly concede the point when you exclude the voice of the church from all disciplines except religion.  So doesn't the Church vis a vis SDA higher education in your academic utopia, have a similar role to the Royal Family vis a vis Great Britain?  Surely you realize that your raison d'etre for SDA higher education puts it on the same path as all other now secular private universities that were originally founded for religious purposes.  How do you propose to save SDA education from that fate?

Help me out here.  I've always been under the impression that SDAs tend to be rather well educated relative to the general public.  For most of us, that education - at least K-12 - did not expose us to literary classics or credible theories of evolution.  The fundamental beliefs of the Church were as familiar to us as Mother Goose rhymes were to our children.  Are we all really that stupid for having learned some things that might not have been the most sophisticated wisdom of the day?  A lot of us graduates of Dark Ages Bible colleges (Union College for me) got into some pretty decent graduate schools (UCLA Law) without having taken the core curriculum of secular universities.  Progressive apoplexy over the role of the Church in education leads me to wonder if you folks think a college degree is the end of education.  I don't know about you, but very little of what I know now comes from my college education.  Outside of class during college, and since college I've read the Classics; I read philosophy; I devoured existentialist literature; I learned about Darwin's finches.  I individuated and became an adult!!  Why? Because my devout, legalistic, conservative mother and committed Christian teachers encouraged me to think critically, and to make learning a lifetime habit.  Does the Church get any credit for that? The best students in the country often come from highly religious home-schooling environments which could never get accreditation.

Despite the fact that it has been a closed system, with Ellen White being used as the final arbiter and interpreter of the divine revelation, the Church has prided itself on having the Truth.  It has valiantly tried, and still tries, to convince people of the internal logic of its theology and beliefs.  Unfortunately for the Church, many of its teachings aren't all that compelling to rational minds - even Biblically centered minds.  But in a strange way, the Truth-seeking emphasis of the Church has made it the victim of the critical thinking skills imparted to its members.

You see, despite the tension between revelation and rationality, the Christian church has always recognized and valued the rational.  It has been at the forefront of the arts.  The divine revelation is incarnational, moving comfortably within the world of science, reason, logic, and art.  The world of reason, on the other hand, denies the reality and authority of a transcendent personal God.  If religion seeks dominance over the world of reason, reason seeks to utterly destroy the world of religion - at least monotheistic JudeoChristian religion.  I'm not in favor of Inquisitions.  But given a choice between the lesser of evils, which is usually all we can count on, I prefer Inquisitions over purges and holocausts. 

Nate, do you represent the average SDA college student, or the exception?  How many students take the initiative to read philosophy and the classics?  Isn't that why they attend college to be open to new ideas and knowledge?

 My son began reading philosophy in the last two years of academy and became extremely interested in new ideas, never introduced in the school.  Eventually, he majored in English lit and then to graduate school for the same.  A love of learning must begin early, or else college is often lost on those students whose parents "send" them for "learning" and they are not ready.  If more students who didn't have a goal could work for a couple of years they would, more often, be ready and know what they wanted to study.  Even now with college tuition increasing, it's taking longer to graduate and becoming more costly. 

Hi Nathan - I'd hate to see this discussion degrade into political repartee, but I'm sensing that you believe that all progressives are liberals with SDA membership cards.  Let me begin by assuring you that SDA progressives believe completely in a very real God that is beyond human understanding.  Most progressives are bigger believers in the transcendant nature of God than many fundamentalists, who believe they've got God pegged, completely grasp his exact will and nature, and documented it in our 28 fundamental beliefs. 

I'm unsure of which "other now secular private universities that were originally founded for religious purposes" you are referring to.  At one point, all institutions of higher learning were founded by and controlled by the church.  The criminal conviction and resulting life prison sentence for Galileo were a direct result of religious control of higher education. 

I am unable to agree with your portrayal of progressives, even though your accusations are eloquently written.  One of my favorite lines you wrote was that "Morality and the law are the progressive substitutes for piety and righteousness; character is a substitute for the soul."  But, speaking from a progressive point of view, morality is an inherent part of righteousness - not a substitute.  Nor can character replace the soul - rather, character, good or bad, is a distinguishing feature of the soul. 

I would also hardly characterize your alma mater, Union College as a backwoods bible college.  Dr Smith, your school president, was my favorite literature professor, who - not to put him in any hot water with alumni - taught a compelling class on American Transcendentalism, which holds that true spiritual enlightenment is achieved through one's intuition, not through church doctrine.  In other words, God's gift to us is our ability to think for ourselves.  His gift to us was not the authors of the 28 fundamental beliefs, who thought for us. 

Could you also help me clarify your assertion that the Church is a "closed system?"  Although my initial understanding is that you are saying that the Church has no need nor desire for outside influence of its ideas or doctrine, that our knowledge and evolution as an organization is complete and perfected.  If this is what you believe, then I'll gladly reply.  If it's not, then I'll keep my rant to myself.  I don't even think that EGW proclaimed herself the arbiter of Adventist thought, although it seems you have elevated her there. 

Nathan, I think you're having a hard time resolving the existence of SDA's that don't walk in lockstep with fundamental Adventism.  There is an entire generation of Adventists that wear modern clothing, listen to modern music, go to the movie theater, read fiction, and wear makeup and wedding bands.  There is an entire generation of Adventists that don't take every word EGW wrote as inspired, final arbitration on thought and action.  These same people love the church, love God, and love their fellow man, but don't necessarily agree with everything the church says about life, God, and our fellow man.  We are a part of the organization, and as such, the organization has changed.  Some people don't like the changes, and some people want more changes, but church membership is not distilled to a bumper sticker logo of "Love it or Leave it". 

Your final sentence presumes that the choice we must make is an inquisition led by traditional conservative church leadership or a holocaust led by progressives.  I'm not sure how the progressives became the equivalent of Nazi Germany, other than to say that amongst political conservatives, equating anyone who disagrees with them with Adolf Hitler has become rather en vogue.  I don't want to overstate my opinion, or come across as offensive, but the parallel is disingenuous, stupid, irritating, disrespectful of the Jewish victims of the holocaust, and ignorant, and I wish it would cease.  It surely has no place here in the discussion of an intrafaith disagreement. 

"If you have followed the Atoday blogs, you surely realize that Adventist Today has devoted far more space to the defenders of traditional Adventist creationism than to the views of Dr. Taylor."

 "Without dimishing Dr. Taylor's unique and considerable talents, which are indispensable to this mission, the executive publisher could be a Catholic Priest, a Buddhist monk, or an atheist with deep understanding of the SDA subculture, and dedication to the mission of open dialogue."

Statefarmsteve, I'm sorry to have created the wrong impression about my personal beliefs.  I don't think the Church should be a closed system; rather I believe it became a closed system during the 20th Century  when it enshrined Ellen White as the "final Prophet", and incontinently cited her as the arbiter and interpreter of Scripture, making her de facto - and selectively - the authoritative voice of the Church.  This was a grave mistake, because Church members thereby tended to lose touch with the Living Spirit of unfiltered scripture which continually confounds human constructs of God, and leads us into incarnational truth which cannot be validated through doctrinal formulations.  By filtering scripture through the authoritative lens of Ellen White, Church authority was made to rest on her rather than on Scripture. 

The fact that I defend the legitimacy of fundamentalists' demands for transparency and accountability in academia does not mean I subscribe to their conclusions. I could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered an SDA fundamentalist.  I have serious problems with traditional SDA doctrinal teachings regarding the Remnant, Investigative Judgment, Spirit of Prophecy, to mention but a few.  I think the Church should jettison papal paranoia from its eschatalogical payload.  I also do not believe that a literal 6-day creation within the past thousands of years is scientifically defensible.  Finally, I greatly prefer localism in Church polity,  making me, I suppose,  "progressive" when it comes to church organization, although really my beliefs in that regard are quite consistent with my conservative political philosophy, which distrusts concentrated power.

You misunderstood my reference to the Nazi holocaust and Communist purges.  It is my experience and intuitive sense that progressives buy into most of what I call a secular humanist (progressive) perspective of the world.  They are very skeptical of human freedom, and see human nature as a blank slate.  These tenets are, I believe, quite logical and inescapable conclusions that flow from philosophical materialism and Darwinian fundamentalism.  These twin towers, erected in the name of reason and science, undergird Marxism - which found its ultimate political expression in the Communist states of the 20th Century - and fascism, which found its ultimate political expression in Nazi Germany.  If the human mind and will are not free - if human nature is a blank slate  - then personal responsibility is indeed a cruel delusion; no one is entitled to private property or the fruits of their labor or creativity; no one should be free to "control" their own lives, because we are all simply hapless beneficiaries or victims of geopolitical, environmental, or genetic lotteries.

I think a deterministic world dominated by scientism and rationalism is fundamentally at odds with Scripture; it is not self-correcting, but self-expanding; and I think it inevitably leads to far worse evil (holocausts and purges) than the evil extremes of Christianity (religious states and Inquisitions).  I contend that  JudeoChristian traditions have demonstrated a remarkable capacity for self-correction, because divine revelation regularly intervenes to radically change perceptions and reality in ways inconceivable to science and logic.

I am certainly not comparing progressives to Nazis or Communists, though I don't know why progressives, who regularly equate fundamentalists with the Grand Inquisitor, feign high moral dudgeon when they are tagged with odious historical references.  But ideas do have consequences.  And the idea that science classes in a Christian school should or can be taught without reference to the truth claims of scripture (whatever they may be) is either naive or dishonest. When religious beliefs are confined to religion courses and churches, they become even less significant than myths.  When reason and science dictate the boundaries of religion and the Transcendent, reason and science become tyrannical gods.

Really, Pickle, we don't ask for confessions of faith by Board members.  Let me underscore that the purpose of Adventist Today is to promote dialogue.  Open-mindedness is far more important to that mission than beliefs, at least to my way of thinking. Quite frankly, I don't think most readers, conservative or otherwise, have the sophistication or interest to follow a technical scientific debate about creation vs evolution. I certainly don't.  Can you point out to me when AToday ran an article promoting Darwinian evolution?  I'm not saying it didn't happen.  I just don't remember it.  

By definition, divine action, including creation, is initiated outside the time-space continuum.  It is beyond human comprehension.  But God, in His graciousness, has communicated His action and will to us in terms that we can understand. The Genesis story is of infinitely more value to humanity than anything science can possibly tell us about ultimate origins - which is nothing.  I happen to think that we make God smaller when we seek to use scientific methodologies to validate divine actions that preceded science.  You surely would contend that most Biblical miracles cannot be scientifically explained.  So why would you try to insist that the miracle of creation can be scientifically validated?  I think conservative evangelical Christian scientists would do much better to focus on the pretensions and fallacies of Darwinian scientism than to insist that the Genesis story is scientific.

I love the Church and scripture too much to be locked into viewing either of them through the lenses of Ellen White as tinted and framed by Church leaders in the early 20th Century. The raison d'etre  for a true church of God should not be the uniqueness of its self-referential belief system, but the faithfulness of its witness to a crucified, risen Lord who alone is the way, the truth and the life.  

Hi Pickle,

Of course there is scientific evidence for Creationism.  There is also a lot of scientific evidence that casts doubt on the claims of Creationists.  Creationists, along with most Biblical literalists, want to have it both ways.  They want to argue that science, reason, and logic support their conclusions.  But then, when those tools do not support, or even refute, their conclusions, they contend that science, reason, and logic are only valid when used by people of faith - in other words, people who agree with them.  Mind you, I am very much of the view that science, reason, and logic, separated from the Creator of those capacities, can only light the path to evil and destruction.  I just wish fundamentalists could frankly admit and embrace the reality that they can't prove their theories with science.

Being open-minded doesn't mean one doesn't have opinions. It simply means one is open to considering and discussing other opinions.  Did Erv inaccurately report student reaction to Dr. Pittman's presentation at La Sierra?  If so, anyone could have, and I think Sean did, challenge his report before the same audience Erv addressed in his blog.  NEWSFLASH! AToday blogs do not purport to be objective news.  They organize and frame ideas and factual information in a way that supports the viewpoint of the blogger.  My own frequent disagreement with blogs posted on AToday is an occasion for me to clarify and express my thoughts to the same forum as has the blogger.  It never occurs to me that AToday should run a feature expressing my viewpoint simply because I think it is closer to the truth.  I take up more than my share of space, which subscribers are free to read or ignore.  It is far more difficult to prepare a blog than to take shots at what has been written, and I am extremely appreciative of those who devote the time and energy to write blogs on an "open" site, knowing that they thereby make their ideas vulnerable to attack.

You have shifted from your original claim that AToday publishes articles promoting Darwinian evolution without also offering pro-Creationist articles.  Now you say your original claim is "not the point".  If not, why did you make it? Now you contend that AToday "promotes" books and seminars with an anti-Creationist perspective.  Advertising a product or service in a journal does not constitute an endorsement of what is being advertised.  I'm sure that if you wrote a book on origins from a pro-Creationist perspective, AToday would be happy to announce it to its readers, and Dr. Taylor might even do you the "favor" of reviewing the book.  If you look on the AToday Homepage, you will see an announcement entitled "'Creation Sabbath' Day Planned."  Educatetruth gets plenty of free advertising on this website, and participants in the dialogues can reference whatever sources they want.

It really seems to me, Pickle, that you view certain beliefs as too sacred to openly discuss and debate from a critical perspective.  You don't think True SDAs should be debating the merits of the Fundamental Beliefs or airing "dirty laundry". You're afraid that someone will Google "Adventist", stumble upon this website, and get the wrong impression about the Seventh Day Adventist Church.  I think that's "Greenhouse Adventism". 

"NEWSFLASH! AToday blogs do not purport to be objective news.  They organize and frame ideas and factual information in a way that supports the viewpoint of the blogger."

 "You have shifted from your original claim that AToday publishes articles promoting Darwinian evolution without also offering pro-Creationist articles.  Now you say your original claim is "not the point".  If not, why did you make it?"

"It really seems to me, Pickle, that you view certain beliefs as too sacred to openly discuss and debate from a critical perspective."

And therein lies the problem, Pickle.  You purport, by your statement, to know where Adventism is really at today.  Each blog and each comment on AToday is a snapshot which opens a window on where Adventism is at today.  Your comments accurately reflect where Adventism is at today, as do Dr. Taylor's blogs.  And that is the beauty of Adventist Today.  It does not presume to prescriptively define Adventism.  But the dialogic encounters it facilitates descriptively depict Adventists, former Adventists, and yes, agnostic Adventists at various stages of growth, experience, and belief.   Whether you or I always like it is quite beside the point.  

The site, like each of its contributors, is no doubt a mix of wheat and tares.  That you cannot do the weeding or expunge the site of any reference to the primary religious identity of its subscribers, is oviously a source of consternation to you. I would hate to be charged with the responsibility of defining who is and who is not entitled to describe Adventists today.  Somehow I get the feeling that you would undertake that job with great gusto. 

BTW Pickle, to return to your magnificent obsession, would you be comfortable with the title "Adventism Today" - or has that term also been copyrighted?  Incidentally, if you are concerned about identity theft, you might want to consider copyrighting "Pickle".  Wouldn't want anyone starting up a magazine called "Pickle Today", "pickle Pickle", or variations thereof.

Well David you need to brush up on your genetics. Medicine does have an interest and use for evolutionary genetics. That is the whole point of understanding genetic mutation and viral and bacterial resistance to drugs. On other fronts there are deleterious genetic mutations that are passed to offspring. Understanding how these genes function and are maintained in the genome is the basis for the idea of "gene therapy."

SDA geology and biology? Does that include those fantasy people that genetically engineered dinosaurs? 

 "That you cannot do the weeding or expunge the site of any reference to the primary religious identity of its subscribers, is oviously a source of consternation to you."

"I would hate to be charged with the responsibility of defining who is and who is not entitled to describe Adventists today." 

 "BTW Pickle, to return to your magnificent obsession, would you be comfortable with the title "Adventism Today" - or has that term also been copyrighted?"

Yes, you're right Pickle, I should have used the term "Trademarked".  

As to the liberal content of the magazine, I would be interested in hearing of writers who have submitted articles to AToday from a conservative or institutional perspective, and had them rejected.  I'm not saying it doesn't occur. I just think that's an important point to establish before you accuse AToday of viewpoint censorship.  I've been tempted to write articles critical of what I perceive as the progressive mindset, but good writing takes a lot of work, and good intentions don't produce it.  It has never occurred to me, however, that there would be any resistance to publishing such an article if it was provocative and well written. 

You observe that the GC has already outlined tests of fellowship.  Really? Maybe you're right.  Are the Fundamental Beliefs "tests of fellowship"? What is the difference between "tests of fellowship" and a creed, which the Church claims not to believe in? What percentage of Adventists in North America do you believe attend churches where "tests of fellowship" are taken seriously?  You are quite right about the Creation orientation of most Adventists.  Yet the GC shows no inclination to urge disciplinary action or excommunication of SDA evolutionists. Fifty years ago I imagine such action would have been automatic.  Doesn't that suggest a changing, evolving Church, members of which cannot be defined or pinned down by a particular belief or set of beliefs? 

Most people who call themselves American would never suggest that their personal, idealized image of what it means to be an American is normative, or representative of Americanism as a whole.  Nor would they suggest (even if they profoundly disagree with him) that there is anything terrible about President Obama presuming to speak for the American people when he gives his biweekly apology speeches. So if the GC is apparently not prepared to offer either a prescriptive or descriptive definition of who is or is not an SDA, why do you seem to be so eager to do so?  Please - don't expect us to believe that you are simply concerned about the integrity of trademarks. 

"As to the liberal content of the magazine, I would be interested in hearing of writers who have submitted articles to AToday from a conservative or institutional perspective, and had them rejected."

"Are the Fundamental Beliefs "tests of fellowship"? What is the difference between "tests of fellowship" and a creed, which the Church claims not to believe in?" 

"What percentage of Adventists in North America do you believe attend churches where "tests of fellowship" are taken seriously?  You are quite right about the Creation orientation of most Adventists.  Yet the GC shows no inclination to urge disciplinary action or excommunication of SDA evolutionists."

"Most people who call themselves American would never suggest that their personal, idealized image of what it means to be an American is normative, or representative of Americanism as a whole."

"So if the GC is apparently not prepared to offer either a prescriptive or descriptive definition of who is or is not an SDA, why do you seem to be so eager to do so?"