Advent Talk
General Category => General Discussions => Topic started by: Gailon Arthur Joy on September 04, 2011, 07:37:19 PM
-
Lawrence Downing brings into question the Governance of Seventh-day Adventist institutions and sites several serious failures of oversight and governance, a problem in all institutions, including the SEC as evidenced by Madoff.
He seems to advocate laiety, including the rebels at LSAU
take steps to tale control of institutions, but, just where would such a take-over be designed to lead, or END.
Governance is a dual edged sword as experienced by the outright rebellion at La Sierra University. Governance can abrogate its purpose and function and alter its mission turning the institution into a hypocrisy of it's purposed mission.
There is a falacy in the Downing blog including some respondents allegations: That WASC has authority to govern a church based institution and set standards that are violative of the religious mission of the Adventist University even though it is supported by a clearly rebellious faculty and administration of La Sierra University. It is a religious and educational 501(c) 3 organization owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist church and dedicated to the mission of perpetuating the Mission of the church as defined in its fundamental beliefs. To interfere with the right of conscience of the Seventh-day Adventist church is unconscionable and it is simply unconstitutional!!!
While the administration and faculty at La Sierra would prefer to abscond with the La Sierra University, a Seventh-day Adventist Institution of “higher learning” of dubious ethical and moral values, and turn it into a bastion of secular humanism and progressive “sophisticated” evolutionary studies under the guise of “progressive Adventism”, they are best defined as NON-ADVENTIST.
It is time for Governance to establish right here a clear line in the sand and either bring Revival and Reformation or shut it down and sell it’s assets.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
From: Elaine Nelson Reply 12 hours ago
That is not as easy or profitable as it may sound to those who apparently do not understand the charter of a university. LSU has been defined as a university with the approval of the SDA church. In that designation, they must comply with WASC to continue to receive accreditation as a university.
If the church makes the decision that it no longer wishes to operate a university there are two choices: no longer comply with the requirements for a university and become a Bible college; or if the wish is to maintain university status it must allow the WASC to make recommendations that are necessary for that satus.
It is important to know that without university status the government student grants would drastically drop as students and parents would not pay for tuition at a non-accredited school, nor would students be able to enter graduate studies from a non-accredited school. Without government funding, there probably would not be sufficient funds to continue the schools operation. It is a Sophie's Choice. Which one should be made?
Elaine Nelson
-
It is important to know that University Status as prescribed by WASC does not confer with it the right to dictate an academic program that is violative of the right of conscience and the right to conduct a course of study that is cohesive with the mission of the church. And if this comes with the limitation of grants and financial aid programs that eminate from the Federal Government, then to do so is most certainly unconstitutional; And worthy of direct challenge!!!
Pablum propagated by extreme liberals in the church is simply that and if we are not willing to take this stand now, we will not stand in the tempest to come!!! It is, rather, simply creeping compromise!!!
The premise that an extreme liberal (I dare not call them Adventists as it is heresy) says it is so, and thus it is so, must be challenged for both it’s moral and academic position. There is no basis in fact that allows WASC to impose it’s immoral judgments upon a church institution and if they think they must, then their standing and unconstitutional positions require a serious and constitutional challenge.
Consider your position not simply challenged, but in fact abrogated as pure extreme liberal pablum; and from one more than willing to challenge this outrageous premise.
Simply put, I do not purchase your premise and if it were so would require the church to challenge the same.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Elaine Nelson is known to be not only not an Adventist (probably former SDA), but also an agnostic.
-
She is also not a proponent of Freedom of Religion...and in fact would seem to support "Freedom FROM Religion!!!
It would seem she is a bit beyond "Agnostic" and seems to support "Atheism" and "Evolution".
And for one who is a none Adventist she sure has plenty to say on AToday!!! And needs to be met head on!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Lawrence Downing brings into question the Governance of Seventh-day Adventist institutions and sites several serious failures of oversight and governance, a problem in all institutions, including the SEC as evidenced by Madoff.
He seems to advocate laiety, including the rebels at LSAU
take steps to tale control of institutions, but, just where would such a take-over be designed to lead, or END.
Governance is a dual edged sword as experienced by the outright rebellion at La Sierra University. Governance can abrogate its purpose and function and alter its mission turning the institution into a hypocrisy of it's purposed mission.
There is a falacy in the Downing blog including some respondents allegations: That WASC has authority to govern a church based institution and set standards that are violative of the religious mission of the Adventist University even though it is supported by a clearly rebellious faculty and administration of La Sierra University. It is a religious and educational 501(c) 3 organization owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist church and dedicated to the mission of perpetuating the Mission of the church as defined in its fundamental beliefs. To interfere with the right of conscience of the Seventh-day Adventist church is unconscionable and it is simply unconstitutional!!!
While the administration and faculty at La Sierra would prefer to abscond with the La Sierra University, a Seventh-day Adventist Institution of “higher learning” of dubious ethical and moral values, and turn it into a bastion of secular humanism and progressive “sophisticated” evolutionary studies under the guise of “progressive Adventism”, they are best defined as NON-ADVENTIST.
It is time for Governance to establish right here a clear line in the sand and either bring Revival and Reformation or shut it down and sell it’s assets.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
I talk to Ricardo Graham about this situation. He stated that over a 15 year period the faculty of LSU had become so strong they could vote what ever they wanted to. If a person was employed by the denomination and did not hold to the teachings of the sda church it would be almost impossible to get them out. He is well aware of the situation and is doing his part to bring this under control. he states that it is not because of his leadership that this is happening. He dose not endorde what LSU has taught or done. he is only recently been made aware of it.
-
Ricardo Graham had only recently been made aware of what LSU has been teaching!?
I would have a very hard time believing that!
And why wouldn't it be part of his responsibility, considering his position, to know that?
-
From: Elaine Nelson Reply 12 hours ago
That is not as easy or profitable as it may sound to those who apparently do not understand the charter of a university. LSU has been defined as a university with the approval of the SDA church. In that designation, they must comply with WASC to continue to receive accreditation as a university.
If the church makes the decision that it no longer wishes to operate a university there are two choices: no longer comply with the requirements for a university and become a Bible college; or if the wish is to maintain university status it must allow the WASC to make recommendations that are necessary for that satus.
It is important to know that without university status the government student grants would drastically drop as students and parents would not pay for tuition at a non-accredited school, nor would students be able to enter graduate studies from a non-accredited school. Without government funding, there probably would not be sufficient funds to continue the schools operation. It is a Sophie's Choice. Which one should be made?
Elaine Nelson
It's always about the money. Follow the money. But we have to remember that man cannot serve two masters. I have found that the term "governance" has different meanings to different people.
-
I question whether LSU is as out of line from commonly held SDA current belief as many seem to wish it is.
-
I thought of La Sierra when I read the following about Union College. Time? 1931.
The situation at Union College was not good. Strange teachings had been brought in that affected both teachers and students. The president had renounced the faith, and had influenced teachers and students to do the same. The chief Bible teacher had followed the president, but evidently did not know what he had done...
Union College was in a bad way. It had lost the confidence of the field as a safe place to send young people--the first day of the next school year we enrolled less than two hundred students. We were heavily in debt... To cap the climax, Union now had a president not approved by the General Conference. Union was doomed.
What can we learn from history?
-
What can we learn from history?
"The university is a GC institution, not a union institution."
So...
What has the GC done in regards to teachings in their university that are in open opposition to:
1. Creation (which results in undermining...
2. The Sabbath
3. The fall and the need for and means of our redemption.
From the replacement of these fundamentals with supposed "scientific knowledge" we see another gospel emerging and it appears it's strong geographical center is in the Pacific Union Conference, which pretty much denies that Christ died a substitutionary death and that His shed blood was necessary for mankind to have forgiveness and reconciliation with God.
That gospel more closely (though it's advocates will point out the differences) follows the new age idea of the human race evolving through quantum leaps in human historical development. Christ's death and resurrection was supposedly not a scarifice for sin, but merely a catalyst for a major quantum leap for mankind. Now we are supposedly on the edge of another monumental quantum leap into the age of Aquarius where mankind reaches a super human level.
When the account of a perfect creation, and mankinds subsequent fall into sin and degradation is cast aside, then religion soon finds it's way into meshing with new age type thinking on many points.
-
It's always about the money. Follow the money. But we have to remember that man cannot serve two masters. I have found that the term "governance" has different meanings to different people.
It appears the president sold out the University for money:
Educate Truth (http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/la-sierra-univeristy-fires-dr-lee-greer-signs-anti-creation-bond/)
Also, it seems like Randal Wisbey, President of La Sierra University, signed a $25 million dollar bond agreement with the State of California in 2008 (to include $17 million dollars to refinance the new Thaine B. Price Science Complex) where one of the stipulations of the bond was that no forms of “sectarian instruction” (presumably to include the active promotion of creationist or intelligent design concepts) would be presented within any of the buildings funded by the bond.
The problem isn't just with La Sierra,
The same president was president of our college when our kids attended there.
I started getting phone calls and e-mails almost every night from my daughter begging me for scientific reasons to believe in Creation. I tried, but apparently the teacher only dismissed them as "uneducated".
My daughter quit the class because it was undermining her faith.
Later she went to a non-Adventist college and was pleasantly surprised that people there respected her faith.
I'm not sure it is safe to send our young people to our schools. Yes, they do have some good Bible classes, BUT that's all undermined and destroyed by the science classes.
-
"The university is a GC institution, not a union institution."
So...
What has the GC done in regards to teachings in their university that are in open opposition to:
My apologies if I created some confusion. La Sierra is not a GC institution. Loma Linda University is.
The issues you are raising are dear to my heart, since I ran into undermining of our faith (other areas than creation/evolution) at three different schools. The last time a prominent faculty member confided that one of his/her children had lost their way at one of our schools. That should never happen.
In our schools the Bible should be the final authority, above every teacher, administrator, and textbook, and the SoP should be a close second. If this principle is adhered to, there should be little problem.
-
Could it be that as long as the main concern of some of the Brethren at GC is to fight the ordination of women, La Sierra is "safe" from their influence?
-
Could it be that as long as the main concern of some of the Brethren at GC is to fight the ordination of women, La Sierra is "safe" from their influence?
What's your point?
And how is "fighting" rebellion the same as "fighting" WO?
-
Could it be that as long as the main concern of some of the Brethren at GC is to fight the ordination of women, La Sierra is "safe" from their influence?
I think this "battle" over ordination is a huge diversion! It's a scheme to get people's minds off the real issues that are undermining the very fundamental doctrines of our church.
Evolution taught as the only plausible scientific explanation for human origin in Seventh-day Adventist universities and colleges? How can that possibly be allowed by the leaders?
Yet, the ONLY way changes will be made is when the grass roots (the average members) get together and demand change, if people simply sit back and think the high level bureaucracy is going to set things right, they will not see it happen. That is just sad but plain fact.
The only reason La Sierra was put under pressure to change was because MEMBERS and local people and church pastors began to demand it, not because any high authority saw this grave departure from truth and stepped in.
Yes, when people began to protest, they did studies, and had a big convention on creation studies, they even announced that creation is the truth, BUT have they done anything to impliment solid creation/science in our schools?
Has anything changed, or have people just been told a lot of "double speak" to lull them back into complacency so the colleges can continue their agenda in peace?
And sunday being proclaimed as the seventh-day Sabbath in the South Pacific islands, by Adventist leadership in that area.
The leadership is basically set in stone that sunday will be called the Sabbath, the GC basically says, talk to these "stones" to get your answers. The only way change will come is when MEMBERS and local people start demanding it, and resisting (disobeying) the decision of the South pacific Division.
-
According to firmly held doctrine, taking Sunday is the mark of the beast. Is there any more egregious rebellion in the history of this denomination than an entire country of SDA churches choosing to keep Sunday? Is there any greater split in the church than that? It would appear that the matter of keeping a Union from ordaining women is of far greater gravity than keeling a union or division from allowing the venerable day of the sun to be honored as the Sabbath. If they allow the mark of the beast without question, but take all measures to stop women from being ordained, it would seem that the mark of the beast is far more acceptable, and not in rebellion against the GC, or have they claimed it as rebellion yet?
-
According to firmly held doctrine, taking Sunday is the mark of the beast. Is there any more egregious rebellion in the history of this denomination than an entire country of SDA churches choosing to keep Sunday? Is there any greater split in the church than that? It would appear that the matter of keeping a Union from ordaining women is of far greater gravity than keeling a union or division from allowing the venerable day of the sun to be honored as the Sabbath. If they allow the mark of the beast without question, but take all measures to stop women from being ordained, it would seem that the mark of the beast is far more acceptable, and not in rebellion against the GC, or have they claimed it as rebellion yet?
Without excusing what is going on in Samoa, let me ask this: Have we ever had a GC Session that has taken a decided position on the question of how to reckon the days of the week for purposes of Sabbath keeping in the Pacific Ocean? If not, then the two situations are apples and oranges.
The only reference in GC WP to the international date line is C 05 25, where the territory of the NAD is described. Thus, there apparently is nothing in the GC WP that deals with the issue.
-
According to firmly held doctrine, taking Sunday is the mark of the beast. Is there any more egregious rebellion in the history of this denomination than an entire country of SDA churches choosing to keep Sunday? Is there any greater split in the church than that? It would appear that the matter of keeping a Union from ordaining women is of far greater gravity than keeling a union or division from allowing the venerable day of the sun to be honored as the Sabbath. If they allow the mark of the beast without question, but take all measures to stop women from being ordained, it would seem that the mark of the beast is far more acceptable, and not in rebellion against the GC, or have they claimed it as rebellion yet?
Without excusing what is going on in Samoa, let me ask this: Have we ever had a GC Session that has taken a decided position on the question of how to reckon the days of the week for purposes of Sabbath keeping in the Pacific Ocean? If not, then the two situations are apples and oranges.
The only reference in GC WP to the international date line is C 05 25, where the territory of the NAD is described. Thus, there apparently is nothing in the GC WP that deals with the issue.
I see. Would you consider it rebellion if the PUC and the CUC decided that the IDL should be changed and make your Sunday their Sabbath?
-
According to firmly held doctrine, taking Sunday is the mark of the beast. Is there any more egregious rebellion in the history of this denomination than an entire country of SDA churches choosing to keep Sunday? Is there any greater split in the church than that? It would appear that the matter of keeping a Union from ordaining women is of far greater gravity than keeling a union or division from allowing the venerable day of the sun to be honored as the Sabbath. If they allow the mark of the beast without question, but take all measures to stop women from being ordained, it would seem that the mark of the beast is far more acceptable, and not in rebellion against the GC, or have they claimed it as rebellion yet?
Without excusing what is going on in Samoa, let me ask this: Have we ever had a GC Session that has taken a decided position on the question of how to reckon the days of the week for purposes of Sabbath keeping in the Pacific Ocean? If not, then the two situations are apples and oranges.
The only reference in GC WP to the international date line is C 05 25, where the territory of the NAD is described. Thus, there apparently is nothing in the GC WP that deals with the issue.
So basically maintaining church policies is what counts, while maintaining the basic pillars of our doctrines is not really that important? As long as no detailed policies are made dealing with the doctrine, it's a free for all.
The week in Samoa is the same as the week in the rest of the world. It doesn't take any "policies' to determine which day is August 25, when all the 7th day Sabbath Keepers the world over will worship. It's August 25. 2012.
Not Sunday August 26.
-
MOD HAT ON!!!
Folks,
We already have a thread regarding the Samoa issue, therefore, let us continue our discussion of that issue in that other thread.
MOD HAT OFF!!!
-
According to firmly held doctrine, taking Sunday is the mark of the beast. Is there any more egregious rebellion in the history of this denomination than an entire country of SDA churches choosing to keep Sunday? Is there any greater split in the church than that? It would appear that the matter of keeping a Union from ordaining women is of far greater gravity than keeling a union or division from allowing the venerable day of the sun to be honored as the Sabbath. If they allow the mark of the beast without question, but take all measures to stop women from being ordained, it would seem that the mark of the beast is far more acceptable, and not in rebellion against the GC, or have they claimed it as rebellion yet?
Without excusing what is going on in Samoa, let me ask this: Have we ever had a GC Session that has taken a decided position on the question of how to reckon the days of the week for purposes of Sabbath keeping in the Pacific Ocean? If not, then the two situations are apples and oranges.
The only reference in GC WP to the international date line is C 05 25, where the territory of the NAD is described. Thus, there apparently is nothing in the GC WP that deals with the issue.
I see. Would you consider it rebellion if the PUC and the CUC decided that the IDL should be changed and make your Sunday their Sabbath?
Not "rebellion against the GC," which is how you put it above.
So basically maintaining church policies is what counts, while maintaining the basic pillars of our doctrines is not really that important?
If the point being responded to is regarding "rebellion against the GC," then the response if narrow will naturally cite GC Session votes and GC Working Policy rather than basic doctrinal pillars.
-
According to firmly held doctrine, taking Sunday is the mark of the beast. Is there any more egregious rebellion in the history of this denomination than an entire country of SDA churches choosing to keep Sunday? Is there any greater split in the church than that? It would appear that the matter of keeping a Union from ordaining women is of far greater gravity than keeling a union or division from allowing the venerable day of the sun to be honored as the Sabbath. If they allow the mark of the beast without question, but take all measures to stop women from being ordained, it would seem that the mark of the beast is far more acceptable, and not in rebellion against the GC, or have they claimed it as rebellion yet?
Without excusing what is going on in Samoa, let me ask this: Have we ever had a GC Session that has taken a decided position on the question of how to reckon the days of the week for purposes of Sabbath keeping in the Pacific Ocean? If not, then the two situations are apples and oranges.
The only reference in GC WP to the international date line is C 05 25, where the territory of the NAD is described. Thus, there apparently is nothing in the GC WP that deals with the issue.
I see. Would you consider it rebellion if the PUC and the CUC decided that the IDL should be changed and make your Sunday their Sabbath?
Not "rebellion against the GC," which is how you put it above.
So basically maintaining church policies is what counts, while maintaining the basic pillars of our doctrines is not really that important?
If the point being responded to is regarding "rebellion against the GC," then the response if narrow will naturally cite GC Session votes and GC Working Policy rather than basic doctrinal pillars.
The following was voted into place by the GC in session. It is the 20th Fundamental Belief. Would it not be accurate to say that for a conference or church to decide to keep the 1st day of the week instead of the 7th, as specified in the quote, as Sabbath is in direct contravention of a ruling of the GC in session? Would knowing that the GC ruled thusly, yet going ahead with keeping Sunday not qualify as an act of rebellion?
20. Sabbath
Sabbath is an important part of the belief and practice of seventh-day Christians. These believers observe Sabbath on the seventh Hebrew day of the week, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, in similar manner as in Judaism, rather than on Sunday like a larger segment of Christianity. They believe that keeping seventh-day Sabbath weekly and physically is a moral responsibility, equal to that of any other of the Ten Commandments, that honors God as Creator and Deliverer. The requirement to keep the seventh day holy is found in the fourth commandment of God's Law in the book of Exodus chapter 20.
-
The PUC and CUC were in marked rebellion in a way that has not come up with the Samoans.
General Conference President Ted Wilson appeared in person at both union meetings and pleaded with them to not vote what they were planning on, and in both cases, was treated with disrespect.
-
Good quote from a comment on the ADvindicate site:
"The pro-women's ordination folk acted like disrespectful, naughty children at the meeting with 'you're not the boss of me' attitudes..."
-
The PUC and CUC were in marked rebellion in a way that has not come up with the Samoans.
General Conference President Ted Wilson appeared in person at both union meetings and pleaded with them to not vote what they were planning on, and in both cases, was treated with disrespect.
I agree with the vote that they took, but I also agree with you that Wilson was treated with disrespect by some, and there is no excuse for that.
Perhaps "rebellion" is the wrong word. "Apostasy" probably better describes a conference that chooses to keep Sunday as the Sabbath.
-
Apostasy might be a good term...if it really is that and not just a semantic misunderstanding.
-
Looks like the posters are all in rebellion against Daryl who was wearing a red hat and saying this thread wasn't about Samoa. (Or women's ordination for that matter).
But this thread is about La Sierra and its evolution filled science classes. And the resulting departure from fundamental basic beliefs of the chruch concerning mankinds' origin, fall, and salvation.
What should the GC do about higher education institutions who continue to teach evolution as "scientific fact", and creation as merely "non-scientific" "faith".
Yet, the ONLY way changes will be made is when the grass roots (the average members) get together and demand change, if people simply sit back and think the high level bureaucracy is going to set things right, they will not see it happen. That is just sad but plain fact.
The only reason La Sierra was put under pressure to change was because MEMBERS and local people and church pastors began to demand it, not because any high authority saw this grave departure from truth and stepped in.
Yes, when people began to protest, they did studies, and had a big convention on creation studies, they even announced that creation is the truth, BUT have they done anything to impliment solid creation/science in our schools?
Has anything changed, or have people just been told a lot of "double speak" to lull them back into complacency so the colleges can continue their agenda in peace?
-
What should the GC do about higher education institutions who continue to teach evolution as "scientific fact", and creation as merely "non-scientific" "faith".
Depends on the institution. If it won't come into line, and if it gets funding, the GC could stop funding it. The Review could refuse to place advertisements for it.
If the institution is under the union and the union refuses to fix the problem, the union could be disciplined.
But it's not just the GC that may have a responsibility under such circumstances. Local churches might also have a responsibility to discipline the teachers and administrators that are promoting evolution.