Spectrum Blog

LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer

15 May 2012 | La Sierra University

| 36

La Sierra University generated a lot of news last week, with a press release by biology professor Dr. Lee Greer that prompted a story in the local paper. Asked for a response, this is what the university had to say:

Dr. Lee Greer is currently employed by La Sierra University as a non-tenured Assistant Professor of Biology. His contract expires by its own terms on June 30, 2012. The University honors its contractual commitments.

Beyond confirming the status of employment, the University does not comment on specific details of personnel matters as a matter of policy. This puts the University at a disadvantage in responding to public criticism such as Dr. Greer's "press release," but it is the policy of most employers for sound reasons of human resource management and the law.

Atlantic Union Conference Releases Statement on Women in Ministry

15 May 2012 | Atlantic Union Conference

| 53

At its regularly scheduled quarterly meeting on May 10, 2012, the Atlantic Union Conference Executive Committee voted the following statement regarding women in ministry.

ATLANTIC UNION CONFERENCE STATEMENT ON WOMEN IN MINISTRY

Recognizing the current discussions and the value of women in ministry within the North American Division, the Atlantic Union Conference Executive Committee voted the following statement:

WHEREAS the Atlantic Union Conference and its member conferences and organizations have benefitted from the faithful service and commitment of women in ministry, including evangelistic, pastoral, educational and other roles at all levels of the church and school system, and

WHEREAS the Atlantic Union Conference recognizes itself as a part of the Seventh-day Adventist church, and will act in harmony with its decisions taken during the General Conference in business session, it is therefore

RESOLVED, that the Atlantic Union Conference, in harmony with the scriptural mandates of the priesthood of all believers, is committed to supporting, empowering and celebrating women in ministry.

###

Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage

13 May 2012 | Kinship International

| 178

We carefully read the British Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists’ recent statement about the government’s 12-week consultation on same-sex marriage in England and Wales.

We are interested in the well-being of BUC members and the society in which they live: several of our members and relatives have lived or still live in the British Union Conference (BUC). As current or former Seventh-day Adventists, we are also keenly interested in how the church treats lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ) Adventists, and how church officials interact withthe rest of civic society in our name. It is because of our connections to the BUC that the Union’s statement deeply concerns us.

The statement consistently subordinates universal “respect”, “genuine love for all”, and “moves for equality and eradication of discrimination” to administrators’ judgments about LGBTIQ people, their spiritual needs, and their relationships. The Union’s plan to spread these judgments“with some vigour” and “encourage” church members to sign a hostile petition also betrays a failure to consult with the population affected by the legal status quo and the BUC’s lobbying. Regardless of whether British law ever fully recognises their marriages, LGBTIQ people are members of the BUC, and with other British citizens will be affected by the public discussion and the union’s role in it.

Of course we empathisewith the BUC’s wish to honour current church policy. And so we must point out that the government’s civic proposal will have no impact on the policies or teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Just as our church doesn’t take doctrinal cues from any national government, we don’t believe that the British government should take legal cues from our church or its union representatives. On behalf of English and Welsh LGBTIQ people and supportive heterosexuals, we’re grateful that the British government is willing to discuss full respect for the committed, monogamous relationships of all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation.

We would strongly object to external political interference in a denominational dialogue, and must now object to the BUC’s plan to insert itself into a national civic discussion. We don’t foresee and wouldn’t support the emergence of a Britain that forced reluctant churches to wed same-sex couples: nothing comparable to mandatory marrying has occurred with other legal changes in the last two centuries. Progressive amendments to British law since 1857 have allowed private citizens to divorce and remarry—yet denominations whose doctrines prohibit second marriages are not required to marry divorcees and are not sanctioned for their beliefs. After more than 150 years of legal private divorce, the only citizens who divorce and remarry under the law are those whose moral convictions permit them to. Other citizens are not obligated to divorce, and no churches are mandated either way.

We believe that the Union’s plan to promote public discrimination in the name of British Seventh-day Adventists would breach the civic and religious liberties of LGBTIQ and supportive heterosexual Adventists, as well as the liberties of other citizens outside the Adventist church. Like many in England and Wales, our religious and individual convictions inspire us to support adults who choose to participate in the commitment, self-sacrifice, and social responsibilities of married family life. Therefore, when BUC administrators announced their intent to influence the national discussion in our name, we were compelled to speak for ourselves: the Union did not speak for us or the British LGBTIQ people we serve.

As part of an autonomous religious group, the BUC remains free to withhold sacramental rites from certain members in its territory, including ordination rites from called female ministers and marital rites from some heterosexual divorcees and all LGBTIQ people.

Nevertheless, there are LGBTIQ and supportive heterosexual Seventh-day Adventists in the British Union’s territory, and we are open to dialogue with Union representatives on this issue. We are available to discuss our lived experience with the matters raised in the Union’s statement: how our families, children, and community lives are affected by the current law and proposal, and what opportunities our church now has to serve our population more effectively.

It’s important to us to support the people in our community as well as the well-being and integrity of the church at large. We feel strongly that the British Union cannot do its best work with us—and may in fact do great harm—if it fails to engage its LGBTIQ members in respectful conversation over time.

We remain the BUC’s children, siblings, and friends.

In Kinship and love,

Yolanda Elliott (For the Board of Seventh-day Adventist Kinship, Int’l)

Terence Rice, M.Div. (Director of Church Relations)

Mike Lewis (Former regional coordinator, United Kingdom)

Marcos Apolonio, B.Th (Chaplain)

Creations—Artists

13 May 2012 | Leslie Foster

| 0

This week's selection of films is focused on artists. The short films explore artists' connection to religion, spirituality, God, country, and war—connections that are sometimes fraught with tension but can bear amazing fruit.

1. Invocation

2. Who is the Graffiti Artist?

3. Makoto Fujimora - The Art of the Four Gospels

Sabbath Sermon: Science & Genesis—N.T. Wright, John Polkinghorne, Allister McGrath

12 May 2012 | Alexander Carpenter

| 22

Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson

11 May 2012 | Alexander Carpenter

| 403

This week, the story about Emory University faculty and students voicing concern about a statement by Ben Carson has moved from academic online news to Washington Post to conservative Christian blogosphere. The Discovery Institute, the main defender of intelligent design, has been driving the last part of this evolution as their petition to defend Ben Carson have been circulating widely. Redstate, a widely-read conservative blog posts, "At Emory University, Darwin’s Bullies Smear Commencement Speaker, Dr. Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins." And Focus on the Family's online community got very busy posting the following articles:

Darwin and Ben Carson on Evolutionary Ethics vs. 500 Emory University Faculty and Students
Stand Up to the Bullies, Emory University: Reaffirm Dr. Ben Carson's Welcome
The Controversy about Darwin Doubter Ben Carson and the Moral Argument

Even the conservative Christian Post echoed this hyperbolic language telling its readers to sign a petition to "send a clear message to academic bullies that we will not tolerate their tactics of intimidation." These all have links back to the Discovery Institutes's Evolution News site which is pushing this story hard. (It even looks like many of these conservative Christian bloggers are merely copying their words from it.) A few Adventists, understandably defensive over criticism of one of our denomination's brightest stars have even joined the fray to avenge Dr. Carson against these "academic bullies and intimidators." But it's not that simple.

Are there evolutionist bullies out there? Yes. But these medical students and faculty at Emory University are not. They wrote a letter to the editor of the school's newspaper. (What intimidation!) In this letter they did not call for protests or for the administration to rescind the invitation. They did not call for anything. They merely voiced their difference of opinion on ethics and evolution from Ben Carson. They praised his achievements while voicing their deep concern about what he thinks of the ethics of people who take evolution seriously. Here is how they closed their short letter.

The theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms. Dismissing evolution disregards the importance of science and critical thinking to society. Stating that those who accept the underlying principle of biology and medicine are unethical not only encourages the insertion of unnecessary and destructive wedges between Americans but stands against many of the ideals of this University.

The roughly 500 scientists and doctors left it at that. They were concerned with wedges and protecting the ideals of their community. Just like everyone else. Anyone feeling intimidated by that probably has some deeper epistemological issues with which to deal.

No one doubts that Ben Carson's hands are gifted. He is a world renowned neurosurgeon, a giving person and a famous Seventh-day Adventist. But his statements to the Adventist Review and what he's said subsequently about ethics and evolution do show that he's not very aware of the serious writing that have been done on ethics post-Darwin. When he says, "For if there is no such thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want," he's right to note a serious question, but he fails his audience in and out of the church by not recognizing that people have wrestled with that question for ages and have come up with some pretty good reasons to be moral without buying into Divine Command Theory. Carson should at least acknowledge, if not read, the work of serious Christians and non-believers on ethics in an age skeptical of the deontological.

I interviewed Ben Carson several years ago for a profile that was published in Spectrum's journal. We had a pleasant chat about his celebrity status in Adventism, the subject of the article. He spoke about how he has to protect his time and that includes making space for reading. He spoke glowingly of his current immersion in the writings of Ellen White. I got the impression that he's read more of her than moral theology and philosophy works that address his point, such as:

Christian theologian Hans Küng's many works on global ethics and human responsibilities.
The Elements of Ethics by Bertrand Russell
Harvard's Humanist Chaplain Greg M. Epstein's book Good without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe
Albert Camus' novel The Plague.
Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological and Religious Perspective (good conversation by theologians, scientists, philosophers via Eerdmans)

Some people need a God who spoke each photon and bacterium into existence in exactly six days in order to be moral. Some folks try to be good just because it is the right thing to do. There are fine examples of both groups. Some, like me, believe in God and believe that acting out of conviction rather than fear of hellish punishment makes for good ethics. As Omar said: "a man got to have a code." Unfortunately, too often some people mistake having a theology for it.

From Socrates given the choice of death or banishment for asking too many questions about morality and the gods to the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution, new ideas do cause discomfort and social tension. Having learned the lessons of the Thirty Years War and many conflicts since, humans appear to be learning this basic point: questioning someone's ethics based on their denominational or scientific persuasion is more about power and fear than true intellectual engagement.

Given a chance, thanks to the publication of the letter, Ben Carson clarified his remarks: "A lot of evolutionists are very ethical people."

Those trying to turn this into a showdown between Creation and Evolution are the real bullies. They are manipulating the evidence for their own political ends. I like Ben Carson even though I disagree with his theory of origins, and I don't think that it's ethical for him to be treated this way. If we can't be honest about the facts in a 541-word letter, how are we going to make sense of our world?

Adventists in Politics: Healers of the Nations?

10 May 2012 | Jared Wright

| 8

This Saturday, May 12, four members of the Adventist community will speak at the Loma Linda University Damazo Amphitheater about their involvement in local and national politics. Ronald Daily, a member of the Loma Linda City Council; Bill Emmerson, a California State Senator; Justin Kim, a candidate for U.S. Congress and Doug Welebir, a past mayor of the City of Loma Linda will talk about the intersections of faith and the public arena. Should more Adventists run for office, or are there good reasons not to? The panelists will speak to this and other questions in a conversation moderated by Roy Branson, the director for the Loma Linda University Center for Christian Bioethics.

The event begins at 3:00pm.

Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination

9 May 2012 | Alexander Carpenter

| 91

The following document was published by the Pacific Union Conference as a record of its executive committee's action on May 9 regarding the ordination of women.

At their March meeting, the Pacific Union executive committee voted to table until May 9 a motion that would immediately approve the ordination of ministers without regard to gender. They also set up an Ordination Study Committee to outline the steps necessary to make gender-neutral ordinations a reality as soon as possible.

Today at the La Sierra University Alumni Center, that committee delivered their report to the full executive committee. The committee replaced the original motion with a new one and voted overwhelmingly to call a special constituency meeting, tentatively scheduled for August 19.

The committee voted separately on the main motion, including the preamble. The preamble and main motion were approved by a vote of 42-2. The process, which includes calling a special constituency session, was approved unanimously.

Voted (preamble):

Whereas Scripture is clear that the end-time Church is blessed precisely because men and women preach God’s message (Joel 2:28-29 and Fundamental Belief 17);
Whereas we are commanded to “act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8);
Whereas “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for all are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28);
Whereas “differences between male and female must not be divisive among us” and “we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation” (Fundamental Belief 14);
Whereas the Seventh-day Adventist Church is co-founded by a woman, Ellen G. White, who remains an authoritative and guiding voice;
Whereas the Pacific Union is enriched by Spirit-filled women who are responding to God’s call in our schools, churches and conferences;
Whereas the Seventh-day Adventist Church assigns Unions the final decision-making authority and responsibility with respect to ordination (NAD Working Policy L45 05 3, Spring Council 2012 116-12G Report);
Whereas the Pacific Union Conference voted its full commitment to Women’s Ordination, August 30, 1995 (reaffirmed May 12, 2010 and March 15, 2012);

Therefore, [main action]

The Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee will approve or disapprove candidates for ordination without regard to gender, effective when the Union Bylaws are amended.

The Process
Voted, approval for the following process:

Because the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee is committed to following denominational procedures and processes, and to facilitate the involvement of the entire Union constituency, a special constituency session will be called to consider amendments to the Pacific Union Conference Bylaws to clearly authorize the ordination of ministers without regard to gender.
The Pacific Union Conference Bylaws Committee will examine the Union bylaws and suggest amendments to clearly authorize the ordination of ministers without regard to gender. The Pacific Union Conference will provide an informational packet for the delegates, pertinent to the issues to be discussed in the special constituency session.

Both the study committee and the executive committee made it clear that they are committed to following established church processes and procedures. Their recommendations and actions were guided in large part by a summary of church structure prepared earlier this year by the General Conference and distributed at GC spring meetings. The full name of the document is The General Conference and Its Divisions — a Description of Roles and Relationships in Light of Organizational Structure Development, Current Governance Documents, and Practices. That documents makes clear that:

Authority and responsibility in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not centralized in a hierarchical structure. Instead authority and responsibility is distributed throughout the Seventh-day Adventist Church structure …. The distribution of authority and responsibility in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is illustrated by the following examples of how and where final decision-making authority and responsibility are located ….

The document goes on the explain that the “final authority and responsibility” for deciding who will be a church member is located at the local church; the “final authority and responsibility” for the employment/assigning of pastors and other workers resides at the local conference; and the “final authority and responsibility” for deciding who will be ordained is officially located at the unions.

The committee also considered that the same paragraphs that declare ordination decision are to be made by the unions, not by the divisions or the General Conference, include this counsel:

It is to be understood that the exercise of authority and responsibility is done within the context of the belief, values, and policies of the entire church. No entity is authorized to exercise its authority and responsibility in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the whole church and its activities in fulfilling its mission.

Obviously the distribution of authority found in the Seventh-day Adventist Church can result in tension between world-wide policy and the “final authority and responsibility” which has been assigned to the congregations, conferences and unions. The GC document has much to say about balancing those centers of authority, especially in the final Conclusions and Recommendations:

The following paragraphs and sentences are chosen from the Conclusion to the GC Spring Document. The full document will be made available in the next few days.

The distribution of authority and responsibility in the Church along with the recognition that “authority rests in membership” presents significant challenges in finding a balance between centralized authority (actions of the global church) and the more localized authority (actions of the constituency) in churches, conferences and unions.

At the same time the church has worked to preserve unity, the effect of church growth has enlarged the understanding of diversity and its rightful place in a worldwide community. To expect that every entity in the world church will look and function exactly like every other entity of its type may in itself become an impediment to mission. The development of structural designs in the history of the church indicates that unity must be built on a stronger foundation than uniformity.

There must be room to recognize the need for a legitimacy of local adaptation of policies and procedures that facilitate mission while not diminishing the worldwide identity, harmony and unity of the Church.
The relationship among the entities of the church is more than a matter of law and policy. Therefore attempts to codify that relationship will always be inadequate. The primary strength of the Church comes not from its structure but from its collective desire to live out a commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Such a commitment embraces a call to community.

Pacific Union executive committee members made it clear during discussions this week that they are committed to taking seriously the “final” authority and responsibility that the Seventh-day Adventist church has assigned to unions. And they made it clear that their call for a special constituency session is not to be interpreted as a way to delay the ordination of all whom God has called to ministry. It is rather, the result of a commitment to follow church procedures and to make sure the final action, whatever it is, is backed by the full authority that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has assigned to the Pacific Union Conference.